A Quantitative Look at AI Personalities in 2.1 "Niven"

[RoverStorm]

This is a huge claim that needs a scientific proof.
Especially when there are so many misconceptions about wars and violence in general before the 18th century. Of course if you base your knowledge of history on strategy games you would think so - but historically it's simply false. Most people just want to live their lifes, and states will fight for ressources, not for hegemony. Hegemonist empires are severely overrepresented because they look bigger on maps and because they have more ressources to pass on their legacy. But behind every Roman Empire, there are the countless city-states, tribes, kingdoms and proto-states they conquered. Mathematically, there's necessarily more non-imperialist states than imperialist states in history.

Maybe the term "Imperialist" is what breaks it, but until the past two centuries the most common nation by a long shot was that of a monarchy, with a ruling class who's job was to be the elites of the military. Expansionists, or rather Imperialists, where actually uncommon until Renaissance Europe, but many of these monarchies and especially empires had to insist they had a right to rule over extensive lands or different cultural groups, which is pretty much the exact description of the Hegemonic Imperialist. Once reaching a point where administration became difficult, they usually stopped trying to expand and focused on internal stability, even though their mindsets barely changed.

This doesn't mean I agree with Paradox lumping so many types of nations into one, mind you. I don't think in any universe the Mongols (Barbaric Despoiler) should be lumped in with the Roman Empire (take your pick) and Warhammer 40k's Imperium (Imperial Cult). They should absolutely break them up into more interesting types. I'm just saying WITH the definition as they've described it AND relative to other options, Hegemonic Imperialists are "technically" the most dominate and common nation in history, although yes one can debate how prevailant they really are since history doesn't record minor nations quite as well (history is written by the victors after all).

 

[FleetingRain]

I'll be that one guy and say the joke personalities should appear a lot more.

 

[Tindalosihound]

I like using this mod to give my games a bit more variation in AI personalities.

 

[Savior59]

It would be nice to see Egalitarian-Xenophobe have their own distinct personality, right now they are considered Hegemonic Imperialists.

While it probably wouldn't reduce HI spawn rates by much, it would be a nice band-aid to the over-representation of Hegemonic Imperialists.

 

[methegrate]

I would say we will have to wait for the diplomacy overhaul to happen, so we can have a bigger range of action to make different personalities feel different. Because right now, I don't really see the difference between hegemonic imperialist and slaving despots.

This is pretty spot on. Since the only real options atm are declare war or don't declare war, there's really only the aggressive personalities and the peaceful ones. And aggressive empires are more interesting, since peaceful empires just kind of sit there and wait for someone to declare war on them. The economic and diplomatic overhauls should (hopefully) give a lot more goals an empire can pursue and more options for interaction.

It's also a reason why Stellaris desperately needs more character and a better writer. Empires need something to do and something to want other than just war and peace. Specific goals, things to achieve and ways to achieve them. I mean, is there any difference between a hegemonic imperialist and a slaving despot? Both just attack.

Personalities should have things they want, which means they need things they can want. Pieces of the map that are distinctive. Ways of declaring and fighting a war that make a noticeable difference instead of just being a +5% modifier. Ways of running their empire that actually make it look different from the outside. Projects they can launch that matter, etc.

And they need someone to write their dialogue so that all of this stands out and feels distinct. If someone hates my federation because they think we're just an impure, mongrel rabble, it should come across in every single conversation. Evangelizing zealots should feel implacable. Right now, again, it's either just "I like you" or "I hate you."

 

[TheDarkMaster]

• A personality for FanAuth+Mil/Phobe
• A personality for FanPhobe+Mil/Auth
• A personality for FanMil+Auth/Phobe
• A personality for Mil+Auth+Phobe
• Barbaric Despoilers gives +1000 weight for Slaving Despots

Might be a little excessive, but let's see if I can come up with a few ideas for some alternative imperialists flavored around specific ethos.

• Aristocratic Competitors (Authoritarian and either imperial authority or aristocratic civic): Conquest minded empire similar to imperialists, but respect other aristocratic empires as peers. Hate democracies and usually target the rabble first.
• Racial Supremacists (Xenophobe and either militarist or egalitarian): The lesser cousin of purifiers. These guys see aliens as lesser or weak, fit only to be their subjects or slaves. Though they don't mind machine empires quite so much.
• Galactic Guardians (militarist and xenophile): They see their role as guardians and protectors of other empires. While not overtly aggressive on their own, they respond quite violently towards anyone else who starts wars and will aggressively fight against general threats like purifiers, exterminators, and devourers. They don't conquer or join federations, instead preferring to subjugate and extend their protection over others. They also don't like other Galactic Guardians, they want to be top dog.
• Callous Colonialists (Materialist and either Authoritarian or militarist): Taking ruthless capitalists in the imperialist direction, these guys are after economic supremacy in their neck of the woods, aggressively looking to take all the best worlds for themselves and forcing materialist colonialism on the rest. Others with subjects and especially those wise technological leaders are viewed as respected rivals rather than savages to be subjugated.

 

[Turnil]

Tier 4: Rare

Ruthless Capitalists
Peaceful Traders

I think these will move to uncommon/common with the megacorp's expansion.

 

[klingonadmiral]

I think these will move to uncommon/common with the megacorp's expansion.

Yes, I'm pretty sure as well that this will happen. Being authority-locked is way more lenient than being authority-dependent civic locked.

Anyway, once I run my 2.2 analysis (probably in late Jan/early Feb once the hype cycle starts anew) we will know.

 

[Shermanator]

Good job on the investigation.

I absolutely agree we need "aggressive/unfriendly" materialist personality. Erodite Explores is indeed to undefined, they should be your normally friendly, nonaggressive variant. It's honestly seemed weird to me sense launch that spiritualist have a friendly/unfriendly varients while materialist just get one.

It's a shame migratory flocks don't appear more, they are really fun and interesting empires. To a lessor extent, I feel the same way about decadent higherarchies. The most memorable AI empire in my current game is a decadent higharchy of slug people who just make the perfect noise for a higharchy of friendly decadent slave owning hedonist.

Also, I hope that in 2.2 peaceful traders and ruthless capitalist won't be the only megacorp personalities. At the very least I think that crime syndicates and megachurches should get their own.

It would also be fun if shared burdens got its own socialist personality type.

 

[Turnil]

Yes, I'm pretty sure as well that this will happen. Being authority-locked is way more lenient than being authority-dependent civic locked.

Anyway, once I run my 2.2 analysis (probably in late Jan/early Feb once the hype cycle starts anew) we will know.

Decadent Hierarchies might also become more common now there are 2 slavery civics (slave guilds/indentured servitude)

 

[Gaen]

This is pretty spot on. Since the only real options atm are declare war or don't declare war, there's really only the aggressive personalities and the peaceful ones. And aggressive empires are more interesting, since peaceful empires just kind of sit there and wait for someone to declare war on them. The economic and diplomatic overhauls should (hopefully) give a lot more goals an empire can pursue and more options for interaction.

Not exactly, it also determination the AIs willingness to accept different kinds of treaties.

 

[methegrate]

Not exactly, it also determination the AIs willingness to accept different kinds of treaties.

Well... sure, but that's still pretty much either war or not war. A diplomatic overhaul can give you lots of different types of options that will make that meaningful. Just at the moment the only diplomacy that matters is whether you're at peace or at war.

 

[Gaen]

Well... sure, but that's still pretty much either war or not war. A diplomatic overhaul can give you lots of different types of options that will make that meaningful. Just at the moment the only diplomacy that matters is whether you're at peace or at war.

If you yourself are all about war sure, otherwise whether your neighbours are isolationist or open are important part of your strategy. Have more then once been saved by a friendly advanced start from an aggressive one. And prioritizing picking on isolationist as they wont start getting them self alise as another example. Its not much but its still there even now not to say that it will hopefully be more involved in the future. Not to mention migration treats to help fill up words you starter spices dont want to if you dont have any easy targets of the right kind for conquering at the moment.

 

[Jin_Cardassian]

My guess is that they’re planning a big overhaul on the personalities, and don’t want to add more until they have done so. No point in adding more if they’re going to be rebuilding personalities from the ground up.

Alternatively, they don’t want to do much work on personalities until they finishing reworking all the ‘base’ mechanics, like warfare, economics, diplomacy. Better to make the necessary changes to those, then begin adding personalities that work with all the new widgets you’ve added/revised.

Personalities aren't primarily a mechanics issue though, they're a narrative one. Martin and the other devs have said that the reason they exist is to provide clear and identifiable personalities. They don't need to know what the final mechanics will be to create them, any more than Federation Builders had to wait for a better diplomacy system.

They'd have to convert everything when the general mechanics change, but for a temporary band-aid they can just tweak the existing modifiers as placeholders. Bit more border friction here, a bit less combat bravery there, about more or less willing to make non-aggression pacts or sign migration treaties etc. That's pretty much what the modders have done.

So the only commitment they'd have to make is in what types of personalities they think are interesting from a story persptective, that Hegemonic Imperialists doesn't do justice to. I agree with the above listing, more or less.

Might be a little excessive, but let's see if I can come up with a few ideas for some alternative imperialists flavored around specific ethos.

• Aristocratic Competitors (Authoritarian and either imperial authority or aristocratic civic): Conquest minded empire similar to imperialists, but respect other aristocratic empires as peers. Hate democracies and usually target the rabble first.
• Racial Supremacists (Xenophobe and either militarist or egalitarian): The lesser cousin of purifiers. These guys see aliens as lesser or weak, fit only to be their subjects or slaves. Though they don't mind machine empires quite so much.
• Galactic Guardians (militarist and xenophile): They see their role as guardians and protectors of other empires. While not overtly aggressive on their own, they respond quite violently towards anyone else who starts wars and will aggressively fight against general threats like purifiers, exterminators, and devourers. They don't conquer or join federations, instead preferring to subjugate and extend their protection over others. They also don't like other Galactic Guardians, they want to be top dog.
• Callous Colonialists (Materialist and either Authoritarian or militarist): Taking ruthless capitalists in the imperialist direction, these guys are after economic supremacy in their neck of the woods, aggressively looking to take all the best worlds for themselves and forcing materialist colonialism on the rest. Others with subjects and especially those wise technological leaders are viewed as respected rivals rather than savages to be subjugated.

EDIT: Some caveats. Callous Colonialists could be better named "Calculating Colonialists" to emphasize the Materialism and hedge away from a truly heartless approach toward conquered aliens, which suggests Xenophobe. Galactic Guardians will cut into Honorbound Warriors a bit depending on weighting, but not too much.

 

[Diettinger]

IIRC the devs said that people didn't like pacifist empires as much because they were too boring, so the game has a *slight* bias in favor of more aggressive empires, which would explain the overrepresentation of the imperialists.

That simply means that the passivist personalities need to be made much more interesting. I remember reading two stories like that. One, the Conquerors, was about a first contact with a very peaceful nation called the conquerors... who turned out to have chosen to be peaceful because they were incredibly effective warriors and had chosen peace to save their civilization. When you break their trust and try anything hostile, however...
The second was about a first contact with another peaceful nation and when they tried hostilities that nation simply threw their ships across the galaxy and told them to take time to mature...

Both would be fun little peaceful adds.

 

[Jin_Cardassian]

That simply means that the passivist personalities need to be made much more interesting.

I'm hopeful that the focus on bellicose personalities is just a placeholder until they do a diplomacy update. Then they can adjust the spawn weights.

The key is to actually make diplomacy more interesting, and not just the same perfunctory click-button fest with more complicated modifiers.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

I'm hopeful that the focus on bellicose personalities is just a placeholder until they do a diplomacy update. Then they can adjust the spawn weights.

The key is to actually make diplomacy more interesting, and not just the same perfunctory click-button fest with more complicated modifiers.

Indeed, if there was ways to break up federations or otherwise get opportunistic wars of expansion that no one else will interfere with, then you wouldn't need the majority of the galaxy to be belligerents. A big diplomacy and espionage update is something the game desperately needs. The reduced pacifist and increased militarism is simply a stop gap measure that's been in the game for way too long now.

 

[Jin_Cardassian]

Indeed, if there was ways to break up federations or otherwise get opportunistic wars of expansion that no one else will interfere with, then you wouldn't need the majority of the galaxy to be belligerents. A big diplomacy and espionage update is something the game desperately needs. The reduced pacifist and increased militarism is simply a stop gap measure that's been in the game for way too long now.

Very true, but I don't just mean that. I mean ways to actually force other empires to change their policies or statuses through negotiation alone. Like forcing the stronger attacker in a war to make peace, or demanding a system and winning purely through negotiation. If war is a hard block, and negotiation a soft block, then it's always going to come back to war or preparing for war in the end. In that case you might as well just focus on war directly. That's why I think negotiations shouldn't just be an instant click-button affair, but more like a social combat system that takes time to resolve.