V2 Beta AAR : France 1836 - A Learning The Game AAR discussion thread

[Dagfinn]

I think the major complaint is that all these wars are taking place far too quickly.

What is it, about 1839? You're two or three years in and you've already had several major wars (or at least wars involving major powers), which seems a bit excessive to some of us.

There are too many wars taking place in too short a period of time.

Austen.

Are you realy surprised by this?

PD have all the way from almost the first news about V2 stated that it will be a "sandbox game." In other words just another expand and conquer game

Why PD still chooces to label it "Historical Games" is a paradox to me (Pun intended )

Sadly the majority of paradoxians (the customers) is thrilled by this, and a minority of paradoxians like you and me are saddened by this.

While I during the DD's have developed hope for V2, the two AAR's uptil now have made me despare again, expand and conquer all the way

But I still will wait my final judgement until more AAR's are released.

 

[Orinsul]

The Human player should be able to do whatever he likes
but the AI should only do reasonable in historical context things.
not by forcing it, but though programmed AI to make it act with the nations best diplomatic interests at heart, not its military interests.

and metternich is still alive isnt he?, WHY does he allow his Austria to make such terrible diplomatic moves which entirely counter his philosophy!

 

[Baneslave]

The Human player should be able to do whatever he likes
but the AI should only do reasonable in historical context things.
not by forcing it, but though programmed AI to make it act with the nations best diplomatic interests at heart, not its military interests.

Why? So AI should just wait as player creates Super Power that crushes everything?

I greatly prefer game where AI plays by same rules and same goals as human, instead of game where AI is just punching bag that sits straight until human comes to hit it.

 

[unperson]

WHY does he allow his Austria to make such terrible diplomatic moves which entirely counter his philosophy!

Getting half the Ukraine in a short amount of time is indeed a terrible diplomatic move.

 

[Orinsul]

If the player Upsets the Balance, then everything should go to hell in a handbasket, but if the player is say, Nepal or the Maldives and does NOTHING, the game ought to go entirely historically so that the player can see his effect on history, so that the game is shaping history. Not shaping meaningless wars and a dreamland.
So that is a historical game that is shaped by the player, not so everything happens historically but so the game starts with the motives and motivations in the minds of its AI leaders as were in the historical leaders.
That should dynmanically change to fit the changes enforced by the player, not just random selfish AI nonesense
but i guess paradox would need alot more time and money to set that up than it will ever has.

If the human breaks the game, then the game should re-act to break him, but if he keeps within the rules of the concert so should the AI

While OH has done some things to upset things, i dont feel he has done enough to warrant Austria and Russia to war

 

[Baneslave]

Orinsul: Why are you complaining then?

Clearly France's diplomatic moves in Italy and Switzerland, and conquest in Africa forced Austria to find new places to force its influence on. Russia just happened to be particularly good target for that.

 

[Dagfinn]

Again, the AI behavior here is not in the realm of the unplausible, given what has happened in my game in the first two years. It's not like Austria is out of the blue DoW'ing Brazil or Siam for no reason whatsoever. The world of my AAR in 1837 already off the rails, and to expect some sort of Ranke-like affinity to actual history in terms of gameplay by the AI in this kind of environment really does make little sense. The AI is behaving in what it is calculating as its best interest to win the game, and in my opinion the decisions it has made make sense and are historically plausible given the game context.

Im sorry, but I have to disagree with you her. IMHO the ai behaviour is unplausible. Tough Im in no doubt that the AI is behaving in what it is calculating as its best interest to win the game.

I think my stance is related to my dislike of PD's BB-war model. PD have (in my eyes) tried to solve BB with more BB! So all you get a spiral of transfering of land with more and more nations becomming BBs. To no surprise the BB model have been a gamebreaker to me since PD introduced the consept many many years ago

So what should in my eyes have been Austrias solution in your AAR?

They should have demanded that Russia released the newly conquered territory in the east, humiliated them, demanded reparations, ect.
Not themselfes started an annexation spree in Ukraina wich just increases the BB spiral. That would have been an plausible ai behaviour!

How doable this is with programming and coding, I obviousley do not know. o

 

[Baneslave]

Not sure on this one re Ruling Party Only. I *think* it means that the upper house will look like whichever party controls the lower house. I don't think nations with democratic political systems can have that version of upper house, only non-democratic ones, since elections for the lower house would lead to chaos in the upper house every few years if different parties replaced each other.

Aww. I thought it meant that the largest party in the Upper House gets 100% representation, meaning that you wouldn't need true majority to force reforms.

It made sense in my head.

Dagfinn: Austrian aggression on Russia wasn't BB war, but a opportunistic war to gain something from distracted opponent. I don't see why Austria should force Russia to liberate anything when it could gain something for itself.

 

[Orinsul]

um, that is what it means
one party in the Upper House means you can force though reforms

OH, If you subsidise BOTH parties in an ongoing war, would they both know about the other? or would you get good diplomatic increasement from both countries while at the same time goading them into driving up the militancy and war weariness?

 

[KonradRichtmark]

In other words, you folks want the human player to be able to powergame freely, but the AI to sit idle and act in a "historically appropriate" way, regardless of whether conditions are the same as they were in real history?

I sure hope you don't get your way, but if you do, don't be surprised when the game provides little challenge

 

[Sarmatia1871]

In other words, you folks want the human player to be able to powergame freely, but the AI to sit idle and act in a "historically appropriate" way, regardless of whether conditions are the same as they were in real history?

I don't think anyone suggested this.

 

[Baneslave]

um, that is what it means
one party in the Upper House means you can force though reforms

I was mostly thinking this kind of situation:

45% liberals, 30% conservative, 25% reactionary.

With this set up normal Upper House wouldn't be able to push through reforms. But with Ruling Party Only it would instead be:

100% liberals

Which would allow reforms.

I don't think anyone suggested this.

The Human player should be able to do whatever he likes
but the AI should only do reasonable in historical context things.
not by forcing it, but though programmed AI to make it act with the nations best diplomatic interests at heart, not its military interests.

Edit. This thread moves confusingly fast.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

Im sorry, but I have to disagree with you her. IMHO the ai behaviour is unplausible. Tough Im in no doubt that the AI is behaving in what it is calculating as its best interest to win the game.

I think my stance is related to my dislike of PD's BB-war model. PD have (in my eyes) tried to solve BB with more BB! So all you get a spiral of transfering of land with more and more nations becomming BBs. To no surprise the BB model have been a gamebreaker to me since PD introduced the consept many many years ago

So what should in my eyes have been Austrias solution in your AAR?

They should have demanded that Russia released the newly conquered territory in the east, humiliated them, demanded reparations, ect.
Not themselfes started an annexation spree in Ukraina wich just increases the BB spiral. That would have been an plausible ai behaviour!

How doable this is with programming and coding, I obviousley do not know. o

Did you read Peekee's Brazil Beta-AAR? In it, great powers entering a BB war didn't seek to conquer bits of Brazil, they chose "containment" as their war goal, giving them no BB.

 

[Orinsul]

In other words, you folks want the human player to be able to powergame freely, but the AI to sit idle and act in a "historically appropriate" way, regardless of whether conditions are the same as they were in real history?

I sure hope you don't get your way, but if you do, don't be surprised when the game provides little challenge

Im precisely saying that the AI should act historically UNLESS the player Powergames
which is what would happen in reality too
For the Conditions to effect the actions
not for the AI to be powergaming all the time under the expectation the player will be too

WHY should it be either one extreme or the other?
Why not have both? Why not use REASON and have the AI re-act Reasonably! it wouldnt be hard to programme in a dynamic AI, other people have managed it.

THe game should feel like history, the game should be plausible, so you can see your effect on the world.
Not that you have no effect and everything is mad, not that you have no effect and everything is unreasonably peaceful
BUT that things go historically, unless YOU do anything to change the course of history
SO that you have an EFFECT on the world
The middle point is always the best, extremes never work, so why do you keep demanding extremes?

 

[Valentin the II]

In other words, you folks want the human player to be able to powergame freely, but the AI to sit idle and act in a "historically appropriate" way, regardless of whether conditions are the same as they were in real history?

I sure hope you don't get your way, but if you do, don't be surprised when the game provides little challenge

No. I personally hope to see the AI act plausibly.
Great powers seeking to expand at the expense of uncivs, and preserve the balance of power in Europe. What I don't want is GPs attacking GPs for absolutely no reason. This is not only historically implausible but extremely unwise from a strategic stand-point, sins a good player can easily exploit this senseless war mongering to his advantage.
Imo there are to many aggressive wars going on, and to little defensive ones. There should be more interventions (GPs should protect their strategic interests), and less conquests/acquisitions.


A question (Please someone answer):
At the end of a BB war (war of containment?), if the attackers win and cut the offender down to size, does he lose the BB? It would seem silly for other nations to keep "containing" him after he's been defanged.

 

[JoeGiavani]

Im precisely saying that the AI should act historically UNLESS the player Powergames
which is what would happen in reality too
For the Conditions to effect the actions
not for the AI to be powergaming all the time under the expectation the player will be too

WHY should it be either one extreme or the other?
Why not have both? Why not use REASON and have the AI re-act Reasonably! it wouldnt be hard to programme in a dynamic AI, other people have managed it.

Having the AI react differently depending on what "the player" does is itself a form of determinism, and a rather extremist position at that.
I don't want to feel like I'm "special" when I play, I want to be just another nation with what I do accomplish done entirely by myself.

 

[Orinsul]

THe AI should do things that are reasonable and plausible

IF the Player doesn't do anything to change things from history, What happens to make the AI strategy change
losing a war that was historically won would change things
a different election result might change things
But for Second Year of the Game, the Player is really the only factor that might have changed things enough

But not day one entirely different plans and unrealistic strategies

 

[JoeGiavani]

But not day one entirely different plans and unrealistic strageties

Well one of the awkward things about reality is how unrealistic it is

 

[unperson]

I don't want every game play out exactly the same witouth any change if I do not do anything. It would get boring too fast and would be too easily exploitable by the player because he would know exactly what the AI would do ahead of time. So some randomness is very welcome for me.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

If the player Upsets the Balance, then everything should go to hell in a handbasket, but if the player is say, Nepal or the Maldives and does NOTHING, the game ought to go entirely historically so that the player can see his effect on history, so that the game is shaping history. Not shaping meaningless wars and a dreamland.

Why? That would not be a simulation, but a re-enactment. The way history played out was not some predetermined conclusion, golden mean or expected outcome. Some historical developments were predictable and in hindsight pretty inevitable consequences of the conditions, but others were consequences of highly improbable events that could just as easily have gone another way.

There is nothing special about the "balance" you're talking about upsetting, it isn't even a balance, it's just one possibility of many outcomes, a possibility that there's nothing special or correct about simply because that's how things fell out in real life.