I feel sorry for AI as players have huge unfair advantage in the nature of this game.

[Chironte]

Well there was a mod called AI Reinforcements that allowed the AI to join an ongoing battle with the player, too bad this mod is no longer being updated

 

[black_bulldog]

It's core mechanic of the game. The game revolves around the player so I'm not sure how you would go about removing that without really changing the game.

Well there was a mod called AI Reinforcements that allowed the AI to join an ongoing battle with the player, too bad this mod is no longer being updated

As far as I can tell all that mod does is increase the radius that allied parties can join a battle. It doesn't seem like there is anything else going on and it doesn't seem like it affects time stopage at all. It brings in reinforcements as the battle progresses which is kind of cool, but the battles don't last for hours like they do for the player.

 

[froggyluv]

Reinforcements was very cool mod. Perhaps adding a decision/distance check in a radius around the player (strategy map) that expands the longer he is in a battle in which other Reinforcements may show up (onto Battle map) would work

 

[Qwezz]

Reinforcements was very cool mod. Perhaps adding a decision/distance check in a radius around the player (strategy map) that expands the longer he is in a battle in which other Reinforcements may show up (onto Battle map) would work

If the player is on the defensive the battles can last forever. You would eventually end up with all of Calradia on the enemy reinforcements.
A way to solve that would be to limit the range of the reinforcements, but at that point it's basically the same as vanila.

 

[froggyluv]

If the player is on the defensive the battles can last forever. You would eventually end up with all of Calradia on the enemy reinforcements.
A way to solve that would be to limit the range of the reinforcements, but at that point it's basically the same as vanila.

This can surely be calibrated so that "no it doesnt reach out/last forever" for instance you could cap the distance. Interest would still have to be there -take a cue from real life -if a Baron holed up in his fort, yes some enemy Lords would travel a distance to join the siege but only if it benefitted them enough to warrant leaving their own interests such as their economy regional squabbles etc. It doesnt have to be a vacuum sucking in all enemy units. Interest would also lessen if others had already joined the siege as spoils of war would be less- these are not difficult calculations but would be worthwhile to make the game world more dynamic - a flaw in this game on almost every front

 

[Adryl]

Time stops when player is fighting. Nearby enemy AI lords cannot reinforce the enemy battling lord, but player can do this, and AI can do this too for AI vs AI. Stopping time in arenas, cities, and menus is fine but it is very unfair for AI in battles against the player.

I know this is the very core of the game and hard to change. I just wanted to share it and see what others think.

I like it the way it is. I think it would be kind of stressful if you had to worry about more enemies popping into the fight as it was ongoing. As others have stated, this is already taken care of since AI all auto-joins the fight. I see no problem with the way this system works and there are a lot of other things that need fixes so I'd rather the dev team focus on the things that are actually broken.

The AI has tons of advantages that the player doesn't have too. So what. Part of the fun is figuring out how to exploit the AI weaknesses. If you don't have fun exploiting the AI weaknesses, then just don't do it.

 

[Carrion]

Players and AI should be playing the same game with the same options on the same scale. When i play ck3 the ai isn't playing by a different rule set. This is another exsample of poor game design through reverse balancing!

 

[Adryl]

This is another exsample of poor game design through reverse balancing!

No it isn't. This game is totally different from ck3, it has real-time FPS-style combat. The balancing they've put in as per the OP makes the game more fun. They could take it out and then what? AI battles would end immediately on the campaign map and the player would never have a chance to intervene. That sucks and takes out a fun part of the game. Why would anyone want that? You want to not be able to intervene on AI battles? Why the hell not? And allowing the player to do that is poor game design? Come on, no it's not, if anything it's showing thoughtfulness towards the players by letting us do something fun. I'm not saying all the design choices in the game are like this but this one? This is not the one to attack.

 

[Carrion]

No it isn't. This game is totally different from ck3, it has real-time FPS-style combat. The balancing they've put in as per the OP makes the game more fun. They could take it out and then what? AI battles would end immediately on the campaign map and the player would never have a chance to intervene. That sucks and takes out a fun part of the game. Why would anyone want that? You want to not be able to intervene on AI battles? Why the hell not? And allowing the player to do that is poor game design? Come on, no it's not, if anything it's showing thoughtfulness towards the players by letting us do something fun. I'm not saying all the design choices in the game are like this but this one? This is not the one to attack.

I disagree, i can use any other game as an exsample of ai in a game. You're arguments are reductive and facile. In no way did i suggest any of what you are saying. Are you certain you understand my point?

 

[HugoTheFrenchMan]

Players and AI should be playing the same game with the same options on the same scale. When i play ck3 the ai isn't playing by a different rule set. This is another exsample of poor game design through reverse balancing!

In most paradox games the AI is limited by their stupidity mostly but usually paradox has a hard cap on how much AI develops their nation I don't know if this is true in CK3 but in EU4, HOI4, CK2 and VIC2 the AI is severely limited despite that in one of thise games EU4 specifically the AI has cheats uhm "lucky nations" and they still get pummeled the biggest change paradix did on almost all of their games is on hiw the AI builds buildings in VIC2 the one that never gets updated the AI has bo loguc on where to build their factories which means they are either constantly in debt or have raised tariffs and taxes to the highest the AI in HOI4 has no idea how to keep a balance between military and civilian factories not to mentuon them choosing the worst techs never having a good army composition needinh thousands if generals draining their political power not knowing how and when to attack the worst unit layouts the AI can hardly get heavy tanks by 1945 not to mention them having no idea hiw to use spy agencies on any effective way there is a few smaller issues with HOI4 AI but these are the main ones now let's get to the juicy part EU4 and CK2. First off EU4 they suffer from mostly the same things such as army composition and not knowing anything despite most major nations having cheats then get destroyed the biggest offenders being the french, the ottomans and the castillians who all 3 can die almost immediately Castille especially if Morocco and Tunis have good starts they suffer from mostly same military stupidity as HOI4 second they have no idea how to claim a province especially after the age of revolutions when they het the ability to core anywhere so they will start declaring war for the most random provinces not to mention the EU4, CK3 siege AI in EU4 armies will constantly attrition themselves for no reason they don't know hiw to split up and this is very exploitable luckily in 1.28 golden century patch the AI learnt hiw to caroet siege now economy one of the main things paradox took out of the AI economy is manufactories since when the player took them it would make them swim in cash so paradox removed it limited the AI so they can only develop 2x the original province development now mercs oh the mercs in EU4 the main problem people had is that the ottomans specifically and other nations to a lesser extent could build up and maintain more then 200k mercs by late game and could spit them out in seconds making wars boring and not fun since you had to constamtly deal with enemy 1k stacks unoccupying a province so what did they do did they fix the feature? No of course not say hello to mercenaey companies and now the AI debt spirals inti bankruptcy because they can't dismiss merc companies this has been in the game for like 7 to 8 months now and the siege AI was made even stupider since now they won't even siege they are just gonna stand there taking attrition for nothing notto mention that the AI never upgrades forts. CK2 now in CK2 i don't think I have ever seen the AI make smart decisions since they are ginna hand they're ginormous empire to a lowlife count despite that they could make that marriage non matrellinial which the makes the famous CK2 bordergore not to mention they have no idea how to maintain vassals or even do anything really I consider CK2 one of the easiest paradox games. VIC2 suffers from the AI building factories in the worst of positions even if there is a good province right next to it they can't handle war, infamy ir economy they are better in military then most paradox games but not good by any means. Now CK3 suffers from most of the things from CK2 just with increased seizures. Now the BL AI isn't good by any means but to say any paradox game AI plays "fair" is also wrong

 

[Carrion]

paragraphs . . . please. Ok ck3 is a bad exsample to use , because your all missing the point, despite limits placed on the ai the Ai is playing the same game as the player, this is not nessisarily so with bannerlord. It was worse in warband though but still i cannot find another game where the ai plays by different rules. Making the ai dumb or limiting thier abilities does not inherently mean they are playing by different rules.

 

[Adryl]

I disagree, i can use any other game as an exsample of ai in a game. You're arguments are reductive and facile. In no way did i suggest any of what you are saying. Are you certain you understand my point?

What did you suggest then? As per the OP, if things were changed to be "equal" the way this results in game, if you actually spend the time to think this through, is that AI battles will occur immediately (because 15 minutes of actual time, on the campaign map, occurs almost instantly - think about how fast the day / night cycles pass by). So, what are you saying then, if not that? That's how his suggestion would work.

 

[HugoTheFrenchMan]

paragraphs . . . please. Ok ck3 is a bad exsample to use , because your all missing the point, despite limits placed on the ai the Ai is playing the same game as the player, this is not nessisarily so with bannerlord. It was worse in warband though but still i cannot find another game where the ai plays by different rules. Making the ai dumb or limiting thier abilities does not inherently mean they are playing by different rules.

Ah different rule sets is what you mean technically it is a different ruleset that makes it easier just not inherently shown the thing with these is that no matter what difficulty the AI never acts smarter it by far plays a very different ruleset to the player especially in EU4 and CK3 if the AI just could not work by doing it it's understandable but its clearly possible but paradox has placed them in a different ruleset on how much they can build and how while most of my examples were bad AI the building and developing part cannot be seen as AI limitaion by paradox lets say you were capped at 1 trade building in EU4 that is a different ruleset then the AI who let's say could build infinite

 

[Adryl]

No AI is going to play "fair" and things are not going to be "equal" because we don't have anything like General AI yet and we probably won't for a long time. AI can't think like humans, it's going to be different so the game designers need to think about how to balance that difference against what a player would do in a way that would be fun. I'm not saying everything is done very well here so far in BL but at least in this particular aspect (AI reinforcements), it works fine.

 

[Carrion]

The primary point is they are reverse balancing the game. They see behaviors/ outcomes they do not like and tweak things upstream in an attempt to get the desired outcome / gameplay. Unfortunately due to the complexity of the system this has other unintended consquences and so they continue on with this game of whackamole ad um infinity. Instead they should be focusing on emergent and procedurally generated gameplay in order to widen the replayability and strengthen the AI to actually be proactive and decsive instead of meandering and proped up by a segemented rule set. Does that make more sense?

That literally the definition of reverse balancing! sorry I brought up CK3, yes the ai is tweaked but it still has the same rules as the player, they don't just omnipotently know the strength of a castle on the other side of the map.

 

[HugoTheFrenchMan]

No AI is going to play "fair" and things are not going to be "equal" because we don't have anything like General AI yet and we probably won't for a long time. AI can't think like humans, it's going to be different so the game designers need to think about how to balance that difference against what a player would do in a way that would be fun. I'm not saying everything is done very well here so far in BL but at least in this particular aspect, it works fine.

I think the point he is making is that the AI plays by a different ruleset but his example the AI also plays by a different ruleset

 

[HugoTheFrenchMan]

The primary point is they are reverse balancing the game. They see behaviors/ outcomes they do not like and tweak things upstream in an attempt to get the desired outcome / gameplay. Unfortunately due to the complexity of the system this has other unintended consquences and so they continue on with this game of whackamole ad um infinity. Instead they should be focusing on emergent and procedurally generated gameplay in order to widen the replayability and strengthen the AI to actually be proactive and decsive instead of meandering and proped up by a segemented rule set. Does that make more sense?

Makes more sense now but your original point is that the AI has several advantages in uogrades and units but also several disadvantages and the reference you take also suffers from the same thing but in AI disadvantages

 

[Adryl]

The primary point is they are reverse balancing the game. They see behaviors/ outcomes they do not like and tweak things upstream in an attempt to get the desired outcome / gameplay. Unfortunately due to the complexity of the system this has other unintended consquences and so they continue on with this game of whackamole ad um infinity. Instead they should be focusing on emergent and procedurally generated gameplay in order to widen the replayability and strengthen the AI to actually be proactive and decsive instead of meandering and proped up by a segemented rule set. Does that make more sense?

That literally the definition of reverse balancing! sorry I brought up CK3, yes the ai is tweaked but it still has the same rules as the player, they don't just omnipotently know the strength of a castle on the other side of the map.

Where do you see them doing this reverse balancing? And what does it have to do with the OP "I feel sorry for AI as players have huge unfair advantage in the nature of this game" topic?

 

[Carrion]

Where do you see them doing this reverse balancing?

We've seen them do this with the economy balancing and troop balancing in several patches.

 

[Adryl]

We've seen them do this with the economy balancing and troop balancing in several patches.

I don't know man, that just seems like regular old balancing to me, not this "reverse balancing" or whatever. And still don't know what it has to do with OP.