Mowers said:
well, thanks. I'm feeling inspired today, you know?
it could be very adapted to the new personality thing that P'dox wants to introduce in the game.
AI-controlled nations and ahistorical potentials
- Thread starter OHgamer
- Start date
-
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.
well, thanks. I'm feeling inspired today, you know?
it could be very adapted to the new personality thing that P'dox wants to introduce in the game.
Duuk said:
Not to every single question, but historicy VS non-historicy is probably the most metaphysical question of the game. There is no good or bad and it's only a matter of personal taste.
Cliffracer RIP said:
Agreed. Why would Russia decide to take a colonial path? What made it make that decision? What changed internally in Russia made it act ahistorically? The Russia we now that would do that would be very different the the Russia we had historically. How did it get there?
I really wouldn't mind if the AI behaves ahistorically, as long as it behaves like a moderately competent human might. Frex, in EU1 as Russia I'd face a bunch of Polish armies on my border as Poland DoW's me; I call on my Bohemian ally, and the Poland AI says 'Ooh, look, Silesia!' and marches all those armies halfway across Europe ignoring my conquest of their provinces.
-Pat
-Pat
Well, I´d like a good AI... as historical as possible. But I reckon that is tough to achieve. HoI 1.3b AI could be great, but that was a lot of work.Matija said:I would like AI to be as historical as it was in EU2
Well let us say I am Spain and i annex Portugal...so what basically i am being told is all those portugse lands are mine or the taking because everyone would act historicllly.... Sounds sweet to be me then.OHgamer said:
The AI should act in it's own best interests. Given a realistic game model, this should most likely lead to historical results. As an example, Portugal should normally prefer to colonize Brazil rather than Africa; not because it is scripted to do so, but because it is easier and more profitable to do so.
Simply put, I would like to see a more dynamic event system rather than a choice between either historical or ahistorical AI.
-I would love to see the ability of any culture group forming a nation of their own. And you should be able to expand your core provinces through some sort of system.
In terms of the agressiveness of the ai. It should follow the historical path of that nation. Certain areas of land should be fought over more than other areas of europe. It would be cool if that could be done.
-I would love to see the ability of any culture group forming a nation of their own. And you should be able to expand your core provinces through some sort of system.
In terms of the agressiveness of the ai. It should follow the historical path of that nation. Certain areas of land should be fought over more than other areas of europe. It would be cool if that could be done.
It all hindges on the model. With any historical simulation corners will be cut and short cuts made. To be truly realistic as a monarch you would spend a lot of your time involved in mindless court rituals. To relax you get to go hunting with hawks or bows. The invention of fire arms will revolutionalise your life as you now get a chance to shoot the animals as well. However this does not a good game make, your average player craves a little bit more.
Corners will be cut the player will be able to get to do more than your average ruler/country ever could. To give an example as Spain you get use Cortez to conquer Mexico, in reality Cortez buggered off without any authority and before you knew it Spain ruled Mexico. These are the kind of neccesary abstractions you need to get a good game.
However if you can find the right balance between game play and historical restrictions then you get an easier job for any AI. A sensible set of historical restirctions on colonisation will lead to no need for the AI to be told where to colonise.
Corners will be cut the player will be able to get to do more than your average ruler/country ever could. To give an example as Spain you get use Cortez to conquer Mexico, in reality Cortez buggered off without any authority and before you knew it Spain ruled Mexico. These are the kind of neccesary abstractions you need to get a good game.
However if you can find the right balance between game play and historical restrictions then you get an easier job for any AI. A sensible set of historical restirctions on colonisation will lead to no need for the AI to be told where to colonise.
Just to expand on my previous point. Take Colonisation, what I would do is have a colonial range. You can only colonise X distance away from nearest holding. Have this distance linked to naval tech. If you can get this set up right, early in the game if you want to colonise India then you need a chain of colonies/trading posts round Africa to reach there (which is what Portugal in the end actually did). If you set these ranges up correctly it will give the Iberian powers a bit of a head start, and gradually the other powers will be able to get into the act. By the time a county Like Poland has the range to colonise, all the good provinces will be gone. However if Poland was to get an Atlantic coast line it will be able colonise sooner.
![Sute]{h](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/styles/paradox/owneditems/avatars/Stellaris_pre_order/s/stellaris_avatars_fungoid_12_special.png){kind=avatar}
I would like the AI to behave historical... but not because we force it to do so. The historical path should simply be the most attractive to each country. Hence Spain will find itself colonizing south america because it has the money and the opputunities, and the rewards for doing so outweighs the cost and risk. Should some other country find itself in exact the same situation it would do the same, however it should be practically impossible for other countries to end up in the historical situation as Spain. This is controled by starting setup. Since every country starts in its own location and the gamemechanics reward historical responses, the AI will choose the historical route, thus leading to the country have yet another historical starting point, from which it will yet again take the historical choice. Of course this is clearly going to be very complicated and need severe testing, but it would be the ideal model. Mostly because when the player goes ahistorical the the rest of the world adjusts rather than just going along pretending nothing happened. Also since the historical route tends to be the most rewarding players might actually take it rather than going into random expansion mode.
Sute]{h said:
Almost any Atlantic seaboard country then would colonize South America - which is not what happend.
Not only that but monarchs of the day do not have the historical perspective we have today. Sure there were thoughts of great riches if India could be reached by sailing west but that was the limit of their knowledge. If everyone knows there is gobs of silver in South America then the England, Portugal and France as well as Spain would all get in on the action. Not what you want to see in an historicaly based game.
And some of them just outright did things which we would never consider doing in the game.
in the event of an 'historical behaviour' for AI (term to be defined ) or in the case of several randomly chosen behaviours for AI, could (should) it be moddable ? ...
) or in the case of several randomly chosen behaviours for AI, could (should) it be moddable ? ...
Its all partly based on what each country was looking for at the time and changes to that could have rippling effects. Plus later onthere were other dynamics and wars that affected what areas were more useful, what lands one owned, etc.
But even say Columbus went off course and ran into Brazil, that would be enough to change things.
But even say Columbus went off course and ran into Brazil, that would be enough to change things.
I think if we placed more realistic restrictions on what a state could do, we'd have more historical results.
Thats why I want a 'button' to choose player if he/she wants ahistoric events or fully historical events in her/his own game (by all the new games/starts).Thanak said: