The Daily Update at the Com

**Elmar Bijlsma** · 08-22-2009, 00:09

Unsurprisingly, I'm less interested in what they tell me of improvements then in the improvements they show me. It's been too many months, too many claims made and not realized.

Give them time? It would seem I have no other option.

**Durallan** · 08-22-2009, 04:36

being the game was released in march, it is now august, quite a few people would have hoped by now the AI problems were fixed, CA take note, there is alot more discontent out than anyone obviously first previously thought, I think there will be more patches after 1.4, at least because they will be releasing the multiplayer campaign mode before Napoleon TW

**peacemaker** · 08-22-2009, 07:20

I think lots of people are waiting for the multiplayer campaign. I'm planning to team up with someone and just conquer the entire world :) I can't do it alone.

The alternative to waiting for patches is of course modding; I'm sure there are tons of threads about tutorials.

**Servius** · 08-23-2009, 16:26

Fixing the CAI and DAI, and multiplayer campaigns, are the two biggest things I'd like to see. Both would be a significant improvement to the game. However, fixing the CAI and DAI are far more important than an MP campaign in my view. This is because fixed CAI and DAI would affect all players and not just those interested in MP. Also, improvements to CAI and DAI would have a value-added effect on said MP campaign. For both reasons, fixing the CAI and DAI should be the priority.

Regarding my last rule in fixing the DAI...

Test 5) I am currently Hostile towards the other nation.

I think that is very important. The reason is that, right now, the disposition of other nations seems to have no impact on the game at all. When Very Friendly nations can declare war on you, the disposition system is useless. I'd be willing to say that an AI could be Hostile or Unfriendly towards you before they can declare war, but they can't like you and war with you at the same time. It's completely illogical. Also, you can't compensate for the lack of such a rule by saying that DOWing a nation you're Very Friendly with will come with a big reputation hit because, as I said above, if friendly nations can declare war on each other, then disposition means nothing, and thus you can make the reputation penalty as high as you like because it doesn't mean anything anyway.

**Slaists** · 08-23-2009, 19:00

Originally Posted by Servius1234

Fixing the CAI and DAI, and multiplayer campaigns, are the two biggest things I'd like to see. Both would be a significant improvement to the game. However, fixing the CAI and DAI are far more important than an MP campaign in my view. This is because fixed CAI and DAI would affect all players and not just those interested in MP. Also, improvements to CAI and DAI would have a value-added effect on said MP campaign. For both reasons, fixing the CAI and DAI should be the priority.

Regarding my last rule in fixing the DAI...

I think that is very important. The reason is that, right now, the disposition of other nations seems to have no impact on the game at all. When Very Friendly nations can declare war on you, the disposition system is useless. I'd be willing to say that an AI could be Hostile or Unfriendly towards you before they can declare war, but they can't like you and war with you at the same time. It's completely illogical. Also, you can't compensate for the lack of such a rule by saying that DOWing a nation you're Very Friendly with will come with a big reputation hit because, as I said above, if friendly nations can declare war on each other, then disposition means nothing, and thus you can make the reputation penalty as high as you like because it doesn't mean anything anyway.

I disagree. Things are not white and black in life. There are no certainties, but there are likelihoods. I suggest making "a friendly nation declaring war on you" very unlikely, but still possible as long as your items 1-4 are satisfied. So, you, as a player, would like to build friendly relationships with the nations that you are scared of to minimize the LIKELIHOOD of them declaring war on you. That's very different from CERTAINTY of having peace. With the "no war on a friend" certainty, the world would be the player's oyster (it already is).

Let me give you an example. If I play as Britain and take French Guiana, I do not see why my very friendly ally, the Dutch, would not declare war on me at some point to take that territory (if they have the military capacity to do so). French Guiana is one of their game winning goal provinces. Actually, I have seen it happen very reasonably in 1.3. I take French Guiana, in the next turn the Dutch offer me a province and some techs for it. I refuse. The Dutch declare war on me. I see nothing unreasonable in this case.

I also do not see why declaring a war on a friendly nation should have any diplomatic reputation hits (unless some treaty was broken). Declaring a war on a friendly nation should cause significant public discontent at home. And that discontent should grow as long as the nation is fighting the friend.

**Servius** · 08-23-2009, 22:51

So long as the way other nations feel towards you has clear, significant, logical impacts on things like...
1) Liklihood other nation will DOW you
2) Liklihood other nation will accept trade proposal
3) Liklihood other nation will accept offer of alliance
4) Liklihood other nation will accpet offer of protection
5) Liklihood other nation (if allied to you) will maintain alliance with you in the event war breaks out between you and another ally of theirs
6) Terms other nation offers you for things like regions, techs, etc. (the better your relations, the more such offers will be tipped in your favor)

...then I'm fine with disposition not being a Yes/No switch and instead being a liklihood thing.

I still believe that if a nation is your ally/protectorate, they should not be able to declare war on you. If an ally/protectorate wants to declare war on you, they should first have to cancel the alliance during one turn and declare war on you the next turn.

**Sheogorath** · 08-24-2009, 00:22

I would say something like this:

1: Do I have a reason to attack (X)? (Territory, money, historical grievances, etc.)
2: Can I reach (X)? (By land or sea)
3: Am I a match for (X)? (Will their land forces instantly crush my single town?)
4: Is my army deployed in a fashion suitable to attack (X)? (Is my single stack of militia on the wrong side of the continent?)
5: What are my current relations with (X)? (Am I hostile to them? Friendly? Neutral?)

The last check shouldn't be a complete deciding factor, of course, but the probability of the AI declaring war on you should drop significantly the more friendly you are.

Theoretically such an AI would still declare war on you even if there was little reason to attack, they could only reach you via a long and dangerous route, they were no match for you, their military was on the wrong theater, and they were quite friendly, but it would be the sort of thing that happens once in a hundred games, not every other turn.