Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Old X-AI files discussions

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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...i havn't looked at portugal yet...so i can´reply you on this subject later. But i just finished new version of england-china war ai...that well blew my socks off. 2 games out of 7(28% - amazing!!!) , England annexed China in the first(1839) war - time to open the champaigne !!!


England finished the "crusade" in late 40's or early 50's .
china_uk.jpg
 
sounds good, ill look into it
(just dont expect anything the next few weeks... i have never worked with the ai files for victoria before... and i need to read up on danish and swedish history...)
 
PB-DK said:
just dont expect anything the next few weeks... i have never worked with the ai files for victoria before
Click to expand...
Any chance getting these in for VIP.2? And don't forget that Norway is now released so it needs an AI as well :)
 
PB-DK said:
so if i do get some time ill try to look at the scandinavian ai files if no-one has gotten their hands on it
Click to expand...
DK_Froggy is working on the new unification between Norway, Sweden and Denmark if you want to see what he is doing.
 
I was a bit worried when i saw in every game England going crazy after Burma ... and then i saw this post. ;)
I see in your screenshot that Burma has dissapeared too... maybe OHgamer can come here and teach us some history ( :D ), because he is more expert in that region than me... but i think that Burma wasn't annexed by UK in that time period (around 1840).
That's how you conquered China, right? invading all China through Burma... ;)
I think that it is a "bit" unhistorical, right?

Code: 
max_front_ratio = 6 
max_garrison_prop = 0.35
min_garrison_prop = 0.05 
[B]war = 200 #uuh...enagland is one mean guy[/B]
neutrality = 0.5
ferocity = no

combat = { 
        PAN = 160
[B]        BUR = 200[/B]
 }
 
well...i have two sets of AI files for england. One for the historical route and other for bit more ahistorical taste(two versions of eng_chi.ai).
Besides this early burma annexing thingie can't be undone. I don't care if it is historical or not...burma is needed to sacrifice for better peformance of england ;)(trust me it's easier for england to attack china when burma still exists, but it's one of the few countries, in asia, that keeps england at war for atleast 5-7 months) . If johan fixes AI military buildup then it can go...but not before.
 
An aside on Burma and the Opium War of 1839-1842...

Britain fought three wars against Burma : 1826-8, 1852 and 1885. In the first war it defeated the Burmese on the coast and as a result of treaty got the Arakan and Tenasserim regions (as modeled in the start of the 1836 scenario). The 1852 conflict led to the seizure of S Burma (Rangoon-Pegu) but the Brits (actually the BEIC army) were unable to do much in the interior and that was left to the Burmese. Only in 1885 was the decision made to move into the heartland of Burma (the coastal area was historically low population until the British seized it and developed rice agriculture in the region around Rangoon) as the French were moving inland from Vietnam and the Burmese monarchy started flirting with the French as a counterweight to the British.

That British commanders would have even possibly conceived of invading China via Burma in the 19th Century is almost beyond plausible. Heavily jungled mountains with no infrastructure to speak of, the China-Burma border has historically been the dividing line between the Chinese world and the Indian-SE Asian world, only very tenuously under the control of either the Burmese state or China until only the last 10-20 years (and even now the Burmese side is still unstable). The problem to me sounds like the UK ai (soon to be Indian, since all the ideas for going to war with Burma came from Calcutta, not London) is WAY too agressive towards Burma. Never mind the point that Britain's power is historically at sea, not land. 200K Br Indian forces crossing the mountains from Upper Burma to Yunnan to invade China, not even historically feasible today, let alone the 1830s. Focus the UK ai on launching successful sea invasions at Hong Kong and Guangzhou to recreate the Opium War, not to seize all of Burma ahistorically early. Connect an event from the Opium War series to the loss of say Guangzhou or Hong Kong to the British to end the Opium War with the cession of Hong Kong (with a b-option for the UK to refuse the treaty and continue so that human players can go on and conquer if they wish.) The Opium War was NOT in the British view about conquest of China, only opening it up to free trade. With the exception of the Indian Subcontinent (agian, at the urging of Calcutta, with very gruging support and sometimes reprimand from London), Britain in general avoided wars of conquest and subjugation until the 1870s, when competition from other Europeans for access to colonial markets touched off the various "scrambles". Britain pre-1870 had no need for adding new land to its empire - its economy needed markets and the cost to administer colonies was more than the perceived benefit. As long as it had access to open markets, the British were more than content to allow non-Western states to stay independent, and if push came to shove, the most the British wanted were access points (like Hong Kong), not total conquest. This can be seen in Burma. The 1852 war was over Burmese refusal to open trade. War was fought, it was a hard fight but one the British could have won if they had wanted to, but in the end decided only to take the coastal south, with its low population and easy sea access. The Burmese heartland, heavily populated, would have become yet another drain on the British E India Co's already stretched budget, so in the end the interior remained independent. Only with growing French interest in the region do the British take the final plunge and annex Upper Burma.
 
On the Treaty of Nanjing (End of the 1st Opium War)- I'll add in a "B" option to teh UK side of teh event chain to allow a player to continue the war. Right now, once china hits a certain degree of lost provinces, they cave to the historical British demands (I should add in a B option to continue the war there as well). It's not that much of a change, and was somnething I didn't think about when I was writing the events.

Otherwise, I'm with OHGamer on this. The continuous ahistorical conquests of the UK is bothersome, and unbalancing. forget the historical aspects ATM, justteh fact that the UK is taking nearly 1/3 of the world in the first 10-15 years of game play really makes for a less than stellar game.

Now, as for how the Uk should act in the Opium war, they should go after the coastal provinces. the whole Opium war was driven by British merchants, mainly based in British India, who had their trade threatened by Chinese actions. One thing I consistently see is the UK invading SW China from India, and only invading Hong Kong and Guangzhou. the British had no interest in the interior of China for any purpose. Their focus was on the coastal cities where their trade was based, and in the war, that's what they went after (Hong Kong, Guangzhou, Weiheiwei, etc). Britian should not be going after a total conquest of China. It would have broken the Bank of England, and they would have been unable to hold the territory even had they wanted to.
 
unknown-X- said:
well...i have two sets of AI files for england. One for the historical route and other for bit more ahistorical taste(two versions of eng_chi.ai).
Besides this early burma annexing thingie can't be undone. I don't care if it is historical or not...burma is needed to sacrifice for better peformance of england ;)(trust me it's easier for england to attack china when burma still exists, but it's one of the few countries, in asia, that keeps england at war for atleast 5-7 months) . If johan fixes AI military buildup then it can go...but not before.
Click to expand...

I side with the cadre that finds a total UK conquest of Burma under such circumstances to be absolutely implausable. Frankly, throughout its history, one salient thing that seems to have characterized the British Empire is a hunger for profit, not conquest per se. The UK typically refused to pursue (or to continue to pursue) conquests that cost more money than they brought in. (Note that I say typically.)

I personally have no interest in playing against a UK that acts more like Nazi Germany than historical England.
 
Theodotus1 said:
I side with the cadre that finds a total UK conquest of Burma under such circumstances to be absolutely implausable. Frankly, throughout its history, one salient thing that seems to have characterized the British Empire is a hunger for profit, not conquest per se. The UK typically refused to pursue (or to continue to pursue) conquests that cost more money than they brought in. (Note that I say typically.)

I personally have no interest in playing against a UK that acts more like Nazi Germany than historical England.
Click to expand...
Just remember that the sun never set on the British empire. That alone says they were very expansionistic ;)
 
tyrel68 said:
Just remember that the sun never set on the British empire. That alone says they were very expansionistic ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but VIP is first of all a Historical MOD, and to say even more, we have a very deterministic approach, take for example the colonization bans and the newer peace_treaty ban to the new african countries.

So even beeing VERY expansionistic (even more the Nazi guys, but not clser than the Greater Khan, Gengis) England should behave so ahistorical, cause if the objective is to make a Über-AI, we can take england and Invade Europe through Belgium and Portugal, it will be a easy run, and if they allied with Russia, we can have two fronts, not to mention a latter alliance with the Ottomans, so 3 fronts.

It is possible, just the matter of adjustic a couple of parameters.
 
pimparel said:
Yeah, but VIP is first of all a Historical MOD, and to say even more, we have a very deterministic approach, take for example the colonization bans and the newer peace_treaty ban to the new african countries.

So even beeing VERY expansionistic (even more the Nazi guys, but not clser than the Greater Khan, Gengis) England should behave so ahistorical, cause if the objective is to make a Über-AI, we can take england and Invade Europe through Belgium and Portugal, it will be a easy run, and if they allied with Russia, we can have two fronts, not to mention a latter alliance with the Ottomans, so 3 fronts.

It is possible, just the matter of adjustic a couple of parameters.
Click to expand...
i agree with this, if it is just a matter of expansionism... well, we can make Prussia invade all the german minors in 1836, when Austria is not a big military power (they do not have many divisions at the start and Prussia starts with many to mobilize)... that way we will surelly see Germany more often... :eek:o
 
Generalisimo said:
i agree with this, if it is just a matter of expansionism... well, we can make Prussia invade all the german minors in 1836, when Austria is not a big military power (they do not have many divisions at the start and Prussia starts with many to mobilize)... that way we will surelly see Germany more often... :eek:o
Click to expand...

Agreed here too. In fact, if we wanted to I expect we could recreate the geopolitical setting of the book 1984, in which there were only three countries, continuously at war with one another. :)
 
Naval AI

How do you make an AI guard one section of water?

I need Denmark to guard 247 which is the water around the capital.

I tried putting 247 = 100 into everything that could possibly be the right place, and no differance! The ai deploys 6 ships, 2 to each section of water to the east and north of the Danish peninsula. The others do nothing at all letting the Prussians march right onto the capital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back