Suis3i wrote:

lakp wrote:

Endless difficulty is too easy. I've never seen the AI build a carrier. 

The patch called Preview 1.1.15 that Velorace mentioned was a preview patch before it was officially released (which it has been). The AI builds Medium-Large ships in most of their fleets. However, you may not see them right now depending on how fast you complete the game.

If you need proof I'd be happy to upload screenshots from some games where the AI did build large ships. 

I've actually seen the AI build large ships on Normal. Both Cravers and Sophons for sure.

Honestly, I think the reason why your finding the game "too easy" is that either you are only playing to win (using min/max), or are just too good for the AI. For the vast majority of players even playing on Hard/Serious is a tough challenge, me included. I play games for the experience, not just winning. Sure I try to win, but in the end it's more fun to play the game, overcome challenges, win a war despite all odds. If you are playing the game in the mindset of simply winning, using min/max strats, you cheapen the experience and lose the same enjoyment you would have otherwise.

JorgasElite wrote:

Honestly, I think the reason why your finding the game "too easy" is that either you are only playing to win (using min/max), or are just too good for the AI. For the vast majority of players even playing on Hard/Serious is a tough challenge, me included. I play games for the experience, not just winning. Sure I try to win, but in the end it's more fun to play the game, overcome challenges, win a war despite all odds. If you are playing the game in the mindset of simply winning, using min/max strats, you cheapen the experience and lose the same enjoyment you would have otherwise.

This is basically how I play as well. I'm really not interested in following someone else's perfect build order then acting all proud because I won at Endless. I prefer games to unfold organically and have the AI act appropriately for whichever race it is playing.

Endless difficulty is too easy. I've never seen the AI build a carrier. 

Lightjolly wrote:

Ai is such a fickle thing

If it's too easy, you're going to have a bad time

If it's too hard, you're going to have a bad time.

I agree whit Lighthjolly at this point... and this is why i believe playing multiplayer is also a good idea too. It can be much more fun and interesting, because players are able to do things that AI will never achieve, like creating a plan to win the game. I dont exactly know how AI Behave, if it is boosted by FIDSI or not, but i still believe that playing against other players is much better than playing against the AI. One time i fought a battle whit another player in a 1x1 and it was real fun, he always came whit something new in play i had to deal whit in order to win. That match was really intersting to play. 

KingValkyrik wrote:

I have 650 hours dropped on Civ 5 and I have yet to even touch Diety. Not even played it once! Why? Because I know it will wreck me. I know that in order to surpass that difficulty I will have to trim away all of my erroneous builds / moves away until I get it all perfect. If that still doesn't work then I will be left to scour youtube and guides on how to beat it because I know it's just that difficult. I can beat immortal with any victory condition but the jump to diety is just that insane, I know it.

But with ES2? By turn 10 on fast speed / endless difficulty I can tell if I've won. Maybe a rough start? Turn 20/30 and I'll have won the game.

Now I know that in combat both games are about equal garbage. If you want to beat Diety on Civ 5 you're gonna be abusing the shit out of combat mechanics. If you want to stop the AI from expanding / spreading religion all over the damn place you're gonna be at war constantly. I can't tell you how many times I go to war with f***ing Spain because all they want to do is send missionaries and prophets all damn game. So I just sit there and snipe their missionaries.

But with ES2 the game doesn't even get to that point, the AIs all fall behind so quick that anyone, literally anyone, who has theorycrafted or looked up a guide thats been theorycrafted for a build order will auto win. And thats all there is to it. Each race has a build order to maximize growth, expansion and science while skirting military as much as possible (unless military race ofc) and thats it, that build order will always create such a lead that the AIs will never hope to catch up.

Now I will admit there are ways to make the game forcibly harder whether its putting restrictions on one's self or skewing the generation of the galaxy in such a way as to give you a massive disadvantage, etc. And sure for some that might be enough, but for me I like a game at its intended difficulty. I want to play a game at its intended hardest level and beat it.

Anyway love the game, just come back every once in awhile to play for an hour or two realize why I don't play anymore and then leave so just wanted to give my .02.

I have to agree whit King in a certain point. that reason he described, of feeling like that you can win a game before it actually ends, is the primary reason i stopped many matches from playing and left many matches against the AI uncompleted. The AI is pretty good at a certain point, but when it comes to difficulty level... it is not perfect in its aspect. the AI always make many mistakes in its choices, crippling his potential to grow faster. Also, AI dont makes plans like real players. they can't plan a strategy. they can't make you think what is their next move. they can't innovate the battlefield. they are just a "stone" into the middle of the galaxy you have to deal whit, that rarely able to perform difficult fights. it's just pattern. nothing very interesting on it. 

If you believe the game is too easy to play, try it on multiplayer mode. i believe that if you find AI easy, if you play the game whit some serious people in multiplayer instance, you will figure it out that the game has much more depth than you believe and it can be very interesting to play and forge plans to victory. 

I hope this helped! :)

lakp wrote:

Endless difficulty is too easy. I've never seen the AI build a carrier. 

I believe there is an alternative patch into the game that allows AI to build ships that aren't small ships. i believe that the current version of endless space can only spawn small ships into the ai, but i saw they realeased a new version in wich AI can build medium and large ships. It is called Preview 1.1.15 the version of the game that allows it... im not sure how to acess this version either. i had to manually trigger it and acessed it whit the help of a friend. 

I dont know if this version is official either...

Frogsquadron wrote:

Slashman wrote:

OK on this point I don't exactly agree. AFAIK, the AI in ES 2 does not have a different set of intelligence algorithims for Normal than it does on Endless. It simply gets FIDSI bonuses. That distinction is important to understand when assessing AI competence. The AI does more "smart" stuff at higher levels because it doesn't have to earn its resources in the same way that a human player does. 

The AI in ES2 doesn't simply get more FIDSI (that was true of the AI in ES, though). The AI in ES2 also becomes quite a bit more agressive as its difficulty level scales up, rendering more likely to do the sneaky "smart" stuff, whereas it's happy to tag along in lower difficulty modes.

As mentioned by eruanion, a game save showing a specific behavior that could be improved (along with a good description of what led up to that point) would be handier than high-level discussion of systems.

More agressive? i think i will check up endless difficulty then! i love AGGRESSIVE things in space :)

lakp wrote:

Endless difficulty is too easy. I've never seen the AI build a carrier. 

The patch called Preview 1.1.15 that Velorace mentioned was a preview patch before it was officially released (which it has been). The AI builds Medium-Large ships in most of their fleets. However, you may not see them right now depending on how fast you complete the game.

If you need proof I'd be happy to upload screenshots from some games where the AI did build large ships. 

Velorace wrote:

lakp wrote:

Endless difficulty is too easy. I've never seen the AI build a carrier. 

I believe there is an alternative patch into the game that allows AI to build ships that aren't small ships. i believe that the current version of endless space can only spawn small ships into the ai, but i saw they realeased a new version in wich AI can build medium and large ships. It is called Preview 1.1.15 the version of the game that allows it... im not sure how to acess this version either. i had to manually trigger it and acessed it whit the help of a friend. 

I dont know if this version is official either...

Pretty sure it's official, Preview 1.1.15 was simply an unofficial preview for players who wanted to play with the new changes before they were officially released. But the patch was officially released some time ago. 

For anyone here who is saying it's too easy for you to win, keep in mind whether or not you're playing with the intended goal to win, or just to experience the game. Endless Space 2 is a strategy game, and like any strategy games is far easier when you have the intended goal (and a plan) to win. If you're just playing for fun and the experience, then Hard, Serious and Endless difficulty provide nice challenges that aren't too easy, since you're not playing with the intended goal of winning, so there's no rush, and no real calculation, aka "it's turn 10 or smth and ohhh I know I'm gonna win b/c of x, y, & z" 

Go play Stellaris, or you can go multiplayer if you dare.

I really feel like the game is meant to be played on low resources. It's not a huge difficulty boost, but it makes the game much more strategic.

Lightjolly wrote:

Most people play single player in the 4x genre, hence why it's also the genre you constantly see complaints about ai incompetence, I would play multiplayer ifI had pals to play with :(

The problem with me and multiplayer is the way I play 4x games. I very often will play maybe 6 or 7 turns and then switch over to something else. Either another game type or catch up on some anime or watch a series on Netflix. I like to take my time before hitting end turn and I really hate rushing of any kind in 4x games. That is exactly the opposite of what most multiplayer people encourage.

Lightjolly wrote:

nuyu wrote:

Go play Stellaris, or you can go multiplayer if you dare.

Stellaris ai isn't that much better. Many times puts ridiculous improvements on their planet tiles

Velorace wrote:

 I agree whit Lighthjolly at this point... and this is why i believe playing multiplayer is also a good idea too. It can be much more fun and interesting, because players are able to do things that AI will never achieve, like creating a plan to win the game. I dont exactly know how AI Behave, if it is boosted by FIDSI or not, but i still believe that playing against other players is much better than playing against the AI. One time i fought a battle whit another player in a 1x1 and it was real fun, he always came whit something new in play i had to deal whit in order to win. That match was really intersting to play. 

Most people play single player in the 4x genre, hence why it's also the genre you constantly see complaints about ai incompetence, I would play multiplayer ifI had pals to play with :(

*Hint* Thats your que to give me your steam name 

So sad... im currently finding a loit of fun playing 1x1 whit friends. i just found a friend that plays veryh handsomely, trying to be competitive. I've even made a post of my first match whit him, called Endless Tales , wich turned up to be an awesome story of a great epic battle i just fought in 1x1. If people complain that AI is too easy, i'd recommend them to check up 1x1 or at least 1x1x1. Its true that playing whit more people would make the game much more intersting and fun to play, but as it is nearly impossible to organize those parties in a way we can continue our matches later (then in this case, we have to play a match all in one "bite") i'd recommend for players, in case of not finding groups of players to play whit (one possible way to solve it, bur hardly) to play 1x1 or 1x1x1 or something like that. It's always good to have the ability to stop the match for a while and continue it in a later period of time. But until something like that is possible, try playing multiplayer matches whit less people. It can be even a epic match if your opponent does his best to win, just like you! :)

that is where i found Joy in endless space 2. players will ALWAYS behave like gods before ais, because AI have limits, any AI does. but players, can be Endless. :)

I really don't understand why people are so hung up on beating the most buffed AI. These games are more complicated than chess AI and the current trend(since the 90's) is to have better graphics with the gaming industry. That doesn't mean the gameplay is second important, but the AI is. You can easily mod the game to give it 9999 multipliers and try to beat the challenge. In Europa Universalis 4 AI case. The gameplay is locked with lots and lots of time wasting features(war exhaustion, truce limits, stability, overextension, forced rival choice, force limits, etc...) It is not because AI makes good decisions you feel challenged in other strategy games it is because there are lots of limits which puts you more similar situations with the AI. In ES2 there is only planet colonization limit. 

Unless the world bored with the reality and started to depend on more advanced AI (in today's world there are lots of types of reality, which is bizarre but it has started) maybe after that Nvdia would make nvdiAI rather than physics. I don't think ES2 AI is downright stupid and AI work is a continuous project, ends with the last patch. I think AI after serious gives enough challenge with normal speed in a medium-sized map. 

The crux of the issue with the AI in this game is that it cannot build good fleets. They otherwise play fairly well. It seldom ever - like 1% of games - uses strategic modules, and has no idea how to make best use of the many support modules. Not only that, they do not use the enhanced hulls.

For as long as AI fleets are sub par, you can do anything you like vs. them because you are playing with a different set of rules entirely.

Aitarus wrote:

The crux of the issue with the AI in this game is that it cannot build good fleets. They otherwise play fairly well. It seldom ever - like 1% of games - uses strategic modules, and has no idea how to make best use of the many support modules. Not only that, they do not use the enhanced hulls.

For as long as AI fleets are sub par, you can do anything you like vs. them because you are playing with a different set of rules entirely.

This was a problem in EL as well. The AI could not equip itself properly with strategic weapons and armor, rendering their units almost always underperforming versus a human. I had thought that the issue was addressed in ES 2 though. People were reporting stategics on AI ships captured. If it keeps being an issue, then maybe it is time to remove strategics altogether from combat and replace it with a different system. Or otherwise make their use something that the AI is not confused over.

I was toying with the idea that instead of spending strategics on each ship individually, that once you research the modules and the tech for harvesting the strategic, you could instead pay a fixed amount of each strategic. Then you can automatically place them on each ship without additional cost. That may stop the AI from thinking it is a bad choice to use them on ships when they could be used for something else. (I assume that is the major issue with strategics currently and the AI)

I can't complain about the AI at all. And I've seen quite some carrier fleets actually. And this wasn't even on endless difficulty. Wanna know my secret? Sure, you do. :P

The biggest strength of the ES2 AI is probably its biggest weakness, too. 

So, what you guys should try is to adjust the victory conditions. The AI pathways really have to be limited in some ways to help it out.

There are ways to follow and even view what the AI does via browser. I'm not sure if it's still possible to connect to E.N.F.E.R. but it was in the past.

My assumption is, that some of you are playing offensive military style as most MP hardened people do - it's just natural. You might not even go for easy science or economic victories but some of the AI probably will. And when the AI goes that pathway, it probably won't focus on the left quadrant in the tech-wheel - hence no carriers.

Personally, I think the ES2 AI is quite good. Sure, there's always room for improvement. However, one time I got my ass kicked so hard by the Cravers it still hurts to this very day. And there are quite some more games where I struggled and had to overcome great odds.

Give the AI some room, play on big maps and not on quick speed. Reduce nodes, curiosities, ressources and events to make the game even harder if that isn't enough already. 

I have 650 hours dropped on Civ 5 and I have yet to even touch Diety. Not even played it once! Why? Because I know it will wreck me. I know that in order to surpass that difficulty I will have to trim away all of my erroneous builds / moves away until I get it all perfect. If that still doesn't work then I will be left to scour youtube and guides on how to beat it because I know it's just that difficult. I can beat immortal with any victory condition but the jump to diety is just that insane, I know it.

But with ES2? By turn 10 on fast speed / endless difficulty I can tell if I've won. Maybe a rough start? Turn 20/30 and I'll have won the game.

Now I know that in combat both games are about equal garbage. If you want to beat Diety on Civ 5 you're gonna be abusing the shit out of combat mechanics. If you want to stop the AI from expanding / spreading religion all over the damn place you're gonna be at war constantly. I can't tell you how many times I go to war with f***ing Spain because all they want to do is send missionaries and prophets all damn game. So I just sit there and snipe their missionaries.

But with ES2 the game doesn't even get to that point, the AIs all fall behind so quick that anyone, literally anyone, who has theorycrafted or looked up a guide thats been theorycrafted for a build order will auto win. And thats all there is to it. Each race has a build order to maximize growth, expansion and science while skirting military as much as possible (unless military race ofc) and thats it, that build order will always create such a lead that the AIs will never hope to catch up.

Now I will admit there are ways to make the game forcibly harder whether its putting restrictions on one's self or skewing the generation of the galaxy in such a way as to give you a massive disadvantage, etc. And sure for some that might be enough, but for me I like a game at its intended difficulty. I want to play a game at its intended hardest level and beat it.

Anyway love the game, just come back every once in awhile to play for an hour or two realize why I don't play anymore and then leave so just wanted to give my .02.

Yep get where you are comming from.  AI needs to be more agressive at the cost of passive play.  Otherwise you play and forget.  It is a 4X game is it not.

I'm of two minds on the OP's post.

First, if the very first thing you're going to do is look up min/max guides, it is pretty obvious that you are not interested in gradually learning the game and getting better, but want to just win anyway. There are very few strategy games where each race doesn't have some kind of optimal build. If your intention is to play that way from the start, there is no AI in the world that can win against you except by some unearthly luck. The AI doesn't look up min/max/optimal build guides. I doubt most people play that way, but the ones that do tend to appear on the forum asking for better AI.

On the other hand, I agree that the AI is still not up to scratch in a number of areas. Their aggressive attitudes do not match theri actions in many cases. They don't go to war when it would make sense to. They do nto seem to have much of a war strategy in terms of which systems they want to invade or how to distribute their fleets. Also, I think that the asymetrical nature of the races makes several of them very hard to play for the AI. These quirks result in more effective play for an informed human, but tend to hinder the progress of an AI player.

My thoughts on solutions are also twofold:

1) Base AI improvement across all areas of concern. This is very difficult and likely will not yield the types of results we're all hoping for. AI coding is hard and grows more so with the complexity of the game.

2) Challenge provided by the universe itself. I've been pushing for this and asking for it for a while. The universe of the game needs to be able to throw out challenges and obstacles for the players apart from the AI. Giant space monsters, random events when a player is coasting along towards an easy "hit end turn" victory. If moe challenge is to come, it is going to come from the cruel randomness of the universe wanting to kill the player.

Those are practical and sensible points Slashman. 

ES2 is still having content added. Espionage is the next big thing. I'd like to see a bit more of an emphasis on mechanics the AI can grasp. It will be hard to come up with systems that are both complicated enough to be engaging and simple enough for an AI to use, but I think it's a really important task for game design. 

Ai can always be improved, it took civ 5 two years and two expansions before it's ai became decent.

Sure the es2 devs can improve the ai with time

Lightjolly wrote:

Ai can always be improved, it took civ 5 two years and two expansions before it's ai became decent.

Sure the es2 devs can improve the ai with time

No doubt the game is still growing and I do have faith in Amplitude that they will stick with it. Maybe someday we'll see a G2G Balance mod aimed at more effective AI.

Slashman wrote:

I'm of two minds on the OP's post.

First, if the very first thing you're going to do is look up min/max guides, it is pretty obvious that you are not interested in gradually learning the game and getting better, but want to just win anyway. There are very few strategy games where each race doesn't have some kind of optimal build. If your intention is to play that way from the start, there is no AI in the world that can win against you except by some unearthly luck. The AI doesn't look up min/max/optimal build guides. I doubt most people play that way, but the ones that do tend to appear on the forum asking for better AI.

My first paragraph explains how after 650 hours I haven't touched diety because its really hard and I will have to fix my build order(s) as much as possible and if all else fails look up guides.... I mean.. I don't know what more to say on how I approach games and guides.

 

On the other hand, I agree that the AI is still not up to scratch in a number of areas. Their aggressive attitudes do not match theri actions in many cases. They don't go to war when it would make sense to. They do nto seem to have much of a war strategy in terms of which systems they want to invade or how to distribute their fleets. Also, I think that the asymetrical nature of the races makes several of them very hard to play for the AI. These quirks result in more effective play for an informed human, but tend to hinder the progress of an AI player.

Agreed. 

2) Challenge provided by the universe itself. I've been pushing for this and asking for it for a while. The universe of the game needs to be able to throw out challenges and obstacles for the players apart from the AI. Giant space monsters, random events when a player is coasting along towards an easy "hit end turn" victory. If moe challenge is to come, it is going to come from the cruel randomness of the universe wanting to kill the player.

Agreed. 

I'm not sure where anyone here is getting the whole "the game AI is/are really bad and don't do 'this', 'this', and 'this'" but you guys have to be playing at a lower difficulty or smth. In nearly all of my Endless level games, the AI makes alliances with other AI factions, systematically targets and destroys expanionsist empires that threaten multiple AI players, and uses Diplomacy quite well, (any of ya'll played as the Vodyani only to be smacked with a bunch of advanced diplomatic demands that each reduce your empire influence production by 75%, effectivily making you unable to partcipate in the diplomatic screen, or pass any laws of your own, pretty freakin smart in my opinion). The AI also does build varied fleets, especially late game and the issue of it only hiring mercenaries and building small-medium sized ships was fixed a couple of patches ago sooo. 

Furthermore, they are better the other AIs, and tend to expand quickly and until Part 2 of the Academy Quest, activly complete quests. 

The AI isn't perfect, and like most game AIs (I played League of Legends when its AI was 100x dumber than it is now) needs a lot of work, but a lot of the criticism here appears to be either unfounded or out of ignorance. 

And this isn't to say that the AI should be a learning AI, that would make the game far more interesting and challenging, but I think there's a perfectly good reason that the DEVs have chosen not to implement it (yet?). 

Suis3i wrote:

I'm not sure where anyone here is getting the whole "the game AI is/are really bad and don't do 'this', 'this', and 'this'" but you guys have to be playing at a lower difficulty or smth. In nearly all of my Endless level games, the AI makes alliances with other AI factions, systematically targets and destroys expanionsist empires that threaten multiple AI players, and uses Diplomacy quite well, (any of ya'll played as the Vodyani only to be smacked with a bunch of advanced diplomatic demands that each reduce your empire influence production by 75%, effectivily making you unable to partcipate in the diplomatic screen, or pass any laws of your own, pretty freakin smart in my opinion). The AI also does build varied fleets, especially late game and the issue of it only hiring mercenaries and building small-medium sized ships was fixed a couple of patches ago sooo. 

Furthermore, they are better the other AIs, and tend to expand quickly and until Part 2 of the Academy Quest, activly complete quests. 

My question is why doesn't the AI do these things at lower difficulties. I don't play on Endless and likely never will. If the only reason that the AI can play the game with any competence is that it out-produces, out-earns and out-researches me by default, then there are certainly more than a few issues going on. That's bonuses playing the game, not AI. 

What you just described is not smart behavior, its behavior due to the fact that the AI gets so many bonuses at that level that it can do anything it wants. I have never once been diplomatically overwhelmed at lower difficulties, especially not at normal, by AI demands.

The AI isn't perfect, and like most game AIs (I played League of Legends when its AI was 100x dumber than it is now) needs a lot of work, but a lot of the criticism here appears to be either unfounded or out of ignorance. 

And this isn't to say that the AI should be a learning AI, that would make the game far more interesting and challenging, but I think there's a perfectly good reason that the DEVs have chosen not to implement it (yet?). 

League of Legends is in an entirely different category than a 4x and thus it has entirely different problems to solve. The thing is that it can afford to have crappy AI because it is primarily a multiplayer game. Humans are supposed to fill the slots, not bots. It's the same reason that the Vermintide AI bots are not that awesome. Its a multiplayer co-op game first and foremost.

Look if they made the AI do the same things it does on Endless difficulty for the lower difficulties, then there would be no point to setting the AI at Endless difficulty, as those "features" or as you put it, "bonuses" are what makes the AI difficult. There is a reason why there are difficulties in the first place, and putting features that make the AI act more like a person playing that faction, for lower difficulties would defeat the point in playing at lower difficulties (since people playing at that level either can't handle the AI being so difficult, or they want to quickly try something out/have 'stress-free fun, etc). If you want to face an AI that is "smarter" or makes "smarter" decisions, then increase the difficulty level. 

The AI at higher difficulties is just playing like an above-average player, making smarter decisions that someone would actually think through. 

The comparison to LoL was an example of an AI, that over time got better, and even then, they still have 3 difficulties for the AI in which the AI acts differently/makes "smarter" decisions at the higher difficulties. 

I could go on and on about other games that have AIs with different difficulties, where at each difficulty the AI does something different that makes it "smarter" and, well, more difficult and why this even exists in games. 

On top of that, like you pointed out, AI coding is difficult and honestly, for a game as complex as ES2, I'm surprised the AI does well on Endless difficulty (this of course changes based on Galaxy Generation crap and what victory you're trying to attain). 

AND 

I wasn't even aiming my post at you lmao, you made some valid points and weren't exactly complaining. 

I totally agree that anyone looking at build order guides and crap has no real interest in learning the game and playing it for any other goal than just beating it (which is. Not. The. Point. Of. The. Game. It's to have fun, and in ES2's case, to discover new things and really become engaged). 

And I definitely agree the AI isn't perfect or the absolute best, like it's good, but not the best.

And you pointed out some sound solutions, I too want an overall well rounded AI at all levels, but for what it's at right now, it's not terrible (that's why I pointed out LoL's AI, b/c back in 2012 that thing was horrendous). And increased amount of events like giant space monsters and such and such, dude, freakin, awesome. It'd increase random difficulty that the player can't exactly control and would be interesting (especially from a lore perspective) 

So yee lol, my post was just @ unfounded (sometimes ignorant) complaints. 

Ai is such a fickle thing

If it's too easy, you're going to have a bad time

If it's too hard, you're going to have a bad time.

Suis3i wrote:

Look if they made the AI do the same things it does on Endless difficulty for the lower difficulties, then there would be no point to setting the AI at Endless difficulty, as those "features" or as you put it, "bonuses" are what makes the AI difficult. There is a reason why there are difficulties in the first place, and putting features that make the AI act more like a person playing that faction, for lower difficulties would defeat the point in playing at lower difficulties (since people playing at that level either can't handle the AI being so difficult, or they want to quickly try something out/have 'stress-free fun, etc). If you want to face an AI that is "smarter" or makes "smarter" decisions, then increase the difficulty level. 

The AI at higher difficulties is just playing like an above-average player, making smarter decisions that someone would actually think through. 

OK on this point I don't exactly agree. AFAIK, the AI in ES 2 does not have a different set of intelligence algorithims for Normal than it does on Endless. It simply gets FIDSI bonuses. That distinction is important to understand when assessing AI competence. The AI does more "smart" stuff at higher levels because it doesn't have to earn its resources in the same way that a human player does. As soon as that cushion is removed, it gets "dumber" because it actually has to put in the same work as a human to reach the same levels of earning that allow it to be competitive. Then as a result of its higher earning, it can do things like send large mixed fleets and apply diplomatic pressure more efficiently.

The downside of this is that those same bonuses create a very unfair advantage in areas where the AI doesn't need help and forces very specific playstyles from the human player. A bunch of other game systems are then thrown out of whack as a result. Like the deeds given when unlocking various tech tiers. "Be the first to build x or the first to earn y or the first with approval z." Along with quests conditions, a human player will then have to jump through some hoops to achieve what the buffed up AI can do by just sitting there.

So yes, in some aspects, difficulty bonuses make the AI seem smarter, at the cost of throwing other aspects of the game out of whack. And then there are many areas where all the bonuses in the world won't make the AI make smart decisions. Especially thinking-ahead decisions.

The comparison to LoL was an example of an AI, that over time got better, and even then, they still have 3 difficulties for the AI in which the AI acts differently/makes "smarter" decisions at the higher difficulties. 

I could go on and on about other games that have AIs with different difficulties, where at each difficulty the AI does something different that makes it "smarter" and, well, more difficult and why this even exists in games. 

On top of that, like you pointed out, AI coding is difficult and honestly, for a game as complex as ES2, I'm surprised the AI does well on Endless difficulty (this of course changes based on Galaxy Generation crap and what victory you're trying to attain). 

AND 

I wasn't even aiming my post at you lmao, you made some valid points and weren't exactly complaining. 

I totally agree that anyone looking at build order guides and crap has no real interest in learning the game and playing it for any other goal than just beating it (which is. Not. The. Point. Of. The. Game. It's to have fun, and in ES2's case, to discover new things and really become engaged). 

And I definitely agree the AI isn't perfect or the absolute best, like it's good, but not the best.

And you pointed out some sound solutions, I too want an overall well rounded AI at all levels, but for what it's at right now, it's not terrible (that's why I pointed out LoL's AI, b/c back in 2012 that thing was horrendous). And increased amount of events like giant space monsters and such and such, dude, freakin, awesome. It'd increase random difficulty that the player can't exactly control and would be interesting (especially from a lore perspective) 

So yee lol, my post was just @ unfounded (sometimes ignorant) complaints. 

Sorry if you thought I was singling you out when I used your LoL example. I was more trying to illustrate that turn-based 4x games, especially ones as complex as ES 2 are a different kind of beast. Games like LoL can actually afford to have non-optimal AI for bots because their primary focus is different and the game environment and mechanics are different as well. 

In any case, we can agree for the most part that ES 2 AI isn't horrible. It just has some frustrating weak spots that could use cleaning up. I'm probably making that sound much easier than it actually is to do. lol

What I find comforting about Es 2 is that currently, compared to where Endless Legend was in terms of timeline for AI improvement, the AI in Es 2 is much more competent. 

I remember waiting and working with the devs to try to improve the AI in EL which was way more difficult because of the way it was built. Changing anything in the AI in EL could have major impact on a bunch of other systems.

Oh yeah, most definitly, the AI in EL had so many issues and its clear that this one in ES2, even at its current stage is still better

Suis3i wrote:

Well, overall I hope the DEVs see this and are inspired (?) to continue to improve the AI. 

Maybe you are not that serious about this statement, but I don't dig the implication that the devs don't care or are not inspired to continue improving the AI. Threads like this pop up periodically here and in the Steam forums. (Of course, some on Steam are a lot less polite than most on this forum). I'm sure they are aware of player feelings on this by now. It is probably more helpful to upload a game save that shows a specific AI behavior that could be improved. 

I'm sure good AI is hard to program as the "AI" in games does not have any actual intelligence to react to specific situations. And the devs have to strike a balance, as some players want an AI that tries hard to win while others want AI that acts in character with the faction it represents. And maybe amplitude doesn't have the resources to maintain different sets of AI behaviors for different difficulty levels.

That said, there are areas that could stand ongoing improvement, such as the AI's ship designs and fleet management. When it is really losing a war, I've seen an AI send smaller fleets to systems I'm sieging, but then retreat when I attack those fleets. Sometimes it will do this with a fleet that is already below full health and lose ships for nothing. That type of behavior ended up hurting the AI a lot in Endless Legend. It would be better if it could attempt to wear down a sieging fleet, using long-range tactics cards and appropriate weapons (instead of Railguns on small attacker ships).

Apologies. That is why I said "maybe you are not serious," and I didn't mean to associate you with posters on Steam. So we agree "inspired" may not be the right word. My post was more a reaction to the ubiquity of threads about AI. Some threads (like this one) contain potentially useful feedback for the devs, while others may not.

Slashman wrote:

OK on this point I don't exactly agree. AFAIK, the AI in ES 2 does not have a different set of intelligence algorithims for Normal than it does on Endless. It simply gets FIDSI bonuses. That distinction is important to understand when assessing AI competence. The AI does more "smart" stuff at higher levels because it doesn't have to earn its resources in the same way that a human player does. 

The AI in ES2 doesn't simply get more FIDSI (that was true of the AI in ES, though). The AI in ES2 also becomes quite a bit more agressive as its difficulty level scales up, rendering more likely to do the sneaky "smart" stuff, whereas it's happy to tag along in lower difficulty modes.

As mentioned by eruanion, a game save showing a specific behavior that could be improved (along with a good description of what led up to that point) would be handier than high-level discussion of systems.

Has the AI got any better after a year of patches ?

Because I restarted a game maybe 10 months after my last one.  After 50 turns, on endless difficulty, Carvers neighbor keep sending my civilian ships (?!?!?) for free money and send me fleet of like TWO HUNTERS while I have Medium ships ?!?  

It looks terrible....

Because military in this game ain't that hard.  Aggressive AI should just stack up a big attack fleet until its maxed out and pimped and the only "decision" they need to make is "when they send it".  Because right now that "decided" that two hunters is a strong enough fleet ?!?