Is the AI more anti-player now?

[Jiffypop]

I played EU4 a lot a few years ago, and decided to come back. Three games in, it feels like the AI is basically acting completely counter to me, and doing really stupid things they wouldn't do if I were an AI. Back in the day, I'd feel like an AI against the AI. They'd just be normal. But now, randomly, France decides all of Korea (me) is of critical interest? Spain attacks me SIX times with a vastly inferior force and gets ♥♥♥♥ on every time, but still locks me out of doing anything else for a decade? Historic rivals and countries that should ABSOLUTELY be at odds for some reason forming a 200 year hugbox? Countries with 200 relation, no debt and no MP deficit breaking defensive alliances after calling me to a dozen offensive wars? Like wtf is going on with the AI man, this just makes the game feel like a slog.

[Marquoz]

Originally posted by Tohtori Leka:

Originally posted by Marquoz:

The AI is more competent than it used to be. However, it's not anti-player, and never has been. The AI evaluates all other nations, whether AI controlled or human, on the basis of the same algorithms. It determines whether they are potential friends, threats, targets, or whatever and acts accordingly.

It is anti-player. The AI automatically considers the player a larger threat than what it would consider the country as AI controlled and acts according to the country being a threat because it's controlled by a human player. I don't know why you people keep denying it when it's so obvious to anyone who has played the game.

Uh, I've played the game for 8000 hours, and the exact opposite is what's obvious.

[bri]

Originally posted by Tohtori Leka:

Originally posted by Marquoz:

The AI is more competent than it used to be. However, it's not anti-player, and never has been. The AI evaluates all other nations, whether AI controlled or human, on the basis of the same algorithms. It determines whether they are potential friends, threats, targets, or whatever and acts accordingly.

It is anti-player. The AI automatically considers the player a larger threat than what it would consider the country as AI controlled and acts according to the country being a threat because it's controlled by a human player. I don't know why you people keep denying it when it's so obvious to anyone who has played the game.

I suppose you can point to actual code in the ai files that supports this claim? My certainty, not a guess, is that you can't because there is none. It's not even that hard to prove since tag switching in game is a thing so you can reload a game, tag switch away, and see the ai still attack the (now formerly player-controlled) nation, form alliance webs against it, and so on. As Marquoz said, the ai has been made smarter about determining the biggest threats and acting accordingly whether it is a player or not.

Another, trickier, method is to make and keep yourself a middling power; big enough that you aren't a target but small enough to not be the big bad in town and watch how th eai acts towards you...

[MustangNinjas]

Originally posted by bri:

Originally posted by Tohtori Leka:

It is anti-player. The AI automatically considers the player a larger threat than what it would consider the country as AI controlled and acts according to the country being a threat because it's controlled by a human player. I don't know why you people keep denying it when it's so obvious to anyone who has played the game.

I suppose you can point to actual code in the ai files that supports this claim? My certainty, not a guess, is that you can't because there is none. It's not even that hard to prove since tag switching in game is a thing so you can reload a game, tag switch away, and see the ai still attack the (now formerly player-controlled) nation, form alliance webs against it, and so on. As Marquoz said, the ai has been made smarter about determining the biggest threats and acting accordingly whether it is a player or not.

Another, trickier, method is to make and keep yourself a middling power; big enough that you aren't a target but small enough to not be the big bad in town and watch how th eai acts towards you...

Got curious, scoured the dev forums and searched the lua code. I cannot find any indication that there is any anti-player bias in the AI (though I can't know for sure as to my knowledge we can't look at the actual packaged engine binaries unless someone cracks the game). If anything, you can see that up until hard and very hard, the AI is actually coded to *not* treat the player like a normal AI by going easier on the player, as is evidenced by

POWERBALANCE_DISABLE_VERSUS_PLAYER = 0, --If set to 1, AI will never (directly) pick a human player nation as a powerbalance threat.

and

GREAT_POWER_ACTIONS_DISABLE_VERSUS_PLAYER = 0, --If set to 1, AI will never perform Great Power actions (directly) hurting a human player.

This actually kinda surprised me, as I can remember several moments in game where I thought, "The AI went out of it's way to do that to me in particular." Goes to show how hard confirmation bias is. Though there are definitely strategy games that have anti-player bias, like TWW3 iirc, though now I'm tempted to validate that as well.

[grotaclas]

Originally posted by MustangNinjas:

If anything, you can see that up until hard and very hard, the AI is actually coded to *not* treat the player like a normal AI by going easier on the player, as is evidenced by

POWERBALANCE_DISABLE_VERSUS_PLAYER = 0, --If set to 1, AI will never (directly) pick a human player nation as a powerbalance threat.

and

GREAT_POWER_ACTIONS_DISABLE_VERSUS_PLAYER = 0, --If set to 1, AI will never perform Great Power actions (directly) hurting a human player.

These values are only set to 1 on easy and very easy. There they go easier on the player. But on normal, hard and very hard, the values are set to 0, so these actions are not disabled and the AI can pick a human as a powerbalance threat and do great power actions against the player

[Dante_Deepdarkness]

If AI targets the player, my run with Kuba was an imagination, a make up from my mind I guess XD
Context: I know how the CNs work, so I decided to move my capital to America, first to Goergia islands and then to the Caribbean (where my first new world colony was created), but I moved my capital to the Caribbean because I was already half way, by the time I saw the Caribbean and West Europe... there was no need. Aragon got Castile as a junior partner before the first idea slot was unlocked (so Castile didn't take Exploration), and short later they fought Portugal, and I guess it was a direct declaration because Portugal was alive with Lisboa, Madeira and Açores alone, the rest was Aragon, so the first colonizer -Portugal- could only mantain 1 ongoing colony, and they went straight to Bermuda.
By the time I reached the Caribbean they had 2 completed colonies and a third ongoing, I was able to colonize the whole Cuba island, plus a few provinces on continental North America to attack the natives (and get enough Tobacco) before Portugal was able to sustain 2 ongoing colonies at the same time, and at that point was when France took exploration too, but my run was almost done by that time.
If AI targets the player... How I was able to complete the achievement so easily? It was so smooth I still can't understand how the heck happened all that in one single run, I have seen Aragon getting Castile as a junior partner several times (very few that early), I have seen Portugal reduced to the minimum expression that early a few times, I have seen a single colonizer taking most of the new world due to several reasons, but everything at once while I was the most interested on it happening? Only that run.

edited due to some gross mistakes, and who knows what I'm still missing :P

[Rooter]

Originally posted by Dante_Deepdarkness:

If AI targets the player, my run with Kuba was an imagination, a make up from my mind I guess XD
Context: I know how the CNs work, so I decided to move my capital to America, first to Goergia islands and then to the Caribbean (where my first new world colony was created), but I moved my capital to the Caribbean because I was already half way, by the time I saw the Caribbean and West Europe... there was no need. Aragon got Castile as a junior partner before the first idea slot was unlocked (so Castile didn't took Exploration), and short later they fought Portugal, and I guess it was a direct declaration because Portugal was alive with Lisboa, Madeira and Açores alone, the rest was Aragon, so the first colonizer -Portugal- could only mantain 1 ongoing colony, and they went straight to Bermuda.
By the time I reached the Caribbean they had 2 completed colonies and a third ongoing, I was able to colonize the whole Cuba island, plus a few provinces on continental North America to attack the natives (and get enough Tobacco) before Portugal was able to sustain 2 ongoing colonies at the same time, and at that point was when France took exploration too, but my run was almost done by that time.
If AI targets the player... How I was able to complete the achievement so easily? It was so smooth I still can't understand how the heck happened all that in one single run, I have seen Aragon getting Castile as a junior partner several times (very few that early), I have seen Portugal reduced to the minimum expression that early a few times, I have seen a single colonizer taking most of the new world due to several reasons, but everything at once while I was the most interested on it happening? Only that run.

Definitely a case of confirmation bias here.

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Damedius:

The AI targets the player if the player is weak and it thinks it can win.

I used to believe this until recent. It also declares completely hopeless wars.

[Damedius]

Originally posted by Preacher:

I used to believe this until recent. It also declares completely hopeless wars.

I used to get this in older versions but no longer get this any more. If they declare war on me now it's usually GG, unless I have lots of money to burn on mercs.

The one area where the AI does excessively target the player is when it comes to rivals.

[Aksolotli]

Originally posted by Jiffypop:

I played EU4 a lot a few years ago, and decided to come back. Three games in, it feels like the AI is basically acting completely counter to me, and doing really stupid things they wouldn't do if I were an AI. Back in the day, I'd feel like an AI against the AI. They'd just be normal. But now, randomly, France decides all of Korea (me) is of critical interest? Spain attacks me SIX times with a vastly inferior force and gets ♥♥♥♥ on every time, but still locks me out of doing anything else for a decade? Historic rivals and countries that should ABSOLUTELY be at odds for some reason forming a 200 year hugbox? Countries with 200 relation, no debt and no MP deficit breaking defensive alliances after calling me to a dozen offensive wars? Like wtf is going on with the AI man, this just makes the game feel like a slog.

The game is less Anti-Player in my opinion... BUT... If you play the European powers like the top 5, France, UK, Burgundy, Austria, Ottomen, Spain.... You have way more anti-player features but i think it is to keep game dynamic. Italy or Levantine or Arabia regions are horrible because the big powers now blob up there. But playing something like Timurid or India region is so easy as players because the colonial powers or Ottomen or even Russia barely get there by the time you are strong and mighty. I just think the meta shifted to specific regions.

I too remember the earlier game version being way more anti-player.

[Marquoz]

Originally posted by Aksolotli:

I too remember the earlier game version being way more anti-player.

Nope. There has never been anti-player code in EU4. Bad players who are looking for excuses for their losses blame non-existent AI cheats (secret ones not in the wiki) and anti-player code. You used to be bad, but now you're not. The AI improved a little while you improved a lot.

[glythe]

There's a lot going on with EU 4's AI. Take a look at this video and you can see that some of the things the AI believes is just wrong (skip to the military section around 7 minutes into the video).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV_VkZGCAEk

Originally posted by Jiffypop:

I played EU4 a lot a few years ago, and decided to come back. Three games in, it feels like the AI is basically acting completely counter to me, and doing really stupid things they wouldn't do if I were an AI.

Like wtf is going on with the AI man, this just makes the game feel like a slog.

The AI plays against the player like a swarm of ants unless they like you. The only reason they would like you is because you "look weak" relative to them and you are far away or they think they can use your armies in a war.

This isn't because the AI is told to target the player but rather because they are told to target behavior that the player is 100% likely to do if they want to "win".

Originally posted by Damedius:

The AI targets the player if the player is weak and it thinks it can win.

The AI will also declare war on players that it never had a chance to win.

So what you said is true but I want to ask a question as well : when was the last time you saw a "speed bump" country that will become part of France later attack France? That never happens from what I see in my games and my friends games.

Originally posted by Tohtori Leka:

It is anti-player. The AI automatically considers the player a larger threat than what it would consider the country as AI controlled and acts according to the country being a threat because it's controlled by a human player. I don't know why you people keep denying it when it's so obvious to anyone who has played the game.

This is the truth but not in the way you think. Humans play this game better than AI once you get to a certain skill level. That in turn causes most of your AI neighbors to take notice of you when you start exploding into a powerful position.

I stopped playing board games with a certain group of friends because everyone playing would decide that if they could no longer win they would make sure whoever made them "not win" was not going to win either.

In a sense this is what the AI does to the player. You get tagged as a threat and everyone around you starts treating you that way. They will start wars with you to slow you down realizing that if they don't stop you then maybe nobody will. The reality is that these wars the AI start often have no chance for them to win but it will mess you up tremendously.

The only way you can prevent this is by making yourself look much stronger than you actually are with a couple of dubious alliances that go along side a strong one.

[Magma Dragoon]

Originally posted by glythe:

In a sense this is what the AI does to the player. You get tagged as a threat and everyone around you starts treating you that way. They will start wars with you to slow you down realizing that if they don't stop you then maybe nobody will. The reality is that these wars the AI start often have no chance for them to win but it will mess you up tremendously.

Never seen this happen, AIs never declare war on me unless I'm much weaker than them, which is very rare.

[Marquoz]

Same here. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I've gone six or seven thousand hours of playtime without the AI declaring war on me, with the exception of scripted events. The AI only declares wars it thinks it can win.

[bri]

Originally posted by Marquoz:

Same here. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I've gone six or seven thousand hours of playtime without the AI declaring war on me, with the exception of scripted events. The AI only declares wars it thinks it can win.

Or that it thinks you will win for it, often to its dismay in my campaigns...

I still remember the time a 2 province Hungary remnant I was about to dip-vassal as Russia decided it was a good idea to DoW an overblown Bohemia (allied to France) ignoring HRE Austria and their allies (including Spain and GB), all of whom promptly accepted the calls to arms as I fell out of my chair laughing at them for trying to call me into it despite my negative manpower balance (i.e 0 manpower and understrength armies) as I was busy fighting Ming and friends. Needless to say there was no dip-vassalization as they rapidly ceased to exist...

[Kshattriya]

Originally posted by Tohtori Leka:

Originally posted by Marquoz:

The AI is more competent than it used to be. However, it's not anti-player, and never has been. The AI evaluates all other nations, whether AI controlled or human, on the basis of the same algorithms. It determines whether they are potential friends, threats, targets, or whatever and acts accordingly.

It is anti-player. The AI automatically considers the player a larger threat than what it would consider the country as AI controlled and acts according to the country being a threat because it's controlled by a human player. I don't know why you people keep denying it when it's so obvious to anyone who has played the game.

It has nothing to do with whether the country is player or AI. AI Korea (as the example being used in this thread) sits in Korea and presses the dev button a lot, with occasional expansion into Manchuria if it's feeling excited. Player Korea, on the other hand, is going to be declaring a lot of wars, expanding in all directions, and generally making itself a nuisance on the world stage. This is going to make the AI consider it a threat, and the AI will act accordingly. Look at any of the European major powers in the early-mid game and they will invariably have 4-7 rivals because they are expanding at a pace that is concerning to other AI's, much like a player.