A. I. war aims.

[Hunter Wesley]

In the games of this series we may often observe that the AI declares war with rather aimless behaviour. It does this typically because of poor relations, and the AI's perception that you deserve to be attacked (BB) and you are weak enough as prey (AI aggressiveness). Any of your bordering provinces are the most vulnerable, followed by other national provinces of that enemy, trade centers, et cetera. This is the most coherent war EUII can give.

More often though, declarations of war are distributed and inconsistency reigns. Fierce attacks on a province are followed by "apathy" (armies sitting around) and no consideration towards your armies.

Let's not even get in to alliance members first deciding they won't join in a war, then rejoining the alliance. They have to decide whether they will be at war with this country, learning of it if they did not know before, and maintain this position until the end of that war unless a special event dictates otherwise. After the war is over, perhaps they can rejoin the alliance, but they are (typically) hardly providing assistance (material, but in EUII it's chiefly military access to the alliance enemies) when they engage in wars they have no business in.

Thus the EUIII AI should decide what it is doing when it declares war. Does it want these provinces (not just "All national cores" or nothing)? If it's casus belli is religious, does it seek a conversion? Ducats? Does it want to grab correct religion or culture provinces? Just round out its realm (for the record, I think the AI does attempt to link marooned provinces in peace deals)?

Can there be such a thing as greed with the AI? I don't think so, else it's war would become incoherent whereas a human knows what is going on.

Now, in EUII's defense, the manual declares that your "peers" may want to be at war with you because they view you as dangerous and want to keep you occupied. This is fine, but it has to make sense. It would be nice if the enemy could demand the release of vassals in peace deals.

Please comment

 

[Elmokki]

Exactly.

This would also make more sense. If France declares a war on Austria because it wants Flandern, it should be it's main aim. If Austria defends Flandern very well, and France can't conquer it, but on the other front France could march all the way to Vienna then France should ask to get Flandern, and not 1) primarily ask for random german provinces on the border which it actually has occupied and 2) accept the first decent peace offer player/other AI gives which includes only those german provinces the AI isn't set to want that much.

I really believe that a completely beaten Austria would give up Flandern even if it isn't occupied by the French anyway.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

Exactly.

This would also make more sense. If France declares a war on Austria because it wants Flandern, it should be it's main aim. If Austria defends Flandern very well, and France can't conquer it, but on the other front France could march all the way to Vienna then France should ask to get Flandern, and not 1) primarily ask for random german provinces on the border which it actually has occupied and 2) accept the first decent peace offer player/other AI gives which includes only those german provinces the AI isn't set to want that much.

I really believe that a completely beaten Austria would give up Flandern even if it isn't occupied by the French anyway.

Very good point. I have to agree there

I know if I was playing Austria and that dastardly Marshal Tallard captured Vienna, I'd give up Flanders, but five or ten years later take it back after capturing Paris, Orléans and Tours - muahahahahaha

 

[Elmokki]

As a bonus this'd eliminate or atleast reduce the chance of Spain joining to assist it's ally Austria against Sweden and ending up owning Narvik or other low-value Swedish (or Norwegian to be exact, but owned by Sweden) province it doesn't have any use for just because it occupied it and their alliance got a lot of war score.

In this case Spain's goal would probably be to assist it's ally Austria in her goals, and if possible maybe release vassals, get a more favourable leadership for Sweden (= making them a vassal?), convert Sweden to catholicism or something. Definately not getting Narvik unless Spain for some very strange reason needs a naval base up there. Of course Spain could still conquer a "New Sweden" suited in the Carribean if it had the chance, but Narvik, I mean, why would Spain in 99% of the cases want a rather low income low manpower province with wrong culture and religion and far away with a little tactical advantange.

 

[th3freakie]

I agree that this is a rather important AI issue for the flavour of the game - and I did a thread about this awhile ago, asking for "wars with a point", were the DoWers would have to declare their intentions when starting the war, and the prestige/VP and BB they got from said war would depend from the acordance of the peace with these goals. Get less then wanted, you get less prestige then possible - get more then stated and you get much more BB then normal.

Of course, though... we have to realise we're asking for a AI that borders on human reasoning... so don't count on it.

 

[DSMyers1]

I agree that this is a rather important AI issue for the flavour of the game - and I did a thread about this awhile ago, asking for "wars with a point", were the DoWers would have to declare their intentions when starting the war, and the prestige/VP and BB they got from said war would depend from the acordance of the peace with these goals. Get less then wanted, you get less prestige then possible - get more then stated and you get much more BB then normal.

Of course, though... we have to realise we're asking for a AI that borders on human reasoning... so don't count on it.

This idea of wars with a purpose makes excellent sense. The AI should choose at the beginning of the war what the aim was, and it should be declared. Then, it should be possible to have the AI prosecute a more effective war since the goal is stated and known.

The whole idea of stating the purpose sounds very logical. Of course, an option should be there to start a war and not declare the objective, which should get you badboy. Under that option, there are no modifications to the warscore of provinces or the badboy or prestige associated. However, if you declare the objectives, those objectives should be reduced in warscore cost, and the badboy reduced for taking them. Further: annexation should only be possible if it is the stated objective. And surrounding nations should get CB during the war of annexation. Wow! That system sounds very promising. It would help the AI determine if the human was being greedy, and act accordingly.

 

[unmerged(58575)]

All of the AIs aims should be set as WC then you would get one hell of a game to control.

 

[Elmokki]

All of the AIs aims should be set as WC then you would get one hell of a game to control.

I really want to play that kind of mod atleast once as England or some other country which is relatively defendable

 

[unmerged(37697)]

I really want to play that kind of mod atleast once as England or some other country which is relatively defendable

Relatively? Good sir, we have been invaded but once

This idea of wars with a purpose makes excellent sense. The AI should choose at the beginning of the war what the aim was, and it should be declared. Then, it should be possible to have the AI prosecute a more effective war since the goal is stated and known.

The whole idea of stating the purpose sounds very logical. Of course, an option should be there to start a war and not declare the objective, which should get you badboy. Under that option, there are no modifications to the warscore of provinces or the badboy or prestige associated. However, if you declare the objectives, those objectives should be reduced in warscore cost, and the badboy reduced for taking them. Further: annexation should only be possible if it is the stated objective. And surrounding nations should get CB during the war of annexation. Wow! That system sounds very promising. It would help the AI determine if the human was being greedy, and act accordingly.

A fantastic idea! I love the idea of annexation only being possible if it is the objective of a war; thus minors may be annexed with comparative ease, whereas great powers can be annexed but only at the expense of huge drops in prestige and relations with neighbouring countries; as well as an equally large surge in BB.

This way, should France set out to annex Spain (and more importantly, make her ambition to annex Spain known to the world), a Europe-wide coalition would be formed to maintain the balance of power

 

[Verenti]

All of the AIs aims should be set as WC then you would get one hell of a game to control.

Then the Napoleonic Wars WOULD be in the game! (Please don't smite meeeeee!)

I like the ideas presented in this topic a lot...
...but, sadly, my endorsement means absolutely nothing

edit: England has been invaded successfully twice. The Roman Invasion and 1066.

 

[Bismark776]

I think this is a good idea but it shouldn't be restricted to the AI. The player should have to set specific aims when starting or joining a war. If they take more than their aims then the consequences become far worse, unless the defending nation is obviously defeated and continues to refuse the offer restricted to the aims, then an expansion should be permitted in lieu of the circumstances. This would help hem in the players to expanding at the same rate as the AI more or less.

 

[DSMyers1]

I think this is a good idea but it shouldn't be restricted to the AI. The player should have to set specific aims when starting or joining a war. If they take more than their aims then the consequences become far worse, unless the defending nation is obviously defeated and continues to refuse the offer restricted to the aims, then an expansion should be permitted in lieu of the circumstances. This would help hem in the players to expanding at the same rate as the AI more or less.

Yes, this is exactly what I was saying. The player would have to declare their specific aims and adhere to them, or face penalties. In addition, there could be certain types of aims available only on certain conditions: like a war bent on "humbling" a nation that had high BB. Then, the objectives could be different: the attacking nation, for example, could be fighting for a prestige gain or something.

 

[FredricBastiat]

Unfortunatly, a good AI is one of easist things to ask for, and one of the hardest to do. I can see the value of declaring aims, but they should be somewhat flexible. If the AI can't get enough warscore to conquer that 40% Cot prov it wanted but can get 20% it should take a lesser prov rather than wear itself out in constant warring. Also goals should have nothing to do with military movements. The last thing we need is for teh AI to pick one prov to attack and tell us which one it is.

 

[Elmokki]

Unfortunatly, a good AI is one of easist things to ask for, and one of the hardest to do. I can see the value of declaring aims, but they should be somewhat flexible. If the AI can't get enough warscore to conquer that 40% Cot prov it wanted but can get 20% it should take a lesser prov rather than wear itself out in constant warring. Also goals should have nothing to do with military movements. The last thing we need is for teh AI to pick one prov to attack and tell us which one it is.

Well, of course if AI is winning the war but still it's goal seems unachievable it should accept lesser goals

 

[Rotten Venetic]

The AI is hard to do, but making it more intent on its goals and more flexible about fighting doesn't seem the hardest thing to do about it. There could be a part of the AI file which states what this AI wants without any decision-making involved per se.

If it wants to conquer anything in sight, it will attack its neighbors aggressively but cautiously (at least until it's a big fat blob with good stability) and aim for what is near its existing territory (bordering provinces); everything else would be secondary. They'd also try to consolidate relations with far-away countries, go with narrowminded, offensive and serfdom, and try to convert bad religion provinces.

If it wants to conquer a specific province, or a number of specific provinces, because it is important to them to have this land (see free Netherlands eyeing Spanish Netherlands in the late 1500s until they finally got them) they will make enemies of the country(es) which has them and fight them for this land. They will make friends with countries that have low relations with their victim.

If it wants to isolate and internalize, it will go defensive and centralized, will upgrade forts and try to be on good terms with powerful neighbors. It will only invade weaker neighbors, aim for the capital and then for vassalage, to create a buffer. It will break alliance easier than other AIs.

If we have a colonizer and/or island nation, its main priority will be to invest in a big and effective navy. This nation will be much like the warmonger who wants to conquer everything in relation to nations in Africa, Indonesia, Indochina and the Americas (minus the continent it is on, if it's not European). It will not favour war in its mainland. If it has neighbors to said mainland it will try to keep friendly with them or help a third party crush them with resources (less with armies).

A small, quality-driven nation which still has a fighting chance against such enemies as France will wait, and wait, and wait. It will be defensive and on full quality; it will protect itself with forts etc. It will not need centralization but it will trade more intently. Its main focus of attention will be vulnerable centers of trade and very rich provinces. Once it spots the faulty defense, it moves in and takes it. There is no real, historical example of a country actually pulling this off. Usually, taking the victim's capital and the desired province would be enough until the victim proves resistant. If so, our small nation looking for a CoT would aim at the victim's grain provinces, to hinder its resistance to the fullest. They will also want money in a peace treaty and may go to war on a weak country even just for money. In which case they just take enough provinces and battles to make their point and empty the victim's treasury.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Well, of course if AI is winning the war but still it's goal seems unachievable it should accept lesser goals

It should also realize when to cut it's losses. The AI for EU2 will not accept peace from a human if offered unless the terms are very benificial, but turn around 2 days later and offer better trems.

The AI should be bale to check and see if the terms listed are equal to or less than the terms they'd demand and if so, accept them.

 

[unmerged(31587)]

A long time ago in a EU3 wish list thread, I said this very thing. The AI in EU2 just seems to attack and fight aimlessly without any specific goals. And with the alliance system, siege stealing mechanics and war score system, you then end up with nations controlling various odd provinces that are a complete nonsense and that is why I have stopped playing EU2 because the game simply degenerates into rubbish due to the game mechanics being this way.

A "mission" or "goal" based system would make much more sense. A nation would have certain war aims or goals. It would go on an offensive war to achieve these goals and only these goals. No more siege stealing. No more obtaining random provinces. No more random wars. I don't think that a goal or mission system would be that hard to implement. Each nation would simply have a list of specific goals. These could be triggered by event and a nation fights to achieve that goal when the time is right and its war score in an appropriate war is high enough to achieve it.

Thus during any war, it is not random but specific goals are set as possible outcomes of the war. That eliminates random pointless wars, eliminates siege stealing, Ottoman Empire conquering parts of Finland, etc. A mission-based system is desperately needed to make the game and the nations being simulated actually feel like they are real-life nations.

 

[Bismark776]

And these goals should always be demandable during the war no matter what anyone controls. Even if the attacking nation has lost all of its own provinces and conquered none it should be allowed to demand the goal provinces. This way the attackers strategy in the war needs to have nothing to with with capturing the known goals, it simply needs to convince the defending nation that it cannot keep those goals from the attacker.

 

[unmerged(19042)]

I really like the idea of war aims, and perhaps there should be more than one. Assume for example an alliance of Spain/ Austria/ Bavaria.

In a war with Prussia, Austria would have:
Offensive aims: 1. Conquer Magdeburg, 2. Convert Prussia, 2. Take Danzig.
3 aims to go for and of decreasing importance.
Defensive aims: 1. Protect Silesia and any other Prussian cores. 2. Protect rich provinces like Vienna and Bohemia. 3. Maintain Bavarian integrity.

Spain Offensive: 1. Get cash. 2.no territorial expansion - they are far away from 3. Convert Prussia.
Spain Defensive: 1. Austrian territories. 2. Bavarian territories. 3.???
This would be like in MP where players help take care of rebels perhaps?


In a war with France it could be:
Austria Offensive: 1. Take Artois (or soem core). 2. Take Alsace. 3. Expand in Italy.
Austria Defensive: 1. Keep Lombardy. 2. Keep Tyrol.

Spain Offensive: 1. Take French Caribbean. 2. Take Rousillon. 3. Get trade agreement.
Spain Defensive: 1. Keep Navarre. 2. Hang on to Carribean islands.

Likewise France could have:
France Offensive: 1. Take Flanders. 2. Take Lombardy. 3. Expand in the Carribbean.
France Defensive: 1. Keep Rousillon. 2. Keep Artois. 3. Keep the Carribbean colonies.

The other side shouldnt see your aims and waltzing off to the enemies interrior, grabbing provinces should come with heavy attrition.

 

[Rotten Venetic]

Also it would seem passer by was the last here to post on-topic; he proposed a simplified system of war aims:

I really like the idea of war aims, and perhaps there should be more than one. Assume for example an alliance of Spain/ Austria/ Bavaria.

In a war with Prussia, Austria would have:
Offensive aims: 1. Conquer Magdeburg, 2. Convert Prussia, 2. Take Danzig.
3 aims to go for and of decreasing importance.
Defensive aims: 1. Protect Silesia and any other Prussian cores. 2. Protect rich provinces like Vienna and Bohemia. 3. Maintain Bavarian integrity.

Spain Offensive: 1. Get cash. 2.no territorial expansion - they are far away from 3. Convert Prussia.
Spain Defensive: 1. Austrian territories. 2. Bavarian territories. 3.???
This would be like in MP where players help take care of rebels perhaps?


In a war with France it could be:
Austria Offensive: 1. Take Artois (or soem core). 2. Take Alsace. 3. Expand in Italy.
Austria Defensive: 1. Keep Lombardy. 2. Keep Tyrol.

Spain Offensive: 1. Take French Caribbean. 2. Take Rousillon. 3. Get trade agreement.
Spain Defensive: 1. Keep Navarre. 2. Hang on to Carribean islands.

Likewise France could have:
France Offensive: 1. Take Flanders. 2. Take Lombardy. 3. Expand in the Carribbean.
France Defensive: 1. Keep Rousillon. 2. Keep Artois. 3. Keep the Carribbean colonies.

The other side shouldnt see your aims and waltzing off to the enemies interrior, grabbing provinces should come with heavy attrition.

This isn't a bad idea, but it has its deficits. You'd have to assess war aims relating to both the attacker and the defender, making things that much more complicated.

Defensive war aims should be regardless of who's defending and who's attacking, as follows:

*We will NEVER let them take our capital if we can hinder it.
*We will try to break the enemy's sieges.
*We will try to destroy small reinforcing armies that come to aid the enemy.
*We will try to protect our centers of trade, gold mines and richer provinces.
*We will pay more attention to provinces with low fortifications.
*We will try to seize the initiative.
*We will consolidate our defense in mountainous, forested or marshy regions, co-ordinating our rezistence from there. Thus, we will always have a garrison in these provinces and this means we will also launch many attacks from them.
*We will use cavalry in flatlands and deserts (applies to all offensive as well).
*We will use the enemy's attrition for being in our lands. Especially during the winter months.
*Until we are in a position to counter-attack, we will protect our shorelines with navies.
*We will protect our allies if we can and need to (i.e. they're getting pummeled).
*We will preferrably stay in larger clumps, denying the enemy the possibility to destroy our reinforcements.
*We will try stop enemy incursions of looting.