AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Eu4 manpower problems1/21/2024 The solution here is to redo the A.I.'s algorithms related to when to offer a peace offer and what terms to make in that offer - if they're in an offensive war and not a defensive one, there should be some level of manpower beyond which they seek peace immediately. Now, I understand that's intended to make the AI a challenge for human players, but the trouble is more often than not it creates an early game challenge, but by late-game all non-human nations are so badly managed that they can no longer present an individual threat (that's where coalitions come in, but that's another matter). They will fight that war until someone (you or them) is totally and completely annihilated. They have no real understanding of when, while they could pursue war further, the return on the manpower investment and ducat investment is becomes marginal or even negative. ![]() The second is that the AI has a "double or nothing" attitude to warfare. The solution here is simple: reduce how bloody early game wars are, and try to limit casualties to more than half the army per encounter when armies are roughly within the same league in size. This means even relatively small and swift wars that are concluded quickly end up with the losing nation in a position where they will get completely destroyed if a neighbour decides to expand into them. In the early period of Europa Universalis 4, however, absolute destruction is the rule, not the exception. A battle was considered a complete massacre if more than a half of those involved died, most battles would conclude with around a quarter to a third of troops dead (and that's generous as is). The first is that battles are far, far bloodier than they were in the period. (for the HRE the emperor should not annex his princes and the princes should respect the emperor and should not give the emperor senselessly a cb because they always decline the return of imperial territory. should generally not be so hostile to all its neighbours try to peace out if manpower runs low, mybe 1/3 of pool (white peace should be a good peace then) I think many historical leaders have thought in this direction to. As a player I often pass on falling a neighbor in the back, because it destabilize the whole region and stops my peaceful development of the economy and science. The AI has to understand the value of peace and prosperity. As far as my historic knowledge goes, there where many wars but not this kind of super opportunistic aggression. For the human the manpower pool is manageable, but I agree that the AI has many problems with it.īut I think the battle losses are only a symptom of a deeper problem: to much aggression everywhere. I've seen Austria and France torn apart because one lost war. If one nation is down with no manpower all neighbors come knocking on the door. I've dropped it to as low 10k from the 60k maximum. Even being careful in spreading my stacks out in adjacent provinces between battles. ![]() My manpower greatly exceeds my enemies.yet in all of my wars (generally short limited and victorious) I lose a significant amount of manpower due to having to create "Deathstacks" to deal with AI. I am playing a relatively peaceful/opportunistic BBB. ![]() My problem with it is the fact that the AI can't Deal with it at All. I have been onboard with the Manpower changes since the EU3 5.2 Beta. The third change is historically accurate and I actually welcome it. General AI aggressiveness, general inability to deal with Attrition, and specifically the automatic Attrition in enemy territory while sieging. ![]() I think it is due to the several factors. Since its an Ironman game I can't Tagswitch to really investigate the problem. The following ledger shots show how inept the AI is with its manpower. As you all probably know I am playing the BBB in an 1.2.1 AAR.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |