Where is the game going?

[Fisherking]

The economy is certainly worth building up! I hope I didn’t say that it wasn’t. The trouble is that the resources (money) are not available to do it in a timely manner and the cost beyond the third level is so high as to present a problem for the player and far beyond what the AI can spend.

The AI has war as a priority. Troops are required for that, any troops, so it builds what is cheapest to recruit and maintain.

I have taken regions where it had not been developed from its at start position and any new towns or ports were still undeveloped. Taxes seem to be set so that most of its troops are required just for garrisons. Few will develop towns until captured. Some regions will actually reverse their previous developments when they rebel. In a couple of regions schools and other development disappear and are replace by other building when captured.

This was most certainly not the case pre-patch. The AI did build massive armies of cheap troops of low quality for the most part but it was able to handle the economy also.

As to the AI being unable to play the game, it does not do the best of jobs. But again it is the programmed priorities that I would blame.

It needs a broader set of instructions and a better sense of what the troops do. You would hope that it could flourish rather than stagnate and give a feel of competent competition with the player and not a fumbling pawn to be exterminated.

The AI factions should be the challenge, not the game mechanics throwing random events and declarations of war at the player. Not monetary constraints, or game cheats that harass the player or cost more time and money.

There is no strategy in randomness. No negotiations the computer god. No way to proactively anticipate where to go. It is all reaction and damage control.

There should be some things the player can have a positive effect on other than who dies next.

[al Roumi]

The AI factions should be the challenge, not the game mechanics throwing random events and declarations of war at the player. Not monetary constraints, or game cheats that harass the player or cost more time and money.

I couldn't agree more.

I have taken regions where it had not been developed from its at start position and any new towns or ports were still undeveloped. Taxes seem to be set so that most of its troops are required just for garrisons. Few will develop towns until captured. Some regions will actually reverse their previous developments when they rebel. In a couple of regions schools and other development disappear and are replace by other building when captured.

I'm not sure I've seen this much tbh. What difficulty are you playing on?

Generally on H I've found that the AI (almost all factions) is able to more or less keep up with research (i use 3 schools) and often will upgrade farms, roads and govt buildings well before me. Maybe the Ai runs with higher taxes though -delaying town appearance?

I have to say though that the general rule is for factions to capture a few regions and then stagnate.

For whatever reason, the AI factions don't ever seem very decisive in their action. Because the area where I've seen the most decisiveness (read: ruthless pursual of conquest and annihilation of enemies) is India -which I'd consider the least complex theatre, I think the AI already has too many options.

This is especially the case in central and northern europe where factions are provided with such a complex web of possibilities that the AI tries to deal with all of them (most crudely, attack whilst ensuring defense, Military power without compromising economic development).

I'm getting to the stage of advocating the kind of scripted AI behaviour that was used in MTW2.. e.g. the free for all over Corsica and Sardinia.

[Didz]

Well as my Trade Theatre Usage Analysis shows the AI is not even programmed well enough to expliot trade resources when the player leaves them open for it to do so. So, basically, if the AI factions can't even earn comparable revenue from trade what hope have they actually got of being a challenge for a player who does. The nearest competitor I have in my current campaign is Portugal which is managing to make 1,600 a turn from trade compared to my revenue of over 11,000.

[anweRU]

And Portugal already had that fleet at the beginning of the game. It was given the fleet by CA, it didn't recruit it...

[al Roumi]

That's a very good point Didz & anweRU... It goes a long way to explain why "naval powers" (France, GB, Spain, UP, Portugal) never live up to the moniker and are in practice a bit limp.

[Boohugh]

From my point of view I've been very disappointed with the last patch and the changes it made to the economy. My main gripe initially was with all the campaign killing CTD's (which were largely fixed with the last patch, the naval movement one being the only remaining one I still consistently come across) but the actual gameplay wasn't that bad. Ok, the economy did need to be toned down slightly, but it has gone far too in the opposite direction with this patch, to the point where I'm clicking end turn a few times just to get the money to build something...and that just isn't fun.

I'm confident the AI improvements will come but the way the economic aspect of the game has changed is very clearly a design decision, rather than due to any bugs or AI programming, and I'm hoping it will get reversed or I may just have to give up on the game, which would be a shame really.

[al Roumi]

What Boohugh, the pretty new units aren't enough for you? Shocking. And how ungrateful of you.