Many discussions are about the AI-aggressiveness currently/feedback on the recent post...

[radiant kiln]

I often say, in other games too the game shouldnt be balanced around the "normal" difficulty, generally. Thus it shouldnt be gigaagressive, in this case. On normal. I think the hardest difficulty is which should be reserved for the bit "broken/op" mechanics. And between the two, the mid-hard difficulty is where the game should be the one balanced around. For the not-first-playthrough, when you are familiar with the game...

But ofc thats just my humble opionon, thats how it feels right to me.

Okay, now its not strictly related, but I have to mention that too: So HRE... So to first thing that comes to my mind about HRE, the first thing that like catches my eye is that the Emperor isnt protecting the HRE from external threats, like England, but mostly France obviously. But rather its like a race between Bohemia and France who "eats" HRE first. The one that's supposed to be protecting them is their biggest enemy. Which I suppose is less than ideal...

Okay, one more sidenote. Obviously tuning the AI behavior is one thing. Like you can say the AI France just wont attack HRE, cuz its coded. But the problem with that is, well first its not very realistic in general, not the most elegant solution, and secondly, the game has an MP mode too. So instead of tuning AI behavior instead mechanics should be added which guides the whole gamplay in a certain direction... Now one of those already is the Imperial Authority.
But as we can see, as it turns out, its not enough... So it should be tuned up and more mechanics added to it or sth.

Ofc there are many things I havent addressed now, but just a few things that stood out to me and wanted to mention.

[brave granite]

it is simple. This happens because there is a no CB war declaration, and AI, instead of waging war for a probable cause or with a claim, they spam war on everyone whenever they like. Meaning, big Bohemia and big France can attack all the small HRE nations without any reason, just because they can't defend themselves.

Also, HRE electors have no negative opinion and rather reward whoever can destroy the HRE from the inside the most. Which is non sensical.

[radiant kiln]

Well, according to many ppl the AI is too aggresive on normal diff. And France having 26 no-CB wardecs is "abnormal". Also many nations dont survive. And what ppl should have done just simply turn up the difficulty-settings if they wanted a harder game, more aggressive AI... Currently this is the general sentiment and I think it has been acknowledged too in the most recent notes (tho not sure)

[radiant kiln]

well currently some players with 1500 hrs struggle on normal, with some weaker factions.

The ppl who play the game for the first time, will probably play on normal. Or if they have 0 experience with videogames or 4x then maybe easy.

Anyways, I think those not-necessarily-the-most-op factions, like France or Bohemia, should be a viable choice for players with 1500 hrs, on normal...

and again, since the AI's behavior will never be quite as good as the player's, like in 2025 realistically not, the AI needs some advantages to make up for that. Always, in every videgame, realistically. On normal it doesnt get any bonuses. Thats why the "midhard" is the one that should be taken as the "'standardAI/difficulty". The bonus-one. And thats the AI, the player's experience should be adjusted to. Or u want to give bonuses to the AI on "normal"?

balance around the difficulty which most ppl try on the first try? But most ppl eg dont even go colonisation on their first try or convert their government into Theocracy. Then those options should be just deleted out of the game?

What we are disagreeing on is the definiton of "balancing around". But w/e, terminology isnt important. Also ofc thats not an exact term...

[radiant kiln]

what I was just trying to say is that lets say Im a good player with hundreds of hours in the game, I read through most description in the game, I know what events will happen out of the top of my head and just in general I know what to anticipate. Because I know the game from inside-out. I know most unusual mechanics, whcih u dont meet with on your first walkthrouh but are in the game. But I dont want to abuse the AI, its AI-behaviour, on purpose. I want to treat the AI as if it was players, bascially. Then the "midhard" difficulty should provide me a fun experience.

But yeah thats just a question of terminology so in essence I am not disagreeing with u and lets not argue about terminology lol.

[radiant kiln]

Yeah thats certainly good.

Now its not relevant here, another topic, but if "aggressive = strong and good, not-aggressive = weak" wasnt the case that would be good too, I guess. Like if it was tuned a littlebit more with like giving concilatory buffs or w/e I know thats a complex question, just mentioning it... Cuz I guess its a bit weird that more-aggressive AI just makes the game way harder... Now it also requires more micro-managing which is not bad if thats rewarded, the problem is probably with the "way". But maybe u disagree. Idk, I dont have like 1000 hrs quite yet... (but nor is this called "pro-feedback-section", just simply "feedback", so...)