Europa Universalis IV: Developer diary 4: Your Economy is about to change
- Thread starter unmerged(1823)
- 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.
I hope the AI knows how to use these sliders. It was really frustrating to see EU3 countries put no support into their colonies.
Thanks
If there is one downside to the system, though, it would be that you need to make the AI somewhat aware of the fact that it shouldn't start 10 projects on monday and then start a long war on tuesday.
The present system (where construction costs a lump sum and gets finished always) is a bit easier for the AI to manage, or at least, it's not so easy for the AI to totally screw up. What you might have though is that the AI would find itself unable to ever gather enough funds to build something.
With the "project" system I described it would be different... that the AI might have a hard time amassing 5000 gold for a manufactory wouldn't matter so much, because instead of needing to have it all on hand the AI would simply need to maintain a positive cashflow for some time. Telling the AI to amass a hoard of money (as a buffer to unexpected revenue drops, and short wars) would help too - the AI could maybe be told to put at most 50% of its cash flow in peace time into projects, 25% into colonies, army and navy, and hoard the remainder. Or to hoard 50% always and launch projects only up to 30% of its cashflow. Something like that. When cashflow turns negative, the AI would regularly check how much money it still has in the bank, how long the projects still have to go, and if reserves get too low start cancelling some projects. Projects could have AI priorities (just like buildings) so the AI would have a list of which projects it will cancel first. There might be two or three different sets of weights... one for "I am a maritime oriented nation", another for "I am a big and/or aggressive land power" and one for "I am a small and/or mostly peaceful land power" so the AIs can behave a little differently. Going into debt would be a "normal" thing for the AI. Since the AI would always try to aim at a positive cashflow, it would by itself try to get out of debt again and need no special mechanism to deal with debt. It could maybe get a different set of action priorities when it's in debt - put even more money into the hoard (i.e. start less projects and put army/navy maintenance even lower) - and its "bank account target level" would obviously be set as high as the size of the current loan.
With that system I think it would be even easier to fine-tune the economic AI so that AI realms stay competitive through the mid- and late-game (where in EU3 often the player is far ahead in economic development and quits out of boredom). To check how well AI nations are doing, you wouldn't have to examine their bank statements and get a grip on their (rather erratic) spending. Rather you'd look at their cashflow over time and the level of project investment that they maintained (where investment is a steady stream and not a series of lump payments), and that would tell you how they're doing.
So no direct investment into technology and stability...
My guess is that technology will be handled by separate resource just like in HoI3 with added effect from advisors and decisions
Stability should probably be more in the hands of kings and again advisors and decisions
If I am correct, I have high hopes
My guess is that technology will be handled by separate resource just like in HoI3 with added effect from advisors and decisions
Stability should probably be more in the hands of kings and again advisors and decisions
If I am correct, I have high hopes
The idea is not bad Leviathan, but I'm not sure it would be worth the programming time that would be required to teach the AI to do it...
wtf dude ? good ideas are always worth the effort, that's how you judge a good company or game.
No, they aren't. Every good idea takes a certain amount of time, resources and effort and some just aren't worth it. I'm not saying that's definitely the case here but not every good idea can be implemented.
as for technology I would welcome a new system when (for example) the various forms of government are not depend on some abstract "levels of technological advancement" but rather on the actual (and possible future) conditions of the society.
It's not like you don't have to do the same already... you already need to program AI to save money properly for building projects, and balance that vs. other spending.
When you tagchange to an AI nation (via console commands) you often see them with vast hoards of money but few improvements in their provinces. (At least I did when I last played HTTT) You never really know what they are saving for. When I used to play HTTT and reached the 17th century, I would regularly pause, tagchange to AI nations, spend some of their immense hoard, and tagchange back. The AI would regularly fail to build essential improvements and I did this to help them stay (somewhat) competitive.
I think it would actually be easier to make them stay competitive when you make buildings cost a continuous stream of money rather than lump sums. All the AI would need to "know" is how to keep the cashflow positive long enough. That ought to be easier (and give better results) than when you try to program it to build a huge treasure but it never actually spends it because it never quite reaches the threshold that it is programmed to aim for before starting, say, a refinery.
Steady cash flows are also "self-correcting" in a way - if the cashflow is too bad all you need to make the AI do is cancel a few small projects. If that's not enough, cancel more. The AI would still need to be programmed to build a treasure but just like with the player, this would not be a prerequisite to building, it would merely be a buffer. If you see the AI cancelling projects all the time you don't need to dig through data to know what's wrong... you know it's because it got negative cashflow, its treasure buffer ran out and it didn't get any loans. You don't need to guess why it has 3000 gold in the bank and still no constructions. (Only looking at internal AI states could solve that mystery for you, and only developers with access to the source code can do that. And I bet even they will find it an enormous hassle to do so, because they'd have to compile the game in debug mode where it's like 10x - 100x slower than in the release build that you get as a gamer.)
Well, if it works then all well and good, I'm just not sure it would really make sense for cost/benefit.
You do deserve it.Thanks
... the AI would regularly check how much money it still has in the bank, how long the projects still have to go,...
And sorry for pointing this out, but it is just too big a blasphemy to overlook. You do mean treasury, so don't spoil it with saying 'bank'! [/RANT]
Come on!!! too detailed??!
It only needs few command buttons in the box that appears when we select an army!
For example, to order your amry to barricade in mountainous regions, you'll only need one click!
and anyway, it's a way more interesting than ordering your armies to pursue endless tiny stacks running around...
Plus, by giving the game a tactical dimension, playing weaker countries will be more viable...
The story in my previous post was there to display how much depth such change can add to the game!
In the game time frame, generals were still receiving orders from higher authorities. It was up to the king to tell generals where to move their armies, what's the target, or what regions should be defended by all means.
Well, not everybody like picking UK, France or Spain. Weaker countries should be given a chance.
Population has never affected tax in EU3. Population and tax affect the Units value which in turn affects other things.
In terms of mechanics I'd say it may be an even bigger change than from EU2 to EU3 (although maybe not from EU2 to EU3
W).
No, leaving aside the good ideas that contradict each other, there is always less programming time than good ideas. Good companies avoid feature creep.
The issue with tactics, and this is why I stopped playing Total War, is that either you need to make the tactics too complicated to abuse (like in AGEOD, where there isn't a way to magically 'win' a given battle via orders), or it becomes too easy to abuse (IE why I could do a WC with any given country on very hard difficulty). All you need to know is that 'encircle' is the best tactic.
Now, I'd be cool with combat events, that are modified by leader traits, but then that's an overcomplication of the military system which I would rather see in an expansion. As is we need more complex non-military systems.
Now, I'd be cool with combat events, that are modified by leader traits, but then that's an overcomplication of the military system which I would rather see in an expansion. As is we need more complex non-military systems.
Maybe just some very basic combat rules and only a limited set of formations?
The paper/scissors/stone system could be applied here where each army needs to select its formation and based on their choice they get advantages.
Easy examples:
Spearmen first line VS cavalry first line = spearmen first line owning the cav army.
Cavalry on first line VS Archers on first line = Archers becomming owned by cavalry.
Infantry VS Infantry = Even fight and numbers + quality only counts
Results are that the losing troop type gets heavy casualties.
I don't think there are too many varieties of this so the work should not be that much...
Last edited:
Then you have the other possibility, which is that in EU:Rome I never had any clue with regards to what was a good tactic/unit composition and I got my butt handed to me.
On topic, I'd like to say that I'm really really happy that stability has been disconnected from profits. Stuff like that meant that some countries which faced endemic instability in the EU timeframe (Tuscany, Venice, etc) were at constant +3 stability, while great powers could enter death spirals where they weren't ever able to get out of -3 stability because of their colonies.
On topic, I'd like to say that I'm really really happy that stability has been disconnected from profits. Stuff like that meant that some countries which faced endemic instability in the EU timeframe (Tuscany, Venice, etc) were at constant +3 stability, while great powers could enter death spirals where they weren't ever able to get out of -3 stability because of their colonies.