• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary #24 - AI

Hello everyone and welcome to yet another development diary for Stellaris! Today, I'll be talking about AI, and not of the robotic kind. I'm talking of course, of the game AI, which is currently being developed by myself and @merni who is the dedicated Stellaris AI programmer, while I'm just temporarily on the project to flesh out certain aspects of the AI before launch.

Artificial Personalities
A major challenge when making the Stellaris AI has been the randomized nature of the game. With thousands of different combinations of ethoses and traits, there's a risk that every AI Empire ends up feeling the same to the player, or fall into a very basic categorization of 'aggressive aliens' and 'peaceful aliens'. I as the AI programmer might know that an AI with Fanatic Collectivism makes their decisions differently from with plain old vanilla Collectivism, but it might all look the same to a player who doesn't have this foreknowledge.

In order to address this problem, we've implemented a system of AI Personalities that govern almost every aspect of how they behave, such as who they'll pick a fight with, which trade deals they are interested in and how they budget and utilize the resources available to them. This personality is determined by their ethos, government form and traits, and will be shown to the player when diplomatically interacting with that Empire. To feel recognizeable to the player, all of the personalities are rooted in sci-fi tropes, so that you'll immediately know who the Klingons are to your United Federation of Planets.
6ZK8UQS.png


Personalities naturally have a bigger impact on diplomacy than anything else - if your goal is to form a Federation, it'll be much easier to do so with an Empire of Federation Builders than a bunch of Ruthless Capitalists, and forget getting Xenophobic Isolationists to agree to any such proposal unless they have a very pressing reason. You can tell how an Empire feels about you from their Attitude, which is primarily driven by opinion, and affects factors such as what diplomatic offers they'll consider and how fair a shake they will give you in trade deals.
h76nTL1.png


In addition to the regular personalities, there is also a special set of personalities for Fallen Empires. Instead of the usual mix of Ethoses, each Fallen Empire has only a single Fanatic Ethos - the single remaining ideal they hold to after centuries of seeing what the galaxy has to offer. This Ethos determines their personality, which in turn affects how they view your actions. For example, a Xenophobic Fallen Empire will want nothing to do with you or anyone else and will be very upset if you start encroaching on their borders, while a Spiritualist Fallen Empire will consider themselves the protectors of the galaxy's holy sites, and will not look kindly on your colonists trampling all over their sacred planets. If you think angering a Fallen Empire is harmless because they won't conquer you - think again. Fallen Empires get a special wargoal to force you to abandon planets, and will be more than happy to cut your upstart species down to size if you don't show sufficient respect for your elders.
KViqQD9.png


Threats and Rivals
So what then, is a pressing reason for an AI to go against their personality? Well, one such reason is Threat. Threat is a mechanic somewhat similar to Aggressive Expansion in Europa Universalis 4. Conquering planets, subjugating other Empires and destroying space installations will generate Threat towards other Empires. The amount of Threat generated depends both on how far away the Empire is from what's happening and on their Personality. Xenophobic Isolationists won't care if you're purging aliens half a galaxy away, but if all the planets around them being swallowed up by an expanionistic Empire, they'll definitely take note. Empires that are threatened by the same aggressor will get an opinion boost towards each other, and will be more likely to join in Alliances and Federations - if you go on a rampage, you may find the rest of the Galaxy uniting to take you down, and while Threat decays naturally over time, there's no guarantee that the alliances formed by your imperialism will break up even if you take a timeout from conquering... so expand with care.

Another feature borrowed from EU4 to drive AI behaviour is Rivals. Any independent Empire that are you not allied to can be declared a Rival, up to a maximum of 3 Rivals at the same time. Having an Empire as a Rival will give you a monthly increase of Influence, with the amount gained based on how powerful they are relative to yourself - having a far weaker Empire as your antagonist will not overly impress your population. It is further modified by Ethos, with Militarist Empires benefitting significantly more from Rivalries than Pacifist ones (but paying more influence to be part of an Alliance). Naturally, Empires won't be particularly happy about being declared a Rival, and are pretty likely to rival you right back. Having a Rival will improve relations with their enemies and worsen relations with their friends, so the Rivalry system will act as a primary driver of conflict and alliance in the galaxy.
pEIgTBV.png


AI Economics
Finally, I wanted to cover the topic of the AI's bookkeeping. While it may be far less exciting and far less visible to the player than its diplomatic behaviour, having solid economics is one of our biggest priorities for the Stellaris AI, for multiple reasons. Firstly, so that the AI is able to compete reasonably with the player without resorting to outright cheating. True, the AI will never be as good as an experienced player, but there is a big difference between the player being able to outproduce one AI Empire and the player being able to outproduce five of them together. Secondly, because of the Sector mechanic that was covered in DD 21, the AI will actively be making construction and management decisions on the player's planets, and while - again - it will never be as good as an experienced player making the decisions themselves, it needs to be good enough that the player doesn't feel like the AI is actively sabotaging their Empire.

In order to accomplish all this, a huge amount of time has been put into the AI's budgeting system. Every single mineral and energy credit that the AI takes in is earmarked for a particular budget post such as navies or new colonies, with the division between the posts being set according to the AI's personality and what it needs at the time. The AI is only permitted to spend appropriately budgeted resources, so it'll never fail to establish new colonies because it's too busy constructing buildings on its planet, or miss building a navy because mining stations are eating up its entire mineral income. In times of dire need, it can move resources from one budget post to another - if it's at war and its navy gets destroyed, expect it to pour every last mineral into building a new one.

When making decisions about what to construct, the AI looks primarily at what resources it has a critical need for (such as Energy if it's running a deficit), secondarily at what resources it's not producing a lot of compared to what it expects an Empire of its size to produce, and lastly at whatever it deems useful enough for the mineral investment. Sectors have additional logic to ensure they produce more of the resource you've set them to focus on, so an Energy sector will naturally overproduce Energy - you told it to, after all.
12eo2mu.png


Alright, that's all for today. Next week we'll be talking about debris and the fine art of reverse engineering.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 156
  • 128
Reactions:
The Stellaris AI is much more opinion-driven, because the opinion system was designed from the very start to be usable for it. So you won't have the case where an empire with +50 opinion rivals you, or someone with -100 opinion secretly likes you. Not to say the AI won't ever try to repair bad relations, but it's very much WYSIWYG with the opinion they currently have.

So yes, insulting someone can have consequenses. I don't recommend insulting Fallen Empires early on.
Sounds like a nice and transparent system. Cool, thanks Wiz!
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Is Stagnant Ascendancy unique form of government which is what makes fallen empires fallen (like celestial empire is what gives Ming factions), or is it just purely cosmetic localisation ala "Sultanate"?
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Speaking of Space Emperor personalities, let’s get this out of the way: The plural of ethos is ethoi, not ethoses.

The standard plural ending for a Greek noun ending in os is oi. Dynatos (a mighty one, a lord, etc) and Dynatoi. Doruphoros (a spear carrier) and Doruphoroi. Akritos (a Byzantine border noble) and Akritoi. Kataphractos (an armored horseman) and Kataphractoi. Psilos (a skirmisher) and Psiloi.

The reason the plural of "ethos" doesn't show many entries in standard encyclopedias and dictionaries, is that it isn't used in common English. We speak of Billie the Bard's Ethos, or whatever. But, just like the idea of "One man, one vote!" we have the parallel concept of "One man, one Ethos!" And, therefore, "Many men, many votes", and "Many men, many Ethoi".

There is the argument that Ethos is an irregular (contracted) third declension ancient greek noun, neuter gender. Its nominative and accusative (used as a subject or normal object in the sentence) would be ethe, with a long final e. It sounds eeth-air. This argument is inelegant and we don’t have to adopt the entirety of greek grammar to arrive at an answer.

So when we need to use the plural of "ethos.", use "ethoi." If you want to discuss two or more different groups and compare or contrast the ethosoi of both (or all), that's the word you'd use.

Happy AI space conquering!
 
  • 11
  • 10
  • 2
Reactions:
Speaking of Space Emperor personalities, let’s get this out of the way: The plural of ethos is ethoi, not ethoses.

The standard plural ending for a Greek noun ending in os is oi. Dynatos (a mighty one, a lord, etc) and Dynatoi. Doruphoros (a spear carrier) and Doruphoroi. Akritos (a Byzantine border noble) and Akritoi. Kataphractos (an armored horseman) and Kataphractoi. Psilos (a skirmisher) and Psiloi.

The reason the plural of "ethos" doesn't show many entries in standard encyclopedias and dictionaries, is that it isn't used in common English. We speak of Billie the Bard's Ethos, or whatever. But, just like the idea of "One man, one vote!" we have the parallel concept of "One man, one Ethos!" And, therefore, "Many men, many votes", and "Many men, many Ethoi".

There is the argument that Ethos is an irregular (contracted) third declension ancient greek noun, neuter gender. Its nominative and accusative (used as a subject or normal object in the sentence) would be ethe, with a long final e. It sounds eeth-air. This argument is inelegant and we don’t have to adopt the entirety of greek grammar to arrive at an answer.

So when we need to use the plural of "ethos.", use "ethoi." If you want to discuss two or more different groups and compare or contrast the ethosoi of both (or all), that's the word you'd use.

Happy AI space conquering!

I'll just be lazy and treat a given combination of ethoi as one united ethos with multiple facets, except when discussing a single ethos, in which case I'll also use ethos.

In other words, this post is the last time I'll ever use the word ethoi.
 
  • 12
  • 1
Reactions:
I'll just be lazy and treat a given combination of ethoi as one united ethos with multiple facets, except when discussing a single ethos, in which case I'll also use ethos.

In other words, this post is the last time I'll ever use the word ethoi.

That would be perfectly fine too!
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Speaking of Space Emperor personalities, let’s get this out of the way: The plural of ethos is ethoi, not ethoses.

The standard plural ending for a Greek noun ending in os is oi. Dynatos (a mighty one, a lord, etc) and Dynatoi. Doruphoros (a spear carrier) and Doruphoroi. Akritos (a Byzantine border noble) and Akritoi. Kataphractos (an armored horseman) and Kataphractoi. Psilos (a skirmisher) and Psiloi.

The reason the plural of "ethos" doesn't show many entries in standard encyclopedias and dictionaries, is that it isn't used in common English. We speak of Billie the Bard's Ethos, or whatever. But, just like the idea of "One man, one vote!" we have the parallel concept of "One man, one Ethos!" And, therefore, "Many men, many votes", and "Many men, many Ethoi".

There is the argument that Ethos is an irregular (contracted) third declension ancient greek noun, neuter gender. Its nominative and accusative (used as a subject or normal object in the sentence) would be ethe, with a long final e. It sounds eeth-air. This argument is inelegant and we don’t have to adopt the entirety of greek grammar to arrive at an answer.

So when we need to use the plural of "ethos.", use "ethoi." If you want to discuss two or more different groups and compare or contrast the ethosoi of both (or all), that's the word you'd use.

Happy AI space conquering!

On the other hand, ethos is a fully assimilated English language word and so a standard English pluralization is perfectly fine and actually communicates what you're saying about 700% better.
 
  • 23
  • 3
Reactions:
Speaking of Space Emperor personalities, let’s get this out of the way: The plural of ethos is ethoi, not ethoses.

Greek grammar doesnt necessarily apply to english sentences.

It's not because you use a loan-word from another language that you have to loan the entire grammar associated with it.
 
  • 14
Reactions:
Greek grammar doesnt necessarily apply to english sentences.

It's not because you use a loan-word from another language that you have to loan the entire grammar associated with it.

True, but ethoses does sound... really awkward and wrong.
 
  • 10
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm interested in seeing what you can come up with. Looks like you will avoid the trap of the extremes, like the xenophobic empire that won't ally anybody and just dies from its pride fighting every neighbour. I'm at least rather confident seing what you did with EU AI :)
 
Thanks Wiz for a great DD and lots of info in you replies as well!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Well that pretty much goes against what the FE's are supposed to be. Remnants of once great alien empires with superiour technologie but stagnant and too much stuck in their ways to progress anymore.
Joining alien empires goes very much against that, since their supposed to be against any kind of change. Running around causing havoc for people is just as unlikely for the same reason.
And considering how technologically superiour these races are supposed to be at the start of the game making some of them collectivist like you sugested would most likely make it the number 1 game-winning strategy. Just befriend the FE and roll over every other race with superiour technology. Game won.
Except we've alreeady been told that FE can resurge:
Players should never feel confident in how a Fallen Empire may react to different events in the galaxy. If left alone they might resurge as a reaction to a galaxy-wide threat or become outraged when their most holy planets are colonized by lesser races.
And I didn't say joining I said them becomming empires and potential allies if they are collectivists and like a lesser empire enough (perhaps also requiring that empire to be in enough of a hassel) I mean we can require really high relationships like 500+ or 750+ or something.
And since they are collectivist they may not be happy if you try to use them as battering ram, in fact since they are so powerful they may very well dominate any relationship you have with them. They aren't so much joining you as they are stepping in to save you and then expect you to join them and might be very affronted if you decline.
All I'm saying is that there certainly are pesonalities for FE who are collectivist, and individualists.
 
Last edited:
So the Confederacy of Penkar are essentially UKIP? , okay :) [British politics joke]

Pff, the internet doesn't care about UKIP these days. You should instead say something about them wanting to build a yuuuuuuuuuge wall around Space Mexico.

Except we've alreeady been told that FE can resurge:

And I didn't say joining I said them becomming empires and potential allies if they are collectivists and like a lesser empire enough (perhaps also requiring that empire to be in enough of a hassel) I mean we can require really high relationships like 500+ or 750+ or something.
And since they are collectivist they may not be happy if you try to use them as battering ram, in fact since they are so powerful they may very well dominate any relationship you have with them.
All I'm saying is that there certainly are pesonalities for FE who are collectivist, and individualists.

I don't think Collectivist means wants to make Federations. I guess it's more about the type of social organisation within their empire (i.e. are they the Swarm or the Network?) than about their attitude to other empires (which I guess is more dependent on Xenophile/Xenopobe).
 
  • 11
Reactions:
My opinion of Wiz just hit +1000.

Under the current system, that would mean Wiz just gave you a few million $, a new house, car, arranged a marriage to the most perfect partner for you, and you got a flight next week to visit the International Space Station.
 
  • 10
Reactions: