To the people who claim the AI doesn't target the player...

[Kuma]

I understand that you've read the game files until your eyes bleed because you're autistic or whatever, but do you really believe this? Because the paradox devs promise and you read some lines of code?

All of my in game experience says from the moment you unpause the game, the AI treats you differently from all the other countries.

I'm not talking about after you expand exponentially in a method unlike the AI.

I'm talking about Poland allying Stettin before the end of 1444 because the player is on brandenburg.

I don't care about what you read in the game files. Go run 150 simulations of just playing the opening 5 minutes of Brandenburg. You'll find that somehow, some way, a great power manages to very specifically get in your way.

Now go play any of the nations that you were cockblocked from invading. Can you as a player ally Poland day 1 as Stettin? They're not strong enough to share Polish rivals, so you won't be able to get a pity protection alliance. There's no major players rivaled to Poland who have a vested interest in invading Magdeburg. And this is just an example when you're playing as BB.

Go play in Italy. Play Florence, play Milan, play Naples. Watch how quickly Sienna and Lucca become invaluable French and Spanish allies.

Now go run those same simulations with you completely separate from Europe, maybe even as an observer.

The game runs differently. I don't know if you just missed the string of code that causes the AI to target players, or if there are hidden values somewhere, but the AI treats players differently from day 1.

[Kuma]

Originally posted by Marquoz:

Originally posted by Jezza:

AI absolutely targets the player, anyone saying otherwise is gaslighting.
Source: Coalitions.

This is a ridiculous statement. As the player, you can keep an eye on your aggressive expansion, use your diplomats well, and never, ever, EVER get a coalition. On top of that, the AI generates coalitions against itself sometimes.

Not frequently, though, because the AI does two things consistently that you obviously don't:

1) It monitors its own AE and, in peace treaties, usually doesn't take enough land to trigger a coalition. You can do the same. The most likely reason for the AI going over the limit is a personal union war, but on occasion it will get too greedy and trigger a coalition from normal wars as well.

2) It never has diplomats sitting idle. The AI constantly uses all of them, and one of the things it does is improve relations with potential coalition enemies.

Do those two things in the early game when you're weak enough that coalitions are still a threat. On top of that, put together a good alliance web so that you're too strong to attack if you (like the AI) sometimes screw up or get too greedy. With a strong enough alliance, coalitions won't attack you even if they form.

I think he's probably a newer player if he feels that way, probably ate one province too many in the HRE and got beaten to death by 150,000 angry germans

[Marquoz]

Originally posted by Kuma:

The method in which the AI 100% does target the player is things like allying weak nations that would, for all intents and purposes, be completely worthless as an ally except in the SINGLE case where you'd like to slow down player expansion. Another thing is mission paths. 9/10 times, Moldavia goes to Poland unless I'm playing on Poland, in which case it's a true 50/50 AFTER I do the mission to make them more likely to choose me. Before that? Moldavia goes to the nonplayer entity.

Originally posted by Kuma:

But I'm sick of people denying that it's the case.

It's not the case and you're still wrong. The AI constantly makes what you would call "worthless" allies regardless of whether the human player is nearby or not. Start a non-ironman game and tag switch your way around the world after a few years in which you play Hawaii. Check out how many weak and unhelpful allies great powers and other strong nations have.

You feel persecuted by the AI because of perceptual bias, not reality.

[Dante_Deepdarkness]

You can be as sick as you want, but that doesn't make it true.
I have seen France allying Genoa while playing as Hamburg but not now that I am Theodoro/Gothia (and wanted to eat their land, and as soon as Genoa left the HRE i Attacked them), but not during my run as Naples. In fact, that run as Naples was dissapointing, Siena and the Pope got weak allies so I became a great power very little after the start, I ate Siena during my first war, it was my first provinces conquest, a war against the Pope, Siena, Mantua and Ragusa.

If you only pay attention to what the AI does against you, you are missing a ♥♥♥♥ ton of things, and obviously you will think that everything is a complot against you.
Sometimes happens, sometimes not, which means that AI does not target the player.
But you can keep on it. It is pointless to keep that "discussion" on, you won't believe anyone that is not saying what you want to read, so...

[Kuma]

Originally posted by Medicles:

Brandenburg is quite a basic ally for Poland, so since you didnt ally them they went with someone else. I have seen them allying Stettin or Wolgast before.

They ally the Stettin even when I am allied to them, and generally won't break the alliance. Also, this is just an example that I've run into the most often, as I've played.....Probably 1000 hours of Brandenburg/Prussia since Cradle of Civilization released and I've seen it happen more times than I can count. Hell, it'll happen if you're playing anywhere as a minor nation. It stops happening as aggressively once you're a major, because when you're playing a major the only nations who can actually stand in your way in the first place are other majors, and it's usually your rivals that are protecting your conquest goals which makes sense. But when you're playing as Georgia and the Ottomans are suddenly vitally interested in protecting Circassia or some ♥♥♥♥, it's just ridiculous to bend over backwards to assume that it's not happening because I'm the player.

I just happen to roll the worst possible starts for every nation I pick, is basically what I'm hearing. Which I don't believe.

[Kuma]

Originally posted by Marquoz:

Originally posted by Kuma:

The method in which the AI 100% does target the player is things like allying weak nations that would, for all intents and purposes, be completely worthless as an ally except in the SINGLE case where you'd like to slow down player expansion. Another thing is mission paths. 9/10 times, Moldavia goes to Poland unless I'm playing on Poland, in which case it's a true 50/50 AFTER I do the mission to make them more likely to choose me. Before that? Moldavia goes to the nonplayer entity.

Originally posted by Kuma:

But I'm sick of people denying that it's the case.

It's not the case and you're still wrong. The AI constantly makes what you would call "worthless" allies regardless of whether the human player is nearby or not. Start a non-ironman game and tag switch your way around the world after a few years in which you play Hawaii. Check out how many weak and unhelpful allies great powers and other strong nations have.

You feel persecuted by the AI because of perceptual bias, not reality.

I will start an observer game right now and give the Brandenburg +999 mil power in the console and watch everyone in the game act as though the brandenburg is just another bot.

Hell, I used to buff some enemy nations to make them a midgame boss for more fun before I started exclusively playing in ironman or multiplayer.

The AI targets players. It's not my perception bias that's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ me up, it's your observation bias that's confusing you guys. You've read the game files, you've heard statements from the people who made the game, and you've assumed that both were completely honest and that there aren't just some hidden or encrypted values somewhere and that paradox isn't just full of ♥♥♥♥.

[Kuma]

It would take you having missed a single line of code to be wrong. It would have to be my experience playing the game for over 5,000 hours being full of the most unfortunate coincidences possible, consistently, for me to be wrong. I'm betting you guys missed something.

[Dante_Deepdarkness]

I have no idea of programming. I don't even care of what the code says.
I'm talking about my own experience since I really understand how the game works. Lots of runs in which I have seen form the most usual things (Tunis and the Ottomans as allies) to the weirdest things (as Ming controlling half of Asia or having a 3PM Portugal as the only colonizer till past 1550) while I was or not close to those places/nations or un/involved to the nations.
But yeah, you and only you have the truth on your side...

[Marquoz]

Originally posted by Kuma:

It would take you having missed a single line of code to be wrong. It would have to be my experience playing the game for over 5,000 hours being full of the most unfortunate coincidences possible, consistently, for me to be wrong. I'm betting you guys missed something.

I have 8000 hours and I say you're the one who's wrong. As was PROVEN on the first page of this thread by grotaclas when he conclusively refuted your claim that the player couldn't ally Poland as Stettin on Day 1. Your response included this gem:

Originally posted by Kuma:

Whatever you say, pedantic liar.

Kuma, you have zero credibility as a result of this.

[Kuma]

Originally posted by Marquoz:

Originally posted by Kuma:

It would take you having missed a single line of code to be wrong. It would have to be my experience playing the game for over 5,000 hours being full of the most unfortunate coincidences possible, consistently, for me to be wrong. I'm betting you guys missed something.

I have 8000 hours and I say you're the one who's wrong. As was PROVEN on the first page of this thread by grotaclas when he conclusively refuted your claim that the player couldn't ally Poland as Stettin on Day 1. Your response included this gem:

Originally posted by Kuma:

Whatever you say, pedantic liar.

Kuma, you have zero credibility as a result of this.

Also, the AI Stettin can't ally Poland day one. Player stettin can ally poland day 1, after taking EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE MOVE to gain acceptance chance. An ai isn't going to do that.

[Kuma]

Originally posted by Dante_Deepdarkness:

I have no idea of programming. I don't even care of what the code says.
I'm talking about my own experience since I really understand how the game works. Lots of runs in which I have seen form the most usual things (Tunis and the Ottomans as allies) to the weirdest things (as Ming controlling half of Asia or having a 3PM Portugal as the only colonizer till past 1550) while I was or not close to those places/nations or un/involved to the nations.
But yeah, you and only you have the truth on your side...

Tunis and Ottomans as allies is extremely common and not at all an example for or against what I'm saying. However, if you play Tunis and the Ottomans ally one of the desert minors to the south of Tunis because you got a claim on one of them, then it would be a perfect example in favor of what I'm saying.

[grotaclas]

Originally posted by Kuma:

Also, the AI Stettin can't ally Poland day one. Player stettin can ally poland day 1, after taking EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE MOVE to gain acceptance chance. An ai isn't going to do that.

You are wrong again. A Stetin player does not need to take all possible steps to ally Poland on day 1. As I said in my second comment, I did not rival the Teutonic Order and not all the steps which I took in the screenshot were necessary, because I had +7 reasons.

And if the player can ally Poland on day 1 is a moot point, because you never showed any evidence that the AI did this on day 1. But if the alliance happens later, there are a bunch of more things which would have been possible. E.g. a royal marriage and improving relations which are both things that the AI does regularly. And what the player can is irrelevant for the claim that the Poland AI targets a player Brandenburg by allying Stettin. For that you would have to run many tests in a controlled setting in which either the AI plays Brandenburg or you play Brandenburg in exactly the same way that the AI does it and then compare the outcomes.

[Kuma]

Originally posted by grotaclas:

Originally posted by Kuma:

Also, the AI Stettin can't ally Poland day one. Player stettin can ally poland day 1, after taking EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE MOVE to gain acceptance chance. An ai isn't going to do that.

You are wrong again. A Stetin player does not need to take all possible steps to ally Poland on day 1. As I said in my second comment, I did not rival the Teutonic Order and not all the steps which I took in the screenshot were necessary, because I had +7 reasons.

And if the player can ally Poland on day 1 is a moot point, because you never showed any evidence that the AI did this on day 1. But if the alliance happens later, there are a bunch of more things which would have been possible. E.g. a royal marriage and improving relations which are both things that the AI does regularly. And what the player can is irrelevant for the claim that the Poland AI targets a player Brandenburg by allying Stettin. For that you would have to run many tests in a controlled setting in which either the AI plays Brandenburg or you play Brandenburg in exactly the same way that the AI does it and then compare the outcomes.

+7 isnt ♥♥♥♥

[Dante_Deepdarkness]

Originally posted by Kuma:

Originally posted by Dante_Deepdarkness:

I have no idea of programming. I don't even care of what the code says.
I'm talking about my own experience since I really understand how the game works. Lots of runs in which I have seen form the most usual things (Tunis and the Ottomans as allies) to the weirdest things (as Ming controlling half of Asia or having a 3PM Portugal as the only colonizer till past 1550) while I was or not close to those places/nations or un/involved to the nations.
But yeah, you and only you have the truth on your side...

Tunis and Ottomans as allies is extremely common and not at all an example for or against what I'm saying. However, if you play Tunis and the Ottomans ally one of the desert minors to the south of Tunis because you got a claim on one of them, then it would be a perfect example in favor of what I'm saying.

I know it is extremely common, that was the reason I said "...I have seen from the most usual things (Tunis and the Ottomans as allies)..." but I guess I am also liar despite it is even in your quote.
As I said, my previous run was as Mzab, and you know what? Djerb and Tuggurt allied to each other, and no one else, no garanties neither. I ate them at the first month tick. After that it was a patience game wating for the moment the CtA of Tunis or Tlemcen would not happen, so I could attack one of them (it was a opm tlemcen, eaten by Tunis+Morocco, by the way). No big boy helping Djerb nor Tuggurt. And I have as many examples as this one as you want. Obviously I have examples of alliances being bad for me, but this is what happens with RNG, sometimes it smacks you, sometimes it helps you.

[Kuma]

Originally posted by Dante_Deepdarkness:

Originally posted by Kuma:

Tunis and Ottomans as allies is extremely common and not at all an example for or against what I'm saying. However, if you play Tunis and the Ottomans ally one of the desert minors to the south of Tunis because you got a claim on one of them, then it would be a perfect example in favor of what I'm saying.

I know it is extremely common, that was the reason I said "...I have seen from the most usual things (Tunis and the Ottomans as allies)..." but I guess I am also liar despite it is even in your quote.
As I said, my previous run was as Mzab, and you know what? Djerb and Tuggurt allied to each other, and no one else, no garanties neither. I ate them at the first month tick. After that it was a patience game wating for the moment the CtA of Tunis or Tlemcen would not happen, so I could attack one of them (it was a opm tlemcen, eaten by Tunis+Morocco, by the way). No big boy helping Djerb nor Tuggurt. And I have as many examples as this one as you want. Obviously I have examples of alliances being bad for me, but this is what happens with RNG, sometimes it smacks you, sometimes it helps you.

So mentioning Tunis being allied to Stettin was completely pointless, in every conceivable way then?

[Kuma]

Originally posted by Dante_Deepdarkness:

Originally posted by Kuma:

Tunis and Ottomans as allies is extremely common and not at all an example for or against what I'm saying. However, if you play Tunis and the Ottomans ally one of the desert minors to the south of Tunis because you got a claim on one of them, then it would be a perfect example in favor of what I'm saying.

I know it is extremely common, that was the reason I said "...I have seen from the most usual things (Tunis and the Ottomans as allies)..." but I guess I am also liar despite it is even in your quote.
As I said, my previous run was as Mzab, and you know what? Djerb and Tuggurt allied to each other, and no one else, no garanties neither. I ate them at the first month tick. After that it was a patience game wating for the moment the CtA of Tunis or Tlemcen would not happen, so I could attack one of them (it was a opm tlemcen, eaten by Tunis+Morocco, by the way). No big boy helping Djerb nor Tuggurt. And I have as many examples as this one as you want. Obviously I have examples of alliances being bad for me, but this is what happens with RNG, sometimes it smacks you, sometimes it helps you.

Also, did I ever say it happens in every single game, with every single nation, every single time? No. But at least once in every campaign, the AI will ♥♥♥♥ over the player for no understandable reason save for it being the player.

So either the spreadsheet is broken and the math that runs the game isn't working, properly, or there's a value in there somewhere that simply says if_player=1 %chanceallyneighbor=25 or whatever computer language bullshite and someone's missed it or it's hidden.