AI-controlled nations and ahistorical potentials

[OHgamer]

Question for everyone

To what degree should the AI-controlled nations be able to be ahistorical? Never mind the question of player ahistorical behavior, that is a given we all like to do the what-if type of game. But should the AI itself have the potential to act in an ahistorical manner? If yes, how ahistorical should that potential be? If no, then should AI-controlled nations be able to respond to human ahistorical behavior with ahistorical responses?

One of the great complaints I recall from Victoria is that in colonization of Africa and the South Pacific, nations like Russia and the USA, under AI control, were colonizing heavily. Now, the AI-controlled nations met all the conditions needed to be able to start colonization, but there was a huge outcry because Russia and the USA were not historical colonizers of Africa and were colonizing Africa in almost every game. Would it have been fine if AI USA or AI Russia had colonized in Africa say once every 20 games? Once every 50 games? Or should neither be colonizing Africa if they are AI controlled?

As a lead developer for VIP I have a lot of interest in this, and I would wager that the response might be of interest to those developing EU3 as well.

 

[joriandrake]

Question for everyone

To what degree should the AI-controlled nations be able to be ahistorical? Never mind the question of player ahistorical behavior, that is a given we all like to do the what-if type of game. But should the AI itself have the potential to act in an ahistorical manner? If yes, how ahistorical should that potential be? If no, then should AI-controlled nations be able to respond to human ahistorical behavior with ahistorical responses?

One of the great complaints I recall from Victoria is that in colonization of Africa and the South Pacific, nations like Russia and the USA, under AI control, were colonizing heavily. Now, the AI-controlled nations met all the conditions needed to be able to start colonization, but there was a huge outcry because Russia and the USA were not historical colonizers of Africa and were colonizing Africa in almost every game. Would it have been fine if AI USA or AI Russia had colonized in Africa say once every 20 games? Once every 50 games? Or should neither be colonizing Africa if they are AI controlled?

As a lead developer for VIP I have a lot of interest in this, and I would wager that the response might be of interest to those developing EU3 as well.

I want the option for gamers at the begin of a game to choose if they want the NPC-s to be ahistoric, or not.
I like to be ahistoric, but ONLY ME, and not the other Nations.

 

[Hive]

I'd like to see something in the middle of EU2 and Victoria; nations shouldn't keep doing only what they historically did, as they for large parts do in EU2 (even when it doesn't make sense) - but I don't wish to see England colonise Mexico in 8/10 games, either.

It's a balance.

 

[unmerged(15947)]

I want the option for gamers at the begin of a game to choose if they want the NPC-s to be ahistoric, or not.
I like to be ahistoric, but ONLY ME, and not the other Nations.

I'd like that option, to make AI always historic, or a mix of depending on percentages, or always ahistoric.

Making them always historic would be neat for Hands off games imo.

 

[hjarg]

Too historic AI makes the game a bit too boring. Only thing that is doing something differently is you and that ain't no fun, mister.
I'd like to see AI go off it's own agenda sometimes. Not that i'd want to see Poland discovering America in every game, but it would be fun once in a while...

Make 'em act mostly historical, but only as a suggestion, not an order.

 

[joriandrake]

Too historic AI makes the game a bit too boring. Only thing that is doing something differently is you and that ain't no fun, mister.
I'd like to see AI go off it's own agenda sometimes. Not that i'd want to see Poland discovering America in every game, but it would be fun once in a while...

Make 'em act mostly historical, but only as a suggestion, not an order.

It IS fun, and as i wrote: let players choose before each game

 

[Avernite]

Ehm, so HOW do we make AI allways historical?

Save every single move the countries made in history? Simply not let them take land in peace they are not entitled to?

And what if the AI comes into contact with the Human player? Will it go fully ahistorical? Will it simply engage the Human player only, and stay historical with it's neighbours?

Keeping the AI somewhat close to historical is fine. Sticking it to historicity isn't IMO.

 

[hjarg]

It IS fun, and as i wrote: let players choose before each game

Hmm, playing the same game over and over again isn't at least my idea of fun. I'd prefer to see AI go off-track once in a while.

 

[durecellrabbit]

The AI should try to conquer as much as possible and should use historical events to its advantage, except when I play a African country. It should also exploit bugs and WADs. I'd like them to play historicaly sometime, I might learn something.

 

[joriandrake]

Hmm, playing the same game over and over again isn't at least my idea of fun. I'd prefer to see AI go off-track once in a while.

It will, but i like to play all nations, and to have real changes in the game history is what i would like to see.
I never said we have to wholly go in historic events. Only that we need them, and that the human has to be ahistoric.
If the PC makes something unhistoric wit the AI, then the AI should react realistic, not historic, and so the possibility to become more ahistoric is there.
But the AI should always try to regain historical storyline.

 

[joriandrake]

The AI should try to conquer as much as possible and should use historical events to its advantage, except when I play a African country. It should also exploit bugs and WADs. I'd like them to play historicaly sometime, I might learn something.

Correct

 

[Registered]

I think that about 90% of the time an AI nation should act more or less hitorically. Obvioulsy it should be able to react ahistorically to ahistorical sircumstances. Wther created by me or another AI country.

 

[unmerged(31044)]

You should ask yourself ,if the dutch english etcetcblahblah didnt colonize would the Russians and americans have...?if in game historical colonizers dont do just that than why shouldnt others such as Sweden or Russia take a shot at it....?

 

[Mowers]

One of the great complaints I recall from Victoria is that in colonization of Africa and the South Pacific, nations like Russia and the USA, under AI control, were colonizing heavily. Now, the AI-controlled nations met all the conditions needed to be able to start colonization, but there was a huge outcry because Russia and the USA were not historical colonizers of Africa and were colonizing Africa in almost every game. Would it have been fine if AI USA or AI Russia had colonized in Africa say once every 20 games? Once every 50 games? Or should neither be colonizing Africa if they are AI controlled?

.

In that case it was mainly due to a bad colonialisation model which created ahistoric results. Not sure its a terribly good example for what you are getting at.

I think most folks would say that they want plausibility. This means getting the model right. It was like the POPs, there was only one type of "farmer" thus a farmer in the UK was the same as a farmer in china. Thats were alot of the model began to break down and prestige was used as a gap filler accelerating the problems the game faced.

 

[unmerged(6303)]

I would hope for things to be fairly historical for, say, the first fifty years of any scenario -- perhaps countries will be constrained in what they do by the diplomatic agreements existing at the start. But after that I don't expect much.

 

[Arilou]

I'd prefer if the AI was *fairly* historical. (Essentially their #1 priority should be accomplishing what they did historically) once that is done (or if they are somehow unable) they should look for other areas to influence.

 

[Mad King James]

Having limited resources and colonial priorities should focus colonial activity to a large extent. Also colonial capability should be tied very much with naval strength.

 

[das]

The A.I. shouldn't act "historically" - it should act realistically, depending on circumstances. Which often enough means acting historically until circumstances begin to change - for instance, Spain will probably have to cut down on colonization efforts and concentrate on defending its European holdings if the Turks loot Vienna and Rome.

 

[Hallsten]

I'd prefer if the AI was *fairly* historical. (Essentially their #1 priority should be accomplishing what they did historically) once that is done (or if they are somehow unable) they should look for other areas to influence.

Yup, just like that...

 

[Stingray]

I think the AI should act pretty historically, so the spanish should colonise SA and not Africa, and Russia should colonise siberia instead of making a grab for NA. But other than colonising I don't know really. Nations should try to maximise their gains, but I don't want the HRE to become a BWB a hundred or so years into the game.