Multiple neutral armies besieging same enemy city question

[primevalangel]

(Sorry if asked before, could not find on quick search) If there are multiple armies (all neutral towards each other) besieging same enemy city:
1. if one of them starts the assault, will it fight alone or together with the others?
2. who gets the region? The army who started the assault (and defeated the garrison)? The first army who started the siege? The biggest army by number of units? or by CP?

[Pocus]

1. Alone
2. Usually the most numerous gets the city, except if that's a friendly AI in this case if your history shows you held the region more recently than it, then it will give it to you. Another reason why there is no complete 'neutral' difficulty level, because AIs and players never play the same exact rules.

It's not about losing or winning, it's about making a good story.*

*: Apocryphal Tynan Sylvester citation.

[primevalangel]

Thanks for the clarifications, Pocus!

Also, can you clarify what is the exact "another reason" for "AIs and players never play the same exact rules" that you mentioned? Does the rule "except if that's a friendly AI in this case if your history shows you held the region more recently than it, then it will give it to you", which applies to AI, not apply to the player as well?

[Pocus]

Indeed, the player will never be forced to relinquish a region to the AI. There are other rules like that, to ease gameplay (AI toward player) but not working in reverse, to not frustrate us hoomans. Because we are prone to tantrum!

[primevalangel]

I understand, Pocus, but I do not like it. Game mechanics should be the same for AI and player without exceptions, and this situation is not a good excuse to have different mechanics. To have same mechanics, AI could simply get the region, just as the player, then give it away in a transaction (just as the player would do, if he wanted to give it away).

In the new game, please make the AI play by the same mechanics as the player; it is never "fair play", no matter how small the advantages are. In PDX games, AI plays by the same mechanics in the Normal difficulty (just in EU4 I have to remove the default "historically lucky nations"). I might be the only one wanting this, though almost all FOGE MP games are Balanced, why? I guess players choose it because it is the closest we have to a Fair/Equal difficulty where players and AI play by the same mechanics, even if the AI is not as challenging as in Suicidal.

[Pocus]

This was just an example. I know some of you don't like this feature, but this is also to be faster in development, as the team is small. What you ask me is to remove edge cases, for the sake of getting this good feeling the competition is fair between the AI and you? But the AI can't be fair, you are a human and the program is only that, a few thousands lines of code to get semi-smart decisions of a so-called AI? This is very artificial in the end, to think it would be fair.

And so, one of the aspect as I said is to work around edge cases, they take many hours to handle and code, and are just that, oddities and uncommon cases. My time is better employed on something else. Or said differently, development is faster.

The other aspect, is that some rules would not play well for some players. I just read the AAR about 4 human players as Germanic tribes against Rome. The rule if you are decadent and a tribe is to be eliminated. For the AI only. Because we don't care about a lousy AI tribe disappearing. But for the player, the rule is different, you 'just' get a civil war. So you see, it works both ways. Some rules are adjusted in the benefit of the AI, some of the players. Because there is no such thing as a fair playing field, between your 100-billions cells brain and 20.000 or so lines of code simulating an AI.

Paradox team have much bigger teams. Hey, I would not even be surprised to learn their marketing budget for one of their game is superior to the development cost of the game I'm making
As for tactical battles games, their rules set are much more focused and are probably devised from the start to be playable one vs one. A 4x strategy game is a game where you need to handle mechanisms ranging from war, to trade, to diplomacy, etc. Everything and the kitchen sink somehow. So no surprise a few rules, among several hundreds, are handled slightly differently between a silicium and meat-bag opponent.

Perhaps in 10 years, if we can have general AI from google or whatever, I'll revise my opinion

[primevalangel]

Just wanted to clarify that I never said I want a smarter/better AI (just an AI that plays by the same rules/mechanics as the player, it can do only what the player can). As long as the AI plays fair ("same rules", not "smart AI"), I personally do not care how dumb it is, or how quicky I can defeat it, as long as I can accurately estimate how much better I am compared to it. This is what gives me joy and sense of accomplishment (that "good feeling" you mentioned): to see how much smarter I am compared to AI and other players. I cannot estimate this if AI plays by different rules/mechanics/bonuses/penalties. In Chess, StarCraft, AOE 1-4, CK2, EU3, Rome, EU4, RI, CK3 and other strategies, I do not have this problem. If I want challenging opponents, I just play against human players in MP (at least they play fair).

Also I do not mind so much these "faster-to-execute" mechanics as long as they achieve the same outcome as playing fair, or only give insignificant advantages/disadvantages to AI (this is why I still play FOGE). I completely understand and agree with you they make the development faster (as I'm a programmer myself). I just hoped the game was heading towards a better sandbox simulation, but this and the hard-coded Persian events from the DLC and the unrealistic "perks count as buildings", seem like it is not. I care because this is my favorite game of all, since it has the most realistic economy simulation (except for games like Dawn of Man, but who are not grand strategies, don't have MP) and the best MP system for smart gamers (WeGo, where a smarter gamer can always defeat a more veteran player with higher APM=actions-per-minute, unlike all the strategies I listed above).

Thanks again Pocus for taking the time to share your view over my concern .