Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Dev Diary #10: The NPC Factions and PvE Diplomacy

  • 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.
Complex branching quests we have reserved for the campaign in the past, because there is no way for AI to properly complete them. How would you feel about having AIs not engaging in the more complex quest types for non-campaign maps?


Obviously, I'd like the AI to do them too, but in other games where quests exist, the AI ignores them. They seem to be primarily a tool to guide the single-player experience and/or provide some competition in mp.

It was soon clear that there is way more work involved in this that you might think, edge-cases due to timing and balance concerns especially for the AI.

Yeah AI issues are always going to be a problem.

It's worth exploring to see if quests make the game more fun, as that's the priority imho.
 
There's mention of AI players as well as dwellings being able to 'claim' territory near them...

Would it be possible for the player to do something similar? It would be an effective means of establishing to other factions (and to your own populace for casus belli purposes) which currently unoccupied regions you consider to be 'yours', and which you're fine with someone else grabbing.

(Two or more polities claiming a single region could even be possible to form a 'neutral zone' if none of the parties are willing to break each other's claims.)

Please no "destroy this Watchtower" type thing where you have to destroy a structure that is way off in the distance and potentially useful to you and causes no issues to the NPC-s. It is a quest I always refuse, regardless of rewards.
But how else are they going to get rid of that monstrosity that someone built without a permit in just the right spot to block their morning sun?
 
There's mention of AI players as well as dwellings being able to 'claim' territory near them...

Would it be possible for the player to do something similar? It would be an effective means of establishing to other factions (and to your own populace for casus belli purposes) which currently unoccupied regions you consider to be 'yours', and which you're fine with someone else grabbing.

Players automatically lay claim to sectors next to their borders. Settling in it, gives a casus belli unless you have treaties. You can extend claims by building forward bases.
 
Players automatically lay claim to sectors next to their borders. Settling in it, gives a casus belli unless you have treaties. You can extend claims by building forward bases.
Is the CB indefinite? ie "I declare war on you and the war is just because you expanded your town domain near my town a hundred turns ago... some may have forgotten, but I have not forgiven!". If so, does the CB become invalidated if the reason for the claim (ie whatever is causing the border) is no longer there (border shrinks since someone captures/destroys it)?

If a town is destroyed, removing a claim from a sector, then the sector is taken by another player (expanding his borders), then the town is rebuilt... would rebuilding one's own town give CB to the opposing player?
 
Players automatically lay claim to sectors next to their borders. Settling in it, gives a casus belli unless you have treaties. You can extend claims by building forward bases.

Does the forward base give a claim on the sectors that border the forward base sector as well, or just the one sector? Is establishing a forward base different than (or necessary for) settling a sector like the AoW3 forts vs outposts?
 
Thanks for all the suggestions. Yes its not easy to design quests that are easy to implement, and always fun / sensible to execute for a player.

Complex branching quests we have reserved for the campaign in the past, because there is no way for AI to properly complete them. How would you feel about having AIs not engaging in the more complex quest types for non-campaign maps?

My biggest concern with AI not able to complete a section of quests is that they may have a ridiculous advantage or handicap towards relations with NPCs. If for example the player gets hit with a few in a row that makes them easy best friends or enemies with many, it may seem like the AI has an unfair advantage or is incapable of competing with NPC alighnment.
 
My biggest concern with AI not able to complete a section of quests is that they may have a ridiculous advantage or handicap towards relations with NPCs. If for example the player gets hit with a few in a row that makes them easy best friends or enemies with many, it may seem like the AI has an unfair advantage or is incapable of competing with NPC alighnment.

This is the point where the AI cheats (or cheats more than average) and gains rep with minor factions as if they were completing quests somewhat efficiently. Since competing quests is going to be inward facing and doesn't leave evidence in the game state that they happened or didn't happen, cheating on quests is a win win-the devs can be more creative with quests and have latitude to adjust the ai more without in your face cheating like large production bonuses.
 
We played around with having multiple variants of a single faction on a planet and decided not to do it for the reason you mention. This way your actions against individual stacks have bigger consequences and its less confusing to the player. If we do make variants of a faction they'd be planet-wide.
I like everything here so far, except this. Do I understand correctly that there can be only one settlement of each of the NPC´s on a map. This seems a bit limiting, especially for large maps. It will also mean that, most likely, you will find each of the NPC factions on every large map. I would rather have the possibility to encounter the same NPC faction on different locations on the map, whether they are linked (cooperating with eachother) or not.

As for quests:
- Build x building in our domain (assuming it is possible to build things). Whatever it is you have built you might be able to reap the benefits of it once you´ve annexed the faction.
- Find and retrieve item at x location. When you find the item (weapon/shield/whatever), you can decide to keep it but that might decrease your relation, while delivering it to the right recipient will complete the quest.
- Train our recruits. Fight a stack of friendlies for x rounds without suffering any casualties on either side.
 
Here's a thought-it would be cool if NPCs could become full AI Players somehow during game play. Like if they got enough resources or units or something. They could organically grow into additional opponents.

You wouldn't want that happening too often, but once or twice a game would be cool.
 
Can we have some quests that force us to decide if we help NPC X or Y, which will reduce relations with NPC Y or X?
AoW3 had some where units of a different dwelling were causing trouble, but you didn't upset that race by killing them. It seems a bit weird.
 
I like everything here so far, except this. Do I understand correctly that there can be only one settlement of each of the NPC´s on a map. This seems a bit limiting, especially for large maps. It will also mean that, most likely, you will find each of the NPC factions on every large map. I would rather have the possibility to encounter the same NPC faction on different locations on the map, whether they are linked (cooperating with eachother) or not.

No, from what I got from it, it means that making war with one Growth Dwelling gets you in a war with all of them.
 
Here's a thought-it would be cool if NPCs could become full AI Players somehow during game play. Like if they got enough resources or units or something. They could organically grow into additional opponents.
The criterium could be even simpler - once they have X dwellings, they become a major power. Could be turned off/adjusted in game settings. I'd love that.

No, from what I got from it, it means that making war with one Growth Dwelling gets you in a war with all of them.
I understood it like this as well - no matter how many dwellings (>0) there are no matter how far apart, it is a single faction that you are negotiating with. War with one is war with all. Quest with one is quest with all. You do not talk to a specific dwelling, you talk to the species.
 
Do I understand correctly that there can be only one settlement of each of the NPC´s on a map.

There are multiple dwellings for each NPC faction on a planet, but maps size + #players is a factor. (median=3 dwellings for a 6 player map). Not all NPC types exist together on a normal planet. These dwellings are subject to the same relation with the player but dwellings can acquired individually. If you build up a good relation with a faction in one area of the world, that relation will benefit you on a new continent for example, so you can get a quick foothold. This shared relation is why we have stopped using the name "independents" for them.

A NPC Faction has the following map entities associated with them:
- Dwellings: usually multiple per map, claims sectors. Strongly defended.
- (Forward) Bases: usually multiple are scattered around a dwelling, not necessarily attached. Similar to Brigand spawners when hostile. Claim sectors.
- Individual Structure Guards (scattered around the map, guarding resources nodes, pickups)
- Patrols: Guard territory around dwellings
- Raiding Armies: Attack enemy territory; originate from dwellings or bases.
- Boss Armies: high level raiding armies
- Then the RMG associates particular assets with them, like Growth having particular tentacle tiles and places particular resources and Hazards near them based on their theme.

NPC factions have a noisy clustering; meaning a Dwelling + Bases + Resource Guards don't sit in a clumped ball on a map, but territory has holes and mixes with other NPC factions.

Does the forward base give a claim on the sectors that border the forward base sector as well, or just the one sector? Is establishing a forward base different than (or necessary for) settling a sector like the AoW3 forts vs outposts?

In current builds forward bases project sector claims around them. But this is subject to balance and RMG density adjustments.
 
- Individual Structure Guards (scattered around the map, guarding resources nodes, pickups)

How do these work? Do they cause you to lose relationship for taking out guards in random locations? Will they yield to you if you have high relationship?
 
Here's a thought-it would be cool if NPCs could become full AI Players somehow during game play. Like if they got enough resources or units or something. They could organically grow into additional opponents.

You wouldn't want that happening too often, but once or twice a game would be cool.
Maybe as expansion material. Reminds me of how Primatives can become or made to be full players in Stellaris and recently conquered worlds can revolt to create new empires.
 
Here's a thought-it would be cool if NPCs could become full AI Players somehow during game play. Like if they got enough resources or units or something. They could organically grow into additional opponents.

You wouldn't want that happening too often, but once or twice a game would be cool.

This would be cool but, but a tremendous amount of work :) NPC Factions have a radically different role and faction template. No Leader assets, no racial tech tree, different types of diplomatic structure, etc.

We need them as NPCs for a particular tole in the end game + they are pretty strong in their own right.
 
But this is subject to balance and RMG density adjustments.

I fee like almost all of your posts should have this as a disclaimer :D

Have you figured out how alliances interact with forward bases/sector claims? Can you let an ally lay claim to a sector you have claimed with a forward base, or can you just give them claim to a sector? Similar to trading cities, forts and resource building from AoW.