Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andrew425]

I find the Ai uses a lot of complicated strategies that takes many hours to learn. They are good at taking advantage of how parts of the game are programmed and that's why its frustrating.  They play the basic parts poorly and so its annoying when they seem to be cheating using knowledge of the game you don't.

[EnigmaticHat]

Stability hits are taken into account the second you declare a war, and the AI works in 'ticks', so it wouldn't spend any points to boost stability until Tick 3 of this situation. If the stability is the same as the moment they declare the war, they are not getting a stability hit.

...Unless the stability increasing code kicks in after the war evaluation/declaration code. Since the AI is going to increase stability anyway, it makes no gains from delaying the action and it would make sense for it to do so during the same tick.

Why do you assume it can't process declaring war and raising stability in the same tick?  The stability loss is instantaneous, as you can see if you declare war on someone while paused.  So as long as the AI decides if it wants to raise stability after it decides it wants to wage war, than you wouldn't see the stability hits and it would all be done in the same tick.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

.... EU4 AI works in ticks. You cannot process a task in one tick and the reaction to said action in the same tick if the PC has the game paused. Otherwise, that would all be one action. AKA simply not how the mechanics work, and arguably proving the point that the AI doesn't know how to play the game if you are saying they get a special "up stability immediately [using free jedi points because the AI doesn't understand how to spend them correctly] after declaring war in same tick no matter what because they can't handle the loss" line.

If that were the case, they'd all be spending their points on stability instead of shitty tech groups.

Note:
Unknown if they get infinite points though from the ether, wouldn't surprise me if they did in "needed" situations. Considering they readily admit they will allow their AI to ignore complete parts of the game to be able to allow it to "function".

[chaoticag]

I understand that the AI works in ticks, but why can't the AI in the same tick declare a war without CB and raise stability because it knows its declaring a war without CB as one action?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I understand that the AI works in ticks, but why can't the AI in the same tick declare a war without CB and raise stability because it knows its declaring a war without CB as one action?

Tick: Action -> Tick: Reaction

Suggesting it goes Tick: Action Reaction Action -> Tick is incorrect. Otherwise the AI would be taking all actions and reactions to actions at all times. See: Combat logic ticks to demonstrate the A -> B linear nature of EU4 AI.

[chaoticag]

What I meant is, if the AI had a special routine for declaring a war without a causus beli. It'd check if it had the admin to declare war and take the stab hit, then work as if it spent the admin instead of taking the stab hit? Or soak stab hits using it's admin?

[Korbac]

I understand that the AI works in ticks, but why can't the AI in the same tick declare a war without CB and raise stability because it knows its declaring a war without CB as one action?

I agree with this. It's not too hard to code a function so that when the AI declares war in a situation where it knows it will lose stab, it immediately raises stab as soon as it carries out the action that would lose it.

Mict : If the AI knew it would lose stability by doing an action, why couldn't it carry out the stab raise in the same tick?

[engy]

.... EU4 AI works in ticks. You cannot process a task in one tick and the reaction to said action in the same tick if the PC has the game paused. Otherwise, that would all be one action. AKA simply not how the mechanics work, and arguably proving the point that the AI doesn't know how to play the game if you are saying they get a special "up stability immediately [using free jedi points because the AI doesn't understand how to spend them correctly] after declaring war in same tick no matter what because they can't handle the loss" line.

If that were the case, they'd all be spending their points on stability instead of shitty tech groups.

Note:
Unknown if they get infinite points though from the ether, wouldn't surprise me if they did in "needed" situations. Considering they readily admit they will allow their AI to ignore complete parts of the game to be able to allow it to "function".

The AI does not cheat with points.

The AI does try and keep stab high; if it takes it hit and the stab goes down; most of the time they will raise it if they have the points.  I have personally seen it and used it for my purposes.  They also do this with War Exhaustion.

Again, this is how the AI Cheats:
http://www.eu4wiki.com/AI#Cheats
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?713930

[Mictlantecuhtli]

What I meant is, if the AI had a special routine for declaring a war without a causus beli. It'd check if it had the admin to declare war and take the stab hit, then work as if it spent the admin instead of taking the stab hit? Or soak stab hits using it's admin?

That's assuming they even have a true pool of points that they need to manage in the way the PC does. I believe the developers have given enough evidence that this is questionable and likely not the case at all.

Mict : If the AI knew it would lose stability by doing an action, why couldn't it carry out the stab raise in the same tick?

Playing the game shows the AI's process: Same way every other action -> reaction works in EU4. You take the action and it then reacts the next tick. The AI takes an action, and cleans up the consequences/begins to in the next tick. I do not recall if they immediately raise armies upon you declaring war, but this would be another good example of them being unable to react immediately to events while the PC has the game paused.

Unless there was a specific subroutine added to the AI to take into account their complete inability to deal with stability mechanics [enforcing my point that the AI doesn't know how to play the game], I stand by my claim that they get absolutely zero stability hit from warring without CB or on a married country.

Which is indicative of further issues with EU4, the fact that the AI is so weak and unable to play the game that it ignores the gameplay that is forced on the player.

The AI does not cheat with points.

The AI does try and keep stab high; if it takes it hit and the stab goes down; most of the time they will raise it if they have the points.  I have personally seen it and used it for my purposes.  They also do this with War Exhaustion.

Again, this is how the AI Cheats:
http://www.eu4wiki.com/AI#Cheats
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?713930

What you saw was an event-triggered stability hit. The AI is not immune to those. What is clear is they do not get stability hits from declaring wars without a CB/with a royal marriage/from breaking truces. Ive had one do all three at one, actually, and had.. you guessed it, 3 stability afterwards. I highly doubt a country with 4 provinces and a 2/2/2 ruler has thousands of admin points stacked up ready to go whenever they break one or all of these routines.

[Chaoswizkid]

Mict : If the AI knew it would lose stability by doing an action, why couldn't it carry out the stab raise in the same tick?

This.

Also, reactionary stab raising would likely be from losing stab to random events.
The AI determination for declaring a war might include "Do I have enough monarch points to offset the stab hit?" and they don't declare war until they do or if they are fine with -1 or -2 stab and want to declare war that badly.

Unless there was a specific subroutine added to the AI to take into account their complete inability to deal with stability mechanics [enforcing my point that the AI doesn't know how to play the game], I stand by my claim that they get absolutely zero stability hit from warring without CB or on a married country.

That makes no sense. You're saying that programming the AI to consider if it can cover it's ass when it gets a stab hit somehow supports your argument that the AI doesn't know how to play the game.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

That makes no sense. You're saying that programming the AI to consider if it can cover it's ass when it gets a stab hit somehow supports your argument that the AI doesn't know how to play the game.

If there is a routine to immediately increase their stability because they do not understand how to deal with stability losses [that they would always incur from warring impunitively], then yes, it is indicative of weak AI and further weak programming. AKA a workaround because they didn't bother letting the AI war with any sense of reason.

You assume they even need to pay those costs to increase stability when that is highly questionable. I've rarely seen a country lose stability and not immediately pump it back to 3 the next tick.

This is assuming they even do get stability hits from said situations. Which they don't. Prove me wrong. I tried to prove that they do get stability hits and could not do it. Now, why did I do this? Because decreasing a country's stability should be a viable tactic and it is not possible in EU4 in reality, unless you luck out with a dead ruler popping a terrible regency and already having overextension problems..

[engy]

What you saw was an event-triggered stability hit. The AI is not immune to those. What is clear is they do not get stability hits from declaring wars without a CB/with a royal marriage.

No, that is not true at all.

There are several ways you can test it yourself if you don't believe me, the Paradox AI programmer, or anyone else here on the forums.  We don't have to prove it for you.  I've seen it myself in action and used it.  Several of the game-y AARs have as well.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

No, that is not true at all.

There are several ways you can test it yourself if you don't believe me, the Paradox AI programmer, or anyone else here on the forums.  We don't have to prove it for you.  I've seen it myself in action and used it.  Several of the game-y AARs have as well.

Of course. Now, provide me with screenshots before and after a country declaring war and their stability changes. Load up the game before and after said declaration [on the AI country], comparing their administration points. There will be no difference. I've done this multiple times.

Of course when you run into these situations it will be essential to try this testing then [its rather difficult to invoke these situations on the PC-side, being an AI issue]. Its happened to me about 6 times in the course of 20 games, and even then that is far too often.

[Leyic]

Code: [Select]

try declare_war
     if stability_decreases
          if enough_points
               declare_war
               raise_stability
          else
               pass

How is that compensating for bad AI, when it's how many people think?

[a1s]

That's assuming they even have a true pool of points that they need to manage in the way the PC does. I believe the developers have given enough evidence that this is questionable and likely not the case at all.

Now you're just being contaraian. There is no need to assume anything, set up an experiment:
since you can load the game as any nation, just set autosave to monthly and wait (or provoke, I don't know) until the AI attacks you. Save immediately and compare the AI nations points (by loading that nation) before and after.
*If the amount of admin points don't change (or changes very little) your hypothesis that the AI ignores stabs will be verified.
*If, on the other hand, admin points decrease (we're talking a couple of hundred points here), it is disproved and you can assume the AI has kept stability up with points.
repeat several times to be sure, in case you aren't.