This game has a huge diplomatic problem

[Travis_Bickle]

This is a post I've wanted to make for a while.

I really do love this game and enjoy pouring more time than I should into it. The problem is, there are aspects of the game that are so ridiculous I have to mentally block them out and pretend they aren't happening. They seem like things that should be quite simple to fix, but persist and persist and persist.

I will give you some examples, please tell me if you disagree or think I have something wrong.

1) Rivalries

They above all don't make sense. I'll give you some clear examples.

Hungary rivalries Aragon. Why? Are the Hungarians going to march through central Europe to occupy Valencia? With some similar frequency, Burgundy rivals Aragon. Again, why? They don't share claims, cores, trade nodes or anything and indeed they are both threatened by France between them.

You can often predict how a game will play out just by looking at starting rivalries.I don't think this adds "flavour" it's just arbitrary. Furthermore, rivalries dictate who a country will attack, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. If Burgundy does not rival England, they won't attack England even if England is thoroughly defeated and they could take Calais for free...instead they suicide for Liege. More on that later.

I think rivalries should change with greater flexibility and should really only occur between countries who have direct, competing claims. Otherwise you end up starting a France save and finding out Lithuania hates you for some reason.

2) Alliances

In a recent Byzantium run, Muscovy and Ottomans allied extremely early on. This is presumably because they both had Poland-Lithuania as rivals. I highly doubt the Muscovites in 1450 would be rushing to the add of the Ottoman Empire if the Byzantines tried to reclaim their land.

Alliances should not be a blanket term in which countries go "yeah we will defend each other no matter what". There should be defensive alliances, offensive alliances for particular scenarios. This would also prevent huge blobbing without any obstacles if two enemies threatened by the same country decide to form a defensive alliance.

Likewise, the AI has a terrible tendency to guarantee countries they actually should be attacking. Portugal guaranteeing Granada is a great example of this.

Above all else, for the player, Alliances only serve the purpose of deterring coalitions because everyone knows your ally Ottomans won't join an offensive war over 200 ducats of debt.

What should be a very important part of the game is quite useless because of the way they are set up.

3) Suicidal Wars

This is honestly just pathetic and makes me want to reload even if I have no interest in the region.

"Castile supports Sus independence" can quite often wreck Castile for years.
"Byzantium is preparing to attack Epirus"...yeah all their men are in Constantinople, the Ottomans won't grant military access and their fleet won't beat the Epirote fleet meaning they sit in Constantinople whilst Epirus annexes Southern Greece.
"Burgundy and Liege"...no need to say more.
Naples attacking the Pope is a particularly stupid one.

This is really just bad game design. Again, probably coming down to rivalries (if Castile particularly hates Morocco they'll support Sus independence even though they really should just attack Granada ASAP).

4) Events

"Poland chooses a local noble". I've never seen Lithuania survive that and only occasionally seen Poland survive that. I know Paradox keep this as an option because the Union was by no means guaranteed but surely they could do something so that Lithuania doesn't become a Russo-Turk balkanised mess.

"The von Habsburg prince will do nicely"...yeah then France declares a suicidal war on Austria's alliances. I've genuinely seen France disappear from the map in these scenarios especially if Hungary takes the Austrian union.

"We must seek Ottoman protection"...definitely RIP Lithuania especially if they don't have the union with Poland.

There's more like this, it just again repeats my point that these scenarios are not thought out, tested, or balanced. They can cause major shifts in game with no mechanic to ensure some serious cursed borders don't happen.

5) Subjects and Military Access

Subjects should not be able to ask for military access independently, otherwise you're in a situation in which you think your borders are secure but the AI is able to march round half of Europe to get to you because your vassal has asked for military access from half of Europe. Likewise, your subjects fleet seemingly is unable to attach to your own meaning whilst you may have 40 ships totally, your subjects ships are likely flying around in fleets of 2 or 3 being wiped out left, right and centre.

As a side note, I don't know why subjects can't take exploration ideas either. It kinda makes the Iberian Wedding a bit useless or an early PU over Portugal useless. It would be nice if you could choose their ideas for them.

6) Defender of the Faith

The AI takes this frequently and early. It makes it very hard for a small country, say Serbia, trying to expand because a 800 ducats in debt Castile are prepared to throw all their men at defending Ragusa. This again, should be a lot more situational and I think should only really be "activated" come the time of the Reformation in which it makes more sense.

These are just some ideas I have. I am not moaning or complaining or having a hard time at the game, it's just I find the above very frustrating when trying to get stuck in the immersion the game can otherwise provide.

7) Warscore

Saving my biggest gripe for last...

The AI feels it need to get 100% warscore even if it makes no sense for them to do so. The player knows to push as much as they need for the claims + war reps they want. The AI feels the need to fully occupy the target even at great financial/manpower loss. This is particularly annoying if you're a small country strugglign to stay afloat and get a call to arms. I think the AI should really know when to peace out.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

@Battlex I don't know why you've disagreed with this 1.5 minutes after me posting as there's no way you've read everything I wrote.

 

[Battlex]

@Battlex I don't know why you've disagreed with this 1.5 minutes after me posting as there's no way you've read everything I wrote.

Nah I'm a fast reader, I will type up my response within the hours tho, just want to the flow to be more organic

 

[Travis_Bickle]

Nah I'm a fast reader, I will type up my response within the hours tho, just want to the flow to be more organic

Fair point.

Please if anyone disagrees this isn't supposed to be something personal. I'm sharing things that are frustrating that I've heard other players complain about too. I'm posting this for the good of the game as I think they are serious issues not to complain or have a go at Paradox or anyone.

 

[JaxElite]

AI takes this frequently and early. It makes it very hard for a small country, say Serbia, trying to expand because a 800 ducats in debt Castile are prepared to throw all their men at defending Ragusa. This again, should be a lot more situational and I think should only really be "activated" come the time of the Reformation in which it makes more sense.

DotF should only be against heathens. For heretics we have the League War for christians and shouls have a sunni/shia califate mechanic for islam.

 

[HexHQ]

Great job, you've written a lot.
I especially miss something like defensive alliances, which would effectively limit the bloobing possibility.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

DotF should only be against heathens. For heretics we have the League War for christians and shouls have a sunni/shia califate mechanic for islam.

I tend to agree. It makes sense for it to cover heretics during the Reformation potentially, but it doesn't make sense and makes it very hard when you're a small Orthodox country trying to expand in the Balkans and have to fight England or France. Primarily, it's a really good mechanic to have for heathens.

Great job, you've written a lot.
I especially miss something like defensive alliances, which would effectively limit the bloobing possibility.

Thank you.

It really is something I'd love it if they introduced. It would pos new challenges for the player to have to deal with defensive alliances, but also I think it would keep balance between AI nations and also stop unholy alliances that should never take place (Ottomans and Venice alliance happened on another Byz run).

 

[iClipse]

I agree with some, disagree with some.

In general, I feel like this game's foundation is diplomacy in a broad sense, and building on top of that would add more immersion to this game. When first starting to play everything feels very organic and realistic, but the more you play the easier it gets to game the system.

I'll go over point by point:
1) Rivalries. While I agree that they sometimes feel a bit arbitrary, they also make the game a lot more dynamic. The initial diplomatic setup the first few years is for the most part build upon rivalries. You can get a certain country to be your ally just because you have a common rival. Otherwise it would not have been possible to get that alliance. So in short, I feel rivalries are mostly fine, though they might use some finetuning.

2) Alliances: I agree that defensive alliances should be a thing. Especially from this logical point: "hey we have this 3000 development monster next to each of us. I might not like you, you're maybe even my rival, but that doesn't matter if we all die to our neighbour". It would need finetuning, because the game will become a lot harder if every single war is against all your neighbours past a certain point. Still, the blobbing problem can be kind of solved by finetuning diplomacy over implementing even more maluses on overextension.

Some other things: while distance is mostly fine in Europe, the distance malus feels very big outside of the thunderdome areas (India, Japan). Often a country won't ally you due to distance, but in reality they're only 2 sea tiles away (Bengal-Indonesia for example). Size is also too important. The big ally the other big countries, while the small ones can't get any alliances and are gobled up in no time. I feel like the diplomatic capacity discussed earlier or some sort of incentive for allying small countries could go a long way.

3) Suicidal wars can be classified in the bug department in my opinion. They are sometimes tied to ruler personalities too. I don't mind them as much in that department. There were overambitious or stupid rulers in real history too.

4) Events, the Poland chooses local noble might be too common to happen. In most events there is some element of variance tied to the event, and in general I don't mind. The Iberian wedding sometimes doesn't happen too, but it's like 1 in 10 games or so? And even then, Spain often still forms because you can form Spain by conquering the other guy's stuff too.

5) Subjects. Military access in general should be more important and better fleshed out. You should also be able to somehow enforce it by threatening war if they're not granting it. Also, the AI should take military access more into calculation when declaring war or calculating specific stuff. Think about Portugal declaring on a big Indian country but with only 20 transports they won't ever get enough troops there in the first place without being stackwiped.

6) Defender of the Faith: No real comments. I like it. The only defend heathens make sense. Being a protestant country attacking a catholic country in the HRE being defended by Spain makes the game harder, true, but it has workarounds. The AI is a bit too triggerhappy to take the title though.

7) The warscore part. I mean, I agree in a way, but it's very hard to code the AI right in this department. How would you make it evaluate if a war is worth keeping going or not? There is already the 'making gains' modifier, which makes sense. The should take strengths of alliances more into account though. If you're peacing out your enemy's allies one by one they're still very happy to keep the war going even though the war started as 100k vs 100k, but now at the end it's 85k versus 20k remaining.

So with the last point, I agree, but fixing it is quite another.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

I agree with some, disagree with some.

Thank you for taking the time to provide a nice response. I appreciate it.

I'll go over point by point:
1) Rivalries. While I agree that they sometimes feel a bit arbitrary, they also make the game a lot more dynamic. The initial diplomatic setup the first few years is for the most part build upon rivalries. You can get a certain country to be your ally just because you have a common rival. Otherwise it would not have been possible to get that alliance. So in short, I feel rivalries are mostly fine, though they might use some finetuning.

The issue is that for me, rivalries don't change enough. Let's just take that Aragon - Burgundy scenario, no matter how much I improve relations or change my rivals to match Burgundy's that rivalry is going to stick for a while/until I outgrow them. If there was the option for both the AI and Player to change rivalries more easily/frequently to match the particular circumstance this woudn't be an issue.

If we find that France rivals both of us and sets our land as of vital interest, then absolutely we should be able to form an alliance. It just makes more sense imo.

2) Alliances: I agree that defensive alliances should be a thing. Especially from this logical point: "hey we have this 3000 development monster next to each of us. I might not like you, you're maybe even my rival, but that doesn't matter if we all die to our neighbour". It would need finetuning, because the game will become a lot harder if every single war is against all your neighbours past a certain point. Still, the blobbing problem can be kind of solved by finetuning diplomacy over implementing even more maluses on overextension.

Some other things: while distance is mostly fine in Europe, the distance malus feels very big outside of the thunderdome areas (India, Japan). Often a country won't ally you due to distance, but in reality they're only 2 sea tiles away (Bengal-Indonesia for example). Size is also too important. The big ally the other big countries, while the small ones can't get any alliances and are gobled up in no time. I feel like the diplomatic capacity discussed earlier or some sort of incentive for allying small countries could go a long way.

The distance thing is a good point. For example, if Portugal loses the England alliance (which can happen during the Hundred Years War), their distance makes it impossible to find another ally so they end up a sitting duck to Morocco.

Of course, it shouldn't be possible to ally Ming or Vijay in too early on so some balance is needed.

3) Suicidal wars can be classified in the bug department in my opinion. They are sometimes tied to ruler personalities too. I don't mind them as much in that department. There were overambitious or stupid rulers in real history too.

I get what you mean, but in the Byzantium-Epirus example it is really annoying for me because Byzantium won't even have their troops in Southern Greece. I guess I'm just asking for a bit more realism.

4) Events, the Poland chooses local noble might be too common to happen. In most events there is some element of variance tied to the event, and in general I don't mind. The Iberian wedding sometimes doesn't happen too, but it's like 1 in 10 games or so? And even then, Spain often still forms because you can form Spain by conquering the other guy's stuff too.

The Iberian Wedding not happening is fine, because Castile is still strong on their own right and often eat chunks of Aragon anyway. Poland choosing the local noble though means both Poland and Lithuania are infinitely weaker than Russia and the Ottomans.

It's kinda the same thing with the Burgundian Inheritance. If Austria gets all of Burgundy for free and Hungary for free there's a huge shift in power which imo cannot be reversed. I've spoken about how I think no one country should get the whole inheritance before.

5) Subjects. Military access in general should be more important and better fleshed out. You should also be able to somehow enforce it by threatening war if they're not granting it. Also, the AI should take military access more into calculation when declaring war or calculating specific stuff. Think about Portugal declaring on a big Indian country but with only 20 transports they won't ever get enough troops there in the first place without being stackwiped.

I agree.

6) Defender of the Faith: No real comments. I like it. The only defend heathens make sense. Being a protestant country attacking a catholic country in the HRE being defended by Spain makes the game harder, true, but it has workarounds. The AI is a bit too triggerhappy to take the title though.

I understand. I guess I am just making the specific point that as an Orthodox country it really sucks. I could understand Castile/Spain defending Naples, since they have an interest there, but if you want to attack Albania as Byzantium and can't because England or France are Defender of the Faith I think it's unrealistic. I mean theoretically you wouldn't even be able to attack Epirus.

And it's not like the AI just sends some support, a token army or some cash to the defending country, they will march their entire army down.

7) The warscore part. I mean, I agree in a way, but it's very hard to code the AI right in this department. How would you make it evaluate if a war is worth keeping going or not? There is already the 'making gains' modifier, which makes sense. The should take strengths of alliances more into account though. If you're peacing out your enemy's allies one by one they're still very happy to keep the war going even though the war started as 100k vs 100k, but now at the end it's 85k versus 20k remaining.

So with the last point, I agree, but fixing it is quite another.

I know nothing about coding so I guess I shouldn't comment.

But for example it would be nice to tell the AI "Hey you should really peace now, your allies have 15 war exhaustion" or get the AI to be intelligent enough to realise that 70% warscore is enough for what they need. There are very few scenarios in which you need 100% warscore, even full annexing a country doesn't always take 100% warscore.

In the early game I think 70-75% warscore or so is enough for the provinces you'd need + war reps or cash.

 

[Vaximillian]

The Crimean event is complete garbage and inexcusable.

 

[iClipse]

I know nothing about coding so I guess I shouldn't comment.

But for example it would be nice to tell the AI "Hey you should really peace now, your allies have 15 war exhaustion" or get the AI to be intelligent enough to realise that 70% warscore is enough for what they need. There are very few scenarios in which you need 100% warscore, even full annexing a country doesn't always take 100% warscore.

In the early game I think 70-75% warscore or so is enough for the provinces you'd need + war reps or cash.

I don't know much about coding as well. All I know is AI is often complained about, but very hard to actually fix. You can give your AI a ton of bonuses until they perform well, which is what most gamecompanies do. In EU4 the AI functions mostly decently without any bonuses on normal difficulty.

One thing I definitely agree about is that the AI is incredibly stupid in taking war deals. Like if the AI is being attacked but because of some circumstances or interventions they win the war with 99-100% war score, the AI often doesn't take any land and hardly does anything to cripple the opponent. Only to then later get annexed anyway by that same country after it recovered. The same for full on war lasting 8 years and then taking 1 province is kinda stupid.


Kind of off topic, but I'd love to see AI bonuses (Ironman compatible) that get stronger as the game progresses as a setting. Stellaris does that already. EU4 is often difficult enough at the start, but gets easier the longer you're playing in your campaign. Starting at normal difficulty is often difficult enough as a OPM, but gets very easy once you reach the 1600s.

Edit: on the subject of AI. They should really fix the AI making subjects of areas they should conquer. Manchu making a tributary out of Mongolia for example, making Qing impossible to form, or Japan making tributaries from other Japanese Daimyo's. For normal vasals it's fine because they can integrate them later. For tributaries, it's completely ilogical.

 

[atwix]

You can often predict how a game will play out just by looking at starting rivalries.I don't think this adds "flavour" it's just arbitrary.

it adds variety to the games. Otherwise, if you had fixed historical rivalries, you would see same thing happen each game.

In a recent Byzantium run, Muscovy and Ottomans allied extremely early on. This is presumably because they both had Poland-Lithuania as rivals.

The game just follows scripts. The moment Otto touches Russia they usually break alliance and rival each other.. The player can also use this "we share rivals please ally me" to get alliances, so I don't see the problem. What *else* should a nation flip friendly for, if not "the enemy of our enemy is our friend"?

Alliances should not be a blanket term in which countries go "yeah we will defend each other no matter what". There should be defensive alliances, offensive alliances for particular scenarios.

That might be true, bt it is VERY hard to implement in a game like this.

This is really just bad game design.

The game just follows scripts, and for Burgundy it is indeed bug. AI doesn't take allies of emperor into account when attacking. Is it bad design to let the AI work based on scripts? NO, as it is (I think) impossible to make a self learning ai for games like this.

There's more like this, it just again repeats my point that these scenarios are not thought out, tested, or balanced.

Well, you got a point there. Nothing ever gets tested, didn't you know

Subjects should not be able to ask for military access independently

true that.

The AI takes this frequently and early. It makes it very hard for a small country

Yeah, and they even loan up for it when in debt ALREADY, only to then lose it due to debt, causing -20 trust with all nations and lose all their alliances. I have seen DOTF lose all alliances due to scenario like this.

The AI feels it need to get 100% warscore even if it makes no sense for them to do so.

True, they should teach the AI to peace out when it has the warscore required for what they want.

 

[The Goldfinch]

I strongly agree with everything you said. Allies should be opportunistic, looking for own interest, instead of eagerly sending 95% of own manpower to slaughter because their Ally gained favours and entered this stupid war.
Also rivalries. They are simply ridiculous as they are now. No need to add anything to what you said

 

[Poliut]

With CK, alliances and rivalries are a lot more temporary as they're tied to the characters rather than nations.

Alliances should start off as short term deals, but I can see the premise for having some of those short term alliances become long term ones. The World's Oldest Alliance encompasses the entire EU4 period, for example.

Rivalries just feels like a "we hate you because we need someone to hate" most of the time (and other times it's "we're calling you a rival because we need the bonuses from going to war against you, which we're going to do soon").

Defensive pacts sound like a good idea, but I'm still wary of those CK2 scenarios where your own religious head sides with the heathens in a holy war, and some OPM count half a world away is ready to declare war in the event an emperor presses a de jure claim.

 

[Battlex]

I strongly agree with everything you said. Allies should be opportunistic, looking for own interest, instead of eagerly sending 95% of own manpower to slaughter because their Ally gained favours and entered this stupid war.
Also rivalries. They are simply ridiculous as they are now. No need to add anything to what you said

War contribution gives favours, fully committing to wars means you get more favours so can call them into your wars, it's a decent reason

 

[The Goldfinch]

War contribution gives favours, fully committing to wars means you get more favours so can call them into your wars, it's a decent reason

Any example from history? Ally joining another in offensive war only because returning the favor (without having anything to gain, and has to be EU 4 timeframe)?

My point is, it's simply ridiculous to see some giant, lets say Austria, sending 200k people to die in war because its ally Mantua wanted this one province from Montferrat and accumulated enough favors overtime

 

[Styria]

Yeah, I feel like Rivalries could use some freshening up. I mean, even if I can just declare war and force them to remove me as a rival, it's wasteful. Especially if we have an enemy in common; why should my only option be to crush my rival, allowing our common enemy to roll in and finish him off? A diplomatic option to resolve our differences would be great, especially if it gives me some busywork.

I feel like alliances shouldn't be permanent as well. Well, maybe defensive alliances should be permanent-ish. But offensive alliances should work like coalitions; we both hate this one guy, let's get the boys together and go stomp on him.
This would also allow an expansion in diplomacy. First, to convince neutral or on-the-fence countries to join, or stand aside, maybe there could be small missions or bribes to achieve that. I trade some favors, gold, or resources to get Austria on board, while I spend some favors or gold or whatever to get Hungary to stay out of it. Or at least, increase the chance of Hungary standing-by. And then, once the war is finished, the alliance is abolished. Maybe we get an opinion modifier against joining or forming another alliance for x number of years, just so we can't curbstomp everyone with the same allies. This might allow more fluid alliances and rivals, and would provide better motivations aside from "we have been friends for a while, so help me smash Bohemia again please".

Also, Defender of the Faith should be replaced with a Regional Power mechanic. Like, if I own a certain number of all Italian provinces, I get to declare myself Defender of Italy, and get the option to automatically join wars against anyone attacking into Italy, unless someone else claims the title from me. This would allow countries to counter expansionists without having to account for some weird minor in Crimea.

Plus, the title of "Defender of the Faith" was never used even remotely close to the way the game mechanics present it. It was either a "I defended our State's official faith from heathen foreigners, and all I got was this special title", or "I wrote the Pope a nice essay and he gave me this gold star".

 

[MachopPower69]

About alliances, I wish it was more balanced than declaring war so you don't fight thousands of men if you are Venice declaring on Serbia allied with Bosnia, Wallachia and Hungary when you can't call your allies in because of a lack of favours/ debt. Then the enemies waste all their ducats of mercenaries (I've seen Archduke Austria that wasn't an Emperor use up to 64k mercenaries to fight Bohemia)

 

[Battlex]

About alliances, I wish it was more balanced than declaring war so you don't fight thousands of men if you are Venice declaring on Serbia allied with Bosnia, Wallachia and Hungary when you can't call your allies in because of a lack of favours/ debt. Then the enemies waste all their ducats of mercenaries (I've seen Archduke Austria that wasn't an Emperor use up to 64k mercenaries to fight Bohemia)

How did they have 64k mercs if not emperor? Fighting Bohemia for the PU is worth debt, same with hiring all discount advisors in 1444

Yeah, I feel like Rivalries could use some freshening up. I mean, even if I can just declare war and force them to remove me as a rival, it's wasteful. Especially if we have an enemy in common; why should my only option be to crush my rival, allowing our common enemy to roll in and finish him off? A diplomatic option to resolve our differences would be great, especially if it gives me some busywork.

I feel like alliances shouldn't be permanent as well. Well, maybe defensive alliances should be permanent-ish. But offensive alliances should work like coalitions; we both hate this one guy, let's get the boys together and go stomp on him.
This would also allow an expansion in diplomacy. First, to convince neutral or on-the-fence countries to join, or stand aside, maybe there could be small missions or bribes to achieve that. I trade some favors, gold, or resources to get Austria on board, while I spend some favors or gold or whatever to get Hungary to stay out of it. Or at least, increase the chance of Hungary standing-by. And then, once the war is finished, the alliance is abolished. Maybe we get an opinion modifier against joining or forming another alliance for x number of years, just so we can't curbstomp everyone with the same allies. This might allow more fluid alliances and rivals, and would provide better motivations aside from "we have been friends for a while, so help me smash Bohemia again please".

Also, Defender of the Faith should be replaced with a Regional Power mechanic. Like, if I own a certain number of all Italian provinces, I get to declare myself Defender of Italy, and get the option to automatically join wars against anyone attacking into Italy, unless someone else claims the title from me. This would allow countries to counter expansionists without having to account for some weird minor in Crimea.

Plus, the title of "Defender of the Faith" was never used even remotely close to the way the game mechanics present it. It was either a "I defended our State's official faith from heathen foreigners, and all I got was this special title", or "I wrote the Pope a nice essay and he gave me this gold star".

The first use of defender of the faith is Henry viii being praised by the Pope, but protestant Catholic conflicts being raised to an international level E. G. Dispute over succession of Cologne did sometimes happen

Any example from history? Ally joining another in offensive war only because returning the favor (without having anything to gain, and has to be EU 4 timeframe)?

My point is, it's simply ridiculous to see some giant, lets say Austria, sending 200k people to die in war because its ally Mantua wanted this one province from Montferrat and accumulated enough favors overtime

Mantua needs to have waited forever to call Austria in, or have promised land. You have help in wars being rewarded, Prussia a kingdom, hannover an electorate and kingdom, Florence allowed to annex Sienna as a Spanish fiefdom, we'll likely have favours do more things in the next patch as you can now use diplomats to accrue favours

 

[Titanius Puffin]

The game just follows scripts, and for Burgundy it is indeed bug. AI doesn't take allies of emperor into account when attacking. Is it bad design to let the AI work based on scripts? NO, as it is (I think) impossible to make a self learning ai for games like this.

Is it? Impossible suggests forever.... I don't expect it will be feasible to have machine-learing AI for EU(5 or 6)... but it's been done experimentally (as expensive one-offs that created impossible juggernauts) with AlphaStar in Starcraft II, and OpenAI Five in Dota 2.
But I understand that we'll be engaging with scripted AI for the foreseeable future.