AI: Dogpiling versus balance of power

[Jorlem]

Could something be done with favors? If they could be spent on things other than CTAs, and gained in ways other than already being allied, perhaps it could help somewhat. For instance, in the OP's example, what if when Spain saw France getting wrecked, it had an incentive to send them subsidies, boosting France's trust in Spain, and increasing the number of favors France owes Spain. Those favors could then be spent on things like asking France to abandon claims in Spanish territory, or stopping their privateer activity, or (if France is ahead on a tech) sending instructors to help with research to reduce tech costs, or allowing access to part of their adviser pool, or join the coalition Spain is in, and so on.

 

[Shadowstrike]

You could add in a static AE modifier for "development of country", scaled by distance. Then have nations focus on the countries with the greatest AE, to keep the top dog down.

 

[ahyangyi]

There should also be more directed alliances, as in : You are my rival, but I ally you against our common rival, and against him only. We could also choose if the alliance can be defensive or not.

This could mean a revamp of how the diplomatic monarch points are used. I would like it if they were in function of the usefulness of a diplomatic relation. So a royal marriage would factor less than a general offensive alliance (about as much as a guarantee).

An alliance against a common enemy but nobody else is called a coalition, I think?

 

[Arizal]

An alliance against a common enemy but nobody else is called a coalition, I think?

Yes, and then the "permanent" AE modifier Shadowstrike speaks of would have the same result since any country passed a certain power compared to other countries would be the target of such things...

Gameplay-wise, it could be bad to have the certitude to always be against coalitions whatever diplomatic effort you make.

I think there is a need for a temporary "alliance" (more like a call to arms) where a war leader can request other nations to join their war, and the a.i. would weigh joining in based on the opinion of both war leaders and the relative strength of alliances, preferring to join the weaker side (maluses for joining the already stronger side).

While interesting, such a feature would wreck the predictability of wars and frustrate many players. I believe this is why PI removed in 1.15 the ability the AI had to ally itself with another country while in a defensive war and then calling them.

At least, if such a thing existed, the declare war information screen and the diplomatic relations screen should be modified to take into account quickly the probability of one country or the other to ally another country which we would declare war to.

For example, you are about to declare war to Burgundy. They have no allies. But in the months following the war declaration, there is 75% chances that they would attract Austria at their side, 20% England, 10% Switzerland, etc. That way, a player could make an informed decision, balancing the odds.

 

[trackstar35]

You're kinda right on track here. As an AI programmer, I'm limited in what I can do when, for various reasons displayed to the user, countries are supposed to hate or like each others. Changing the game design is of course doable as well but is a more extensive process.

I completely agree with the thread starter that it's a problem AI is often siding with the strongest power, resulting in a very static game once you grow large enough.

We're certainly going to continue working towards solving it, it might however take some time. I do read threads like these all the time and pay attention to what people suggest.

While we're talking about balance of power, I would really like to see something implemented where you could intervene in a war against your rivals. Similar to Vicky 2 how you could do with a "Friendly" influence. Say you have 150+ relations with a country who may or may not be an ally and they are fighting a war they are losing (above -30 warscore). For an example, lets say its Austria (your rival) invading Bohemia and you are Prussia. Although you may not be allies with Bohemia but you would like to keep Austria from expanding into your neighbor. There should be an option to intervene on Bohemia's behalf in order to achieve a white peace.

However, you wont be able to call your allies (just to make sure its not one-sided). But it should only involve the Great Power aggressors and Great Powers who are rivaled to the aggressor able to intervene, so not every minor war turns into WW1. Just a thought that could make late game politics interesting...

 

[GamerKG]

While we're talking about balance of power, I would really like to see something implemented where you could intervene in a war against your rivals. Similar to Vicky 2 how you could do with a "Friendly" influence. Say you have 150+ relations with a country who may or may not be an ally and they are fighting a war they are losing (above -30 warscore). For an example, lets say its Austria (your rival) invading Bohemia and you are Prussia. Although you may not be allies with Bohemia but you would like to keep Austria from expanding into your neighbor. There should be an option to intervene on Bohemia's behalf in order to achieve a white peace.

However, you wont be able to call your allies (just to make sure its not one-sided). But it should only involve the Great Power aggressors and Great Powers who are rivaled to the aggressor able to intervene, so not every minor war turns into WW1. Just a thought that could make late game politics interesting...

There is such an option already, called Enforce Peace. As long as you have 100+ relations with the defender of the war, you can demand peace from the aggressor. If they comply, the war ends. If they do not, you join the war on the defender's side without bringing in your allies.

 

[Alias72]

There is such an option already, called Enforce Peace. As long as you have 100+ relations with the defender of the war, you can demand peace from the aggressor. If they comply, the war ends. If they do not, you join the war on the defender's side without bringing in your allies.

That feature is a step in the right direction but otherwise impractical. If you have +100 relations with a neighbor it is almost always because you are allies or vassals. That defeats the point entirely.

The biggest problem is that the game is too emotional. It has relations that are not based on pragmatic reasoning. This makes it difficult for AI behavior to adapt to political situations. Instead the AI adapts to trust within its power block, which creates self reinforcing power blocs that destroy the established order. Alliances rarely break apart unless there is core related conflict.

 

[GamerKG]

That feature is a step in the right direction but otherwise impractical. If you have +100 relations with a neighbor it is almost always because you are allies or vassals. That defeats the point entirely.

The biggest problem is that the game is too emotional. It has relations that are not based on pragmatic reasoning. This makes it difficult for AI behavior to adapt to political situations. Instead the AI adapts to trust within its power block, which creates self reinforcing power blocs that destroy the established order. Alliances rarely break apart unless there is core related conflict.

I use it often enough, improving relations with the victim of my rival as soon as he declares war, and then joining in against them for Power Projection.

 

[ahyangyi]

That feature is a step in the right direction but otherwise impractical. If you have +100 relations with a neighbor it is almost always because you are allies or vassals. That defeats the point entirely.

The biggest problem is that the game is too emotional. It has relations that are not based on pragmatic reasoning. This makes it difficult for AI behavior to adapt to political situations. Instead the AI adapts to trust within its power block, which creates self reinforcing power blocs that destroy the established order. Alliances rarely break apart unless there is core related conflict.

+100 is easy without allying or vassalizing. +100 improve relationship, +25 send gift, +25 same religion, +25 shared rival.

 

[Freudia]

The real problem with Enforce Peace is that you don't become the war leader, so you get nothing out of it without separate peacing.

 

[milkan]

The real problem with Enforce Peace is that you don't become the war leader, so you get nothing out of it without separate peacing.

You get to keep the balance of power intact and prevent your rival from expanding which is what this topic is all about.

 

[Incompetent]

There is such an option already, called Enforce Peace. As long as you have 100+ relations with the defender of the war, you can demand peace from the aggressor. If they comply, the war ends. If they do not, you join the war on the defender's side without bringing in your allies.

Enforce Peace is a great concept, but it's no good for preserving balance of power when you don't have good relations with either side. It would be nice to be able to intervene either way depending on who is winning. The trouble is that the easier intervention becomes, the more open it is to exploits. Maybe skip the relations requirement, as long as you are enforcing peace against a rival?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well the whole point would be avoiding the alone on the planet thing. The system I envision would be trying to keep a relative balance of power, first on the regional level, and then on the great power level. Not with any hard lined coalitions, but just isolating nations from making alliances with other local powers if they get too powerful.

And it would also avoid the case I hate about playing the little guy: So often when you move into the #2 slot you find yourself the target of #1 and several smaller allies. This is all but inevitable if #3 isn't a valid rival for #1.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Enforce Peace is a great concept, but it's no good for preserving balance of power when you have a negative opinion of both sides. It would be nice to be able to intervene either way depending on who is winning. The trouble is that the easier intervention becomes, the more open it is to exploits.

As a player I would like the Enforce Peace option regardless of my diplomatic status with the country.

Basically, hey, this is my sphere of influence, buzz off!

 

[Freudia]

You get to keep the balance of power intact and prevent your rival from expanding which is what this topic is all about.

Indeed, but since we were talking about all the problems with Enforce Peace, I thought I'd chime in that one too. Even if you could reliably Enforce Peace on a nation whenever you wanted, you'd get nothing out of it because of the way the AI works. A paltry relation bonus with a nation for saving him from being obliterated by your rival isn't going to change anything, and all you have to show for it is that you spent your resources. If anything it then puts your rival in a position to get dogpiled on by another party entirely, so you inadvertently disrupt the very balance of power you seek to preserve by making your rival an attractive target for outside entities.

 

[Alias72]

+100 is easy without allying or vassalizing. +100 improve relationship, +25 send gift, +25 same religion, +25 shared rival.

It's easy to achieve but something you never really have because you never really need it. Also there are other things to spend diplomats on.

 

[ahyangyi]

It's easy to achieve but something you never really have because you never really need it. Also there are other things to spend diplomats on.

You are using a circular argument here. You want to enforce peace but you can't, because you don't have high relationship; you don't have high relationship, because you think it won't be useful; you want to enforce peace, because you think it's useful if you do. That's some weird logic here.

Furthermore, keeping good relationship with non-allies is more useful than you think: it keeps the AE amount received by that particular nation low. By keeping a few neighbors with good relationships you can minimize the risk of a coalition.

 

[Alias72]

It's weird logic if you assume you will need to enforce peace before hand. You need to have high relations prepared in advance, which I often don't do because it only helps me in this one situation. I also don't mind increasing AE because the AI is boring. I would LOVE a coalition but because I take things slow it never happens.

Also the argument isn't circular in my specific case because I don't find it particularly useful. Most wars I encounter are incredibly lopsided and my nation isn't enough to tip the scales.