Sandbox vs Determinism

[safe-keeper]

Paradox never does options of this sort in their games, and for a good reason - teaching AI what to do for all possible combinations of these would be a nightmare.

On the contrary, these options are all over the place. Looking at eu3, I see "Lucky nations", AI aggression level, and all sorts of options for the appearance of colonists, merchants, generals, and so on.
I don't think I agree with the specific suggestions in the post that you quoted, but options like that are certainly something we've seen earlier in games.

 

[Alexander Seil]

"Of this sort." I don't quite remember all the options EU has, but something like randomizing the New World or adding Lucky nations doesn't need to interact with generic AI behavior.

On the other hand, I can't seem to find that post anymore, so I have no idea what I was talking about. Presumably, about the on/off "historical gameplay" switch people are demanding. Which would definitely require changing generic AI behaviors.

 

[FOARP]

On the contrary, these options are all over the place. Looking at eu3, I see "Lucky nations", AI aggression level, and all sorts of options for the appearance of colonists, merchants, generals, and so on.
I don't think I agree with the specific suggestions in the post that you quoted, but options like that are certainly something we've seen earlier in games.

They could have triggers to turn on/off certain game-features and mechanics. The problem I have is with the idea that there could be a single trigger to turn on/off "sandbox", when in reality that's just "The AI knows how to respond to prevailing circumstances" and turning it off basically means turning the AI off.

 

[Liquid Sky]

Turning the AI off would be a switch...usually it turns me off.

 

[Denkt]

For the ai I prefer dynamic ai, the less you know how the ai will move the better. However that don't mean that the ai should do extreamly stupid moves or they end up like in my Brazil example. To know what the ai is doing you should need to use the espionage system.

One example could be germany building up a strategic bombing force, that could be an extreamly big threat if you are not prepered. An stupid example would be a 3 factory minor trying to do the same, not having any equipment for its ground force.

The ai should play to survive and eventually win. Not play stupid and do stupid things that will get itself annexed straight away.

But predictable ai is plain bad, paradox is trying to make a game here, in fact a great game and such an ai could put the game straight into the Big Rigs category, don't matter if everything else is of world class becuase no ai no game.

By predictable I mean that you can know how the ai will play from like one playthrought.

 

[21oliver]

Your example of Brazil is spurious, because it had no existing heavy infrastructure like Germany did, it was mainly focused on agriculture for export. Even before WWI they'd had to buy ships for GB and not build their own. The situation in Germany only worked out like it did because of pre-existing conditions that happened nowhere else in the world.

Obviously i was pushing the envelope. And no Hitler couldnt have done the same with Brazil, but he could have built a regional power if all things worked out the same, other then the US he would have had no competition.

The problem with taking the game off the rails is that the game is unable to adapt. For example if I play as the Soviets and i conquer Finland/Sweden/Norway prior to 1939...its unlikely that Germany follows the same course of action, but in game they will. Just like events and decisions that sometimes fire which dont seem relevant. The game needs to be scripted with IF then, elseif then etc... If Japan is getting the crap kicked out of them by China is it likely they attack the US? The game cant cover everything, after all it is a game, but common sense on major impactful elements are a must imo.

 

[21oliver]

I have been ranting against predictability forever. When i brought up more randomness Podcat had told me I was seeking a totally different game, I disagreed. Most of the mods have implemented more randomness just fine, it hasnt changed the game. Im talking plausible randomness. All these wonderful suggestions players are making on this forum if implemented wont mean squat if i know every move the AI is going to do, when, where and how. Thats just plain boring, no challenge. If Germany invades Poland in July or Jan 40 or attacks Denmark and Norway first to secure ports and more...that doesnt stop it from being a WW2 game. If the Soviets invade Turkey because the borders are unprotected or a Turkish-Greek Balkan war breaks out, that doesnt stop it from being a WW2 game. These are all examples of possible plausible different directions the game could take. If everytime you play the game 3-4 different things occur that are interesting it makes them game more enjoyable and replayable imo.

 

[Alexander Seil]

It's actually the scripting that breaks the AI. The generic AIs, going back to Rome, always had a reputation for being vicious. Obviously, eventually people adapt and learn, and it becomes much easier, but a WC in CK2/EU4 is a genuine achievement, unless you rely on the exploit du jour.

I really hope that they go with the generic model for this one, by and large. The CK2 AIs always seemed to be "in character" for me, despite their generic nature. The political + character setup was enough to create historical-seeming alternative history for the first 100-200 years (until the world finally goes off the "organic" rails it was on at start).

 

[FOARP]

It's actually the scripting that breaks the AI. The generic AIs, going back to Rome, always had a reputation for being vicious. Obviously, eventually people adapt and learn, and it becomes much easier, but a WC in CK2/EU4 is a genuine achievement, unless you rely on the exploit du jour.

I really hope that they go with the generic model for this one, by and large. The CK2 AIs always seemed to be "in character" for me, despite their generic nature. The political + character setup was enough to create historical-seeming alternative history for the first 100-200 years (until the world finally goes off the "organic" rails it was on at start).

Agreed. The reason why the AI behaviour in CK2 appears plausible, though, is because you know its motives and the reason why it is doing what it is doing and can follow the situation developing, and receive notifications about important developments (e.g., your brother rebels against you because he wants the crown and has been plotting against you for years). Implement a WW2-era version of THIS, and plausible game play emerges by itself, without the need for restrictive scripting telling e.g., Germany to invade Poland in 1939.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Agreed. The reason why the AI behaviour in CK2 appears plausible, though, is because you know its motives and the reason why it is doing what it is doing and can follow the situation developing, and receive notifications about important developments (e.g., your brother rebels against you because he wants the crown and has been plotting against you for years). Implement a WW2-era version of THIS, and plausible game play emerges by itself, without the need for restrictive scripting telling e.g., Germany to invade Poland in 1939.

I really hope they manage to.

I was kind of wondering why they didn't go with implementing a character system, which would enable natural solutions to a whole host of modeling issues with the politics. Or, let's say, "interest groups," so you have big name politicians, top generals and various companies interacting as they do in CK2. It would be glorious. I wonder when it will dawn on them that this "internal decentralization" is a brilliant game mechanic, and it's not just for modeling feudalism. CK2 is a masterpiece of a mad genius - EU4 is just competent.

 

[Denkt]

The devs have comfirmed that the ai will not be scripted.

 

[FOARP]

The devs have comfirmed that the ai will not be scripted.

But they've also walked that back a bit with the new decisions-tree. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[safe-keeper]

I really hope they manage to.

I was kind of wondering why they didn't go with implementing a character system, which would enable natural solutions to a whole host of modeling issues with the politics. Or, let's say, "interest groups," so you have big name politicians, top generals and various companies interacting as they do in CK2. It would be glorious. I wonder when it will dawn on them that this "internal decentralization" is a brilliant game mechanic, and it's not just for modeling feudalism. CK2 is a masterpiece of a mad genius - EU4 is just competent.

Yup. As long as they stick with modelling only top people, I don't see anything wrong with this. Of course it could easily get micro-heavy, but if done right, it'd add a lot of depth to the game.

 

[zonkie]

I want as much of a sandbox as possible so that every World War will turn out different.

 

[safe-keeper]

Me too; but I also want to be able to keep the AI on a leash so that it does what it did historically.

Once I was playing as the Soviets, and I spent a considerable amount of time raising an army, building forts, and planning how I'd beat back the Nazi invasion.
Then the German AI decided to invade Benelux, and never declared war on Poland. As a possible consequence, it never declared on the USSR.

I too want a dynamic sandbox experience (within reason), but please also give me the option to "railroad" the action so that history takes at least roughly the same path.

 

[Denkt]

But they've also walked that back a bit with the new decisions-tree. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

You can say that they the have replaced the scripted ai and events with the decision tree. The point with the decision tree is to encourage players and give some control so that ai will play the game in a not to far fetched way. Like German decisions will eventually lead to the war while the democratic majors will focus on internal issues.

 

[Kadanz]

The traditional car analogy

 

[FOARP]

Me too; but I also want to be able to keep the AI on a leash so that it does what it did historically.

Once I was playing as the Soviets, and I spent a considerable amount of time raising an army, building forts, and planning how I'd beat back the Nazi invasion.
Then the German AI decided to invade Benelux, and never declared war on Poland. As a possible consequence, it never declared on the USSR.

I too want a dynamic sandbox experience (within reason), but please also give me the option to "railroad" the action so that history takes at least roughly the same path.

The issue here is that it basically makes for ahistorical and (worse still) implausible play: If you know that Germany is going to attack Poland in 1939, then you can prepare for a German invasion of Poland in 1939, and ignore the possibility that Germany might instead attack the Benelux countries (or someone else) - a move that is equally as valid and sensible as invading Poland. You could then (for example) simply disband your 1936 army playing as the USSR since you knew you wouldn't need it.

The issue is that in HOI3 vanilla there was no way of knowing that Germany was preparing to attack (say) the Benelux countries instead of Poland so it did not make sense to the player when it happened, and you could not prepare to counter this move. Fixing this is just a case of making the game inform you of situation and of the policies and motives of the various leaders in a fashion similar to the way CK2 does.

If you want to still fight in the east as the USSR then you just attack Poland to get to Germany - simples. No need to cripple the AI and wreck the game with scripting to achieve this.

 

[safe-keeper]

The issue here is that it basically makes for ahistorical and (worse still) implausible play: If you know that Germany is going to attack Poland in 1939, then you can prepare for a German invasion of Poland in 1939, and ignore the possibility that Germany might instead attack the Benelux countries (or someone else) - a move that is equally as valid and sensible as invading Poland. You could then (for example) simply disband your 1936 army playing as the USSR since you knew you wouldn't need it.

If you want to still fight in the east as the USSR then you just attack Poland to get to Germany - simples. No need to cripple the AI and wreck the game with scripting to achieve this.

Of couse. In the long run, I grow tired of railroading, as succeeding becomes a matter of learning the script by heart. Which is why I said I wanted it to be optional. Maybe my example wasn't the best, but either way, I do want that ability to play "what-if" scenarios, and in order to do so, I need to have that scripted (more or less) AI.

 

[Secret Master]

Agreed. The reason why the AI behaviour in CK2 appears plausible, though, is because you know its motives and the reason why it is doing what it is doing and can follow the situation developing, and receive notifications about important developments (e.g., your brother rebels against you because he wants the crown and has been plotting against you for years). Implement a WW2-era version of THIS, and plausible game play emerges by itself, without the need for restrictive scripting telling e.g., Germany to invade Poland in 1939.

I really hope they manage to.

I was kind of wondering why they didn't go with implementing a character system, which would enable natural solutions to a whole host of modeling issues with the politics. Or, let's say, "interest groups," so you have big name politicians, top generals and various companies interacting as they do in CK2. It would be glorious. I wonder when it will dawn on them that this "internal decentralization" is a brilliant game mechanic, and it's not just for modeling feudalism. CK2 is a masterpiece of a mad genius - EU4 is just competent.

Part of the problem here is that CK2 is really about interpersonal relationships. So, a substantial portion of the game's mechanics cover all that stuff. HOI is really about fighting the war. You could do a lot to make the internal politics more interesting, but it would detract from the whole "lets spend an hour designing panzer divisions" aspect of the game.

Don't get me wrong; I'd love some better politics in the series. But at a certain point, if you are designing the game, you have to either focus it on the war, or on other stuff.