Well-Behaved Nations Seldom Make History

[JoeGiavani]

Perhaps... but that depends a lot of the type of industry you have. Only industrial facilities capable to boosting the military power is relevant. A fully civilian industry doesn't pose a significant threat.

Nonsense. In 1938 the American economy was producing virtually no weapons or ammo and had a negligable military strength, but the Germans were more than aware that in only a few years they could turn into the most militarily powerful nation on earth; and they did.

 

[Sovereign]

I don't think there's been any mention of BB in Vicky2...

I agree that the Group of 8 will probably play the role of worlds policemen, attempting to control who approaches the club, and by what means (economically, ok, militarily- not ok unless a GP ally, industrially... depends, etc).

Of course, if a GP drops from the G8 due to fighting among the G8... I doubt the AI would play against a new entry in that case.

 

[Sute]{h]

Nonsense. In 1938 the American economy was producing virtually no weapons or ammo and had a negligable military strength, but the Germans were more than aware that in only a few years they could turn into the most militarily powerful nation on earth; and they did.

Perhaps... but that depends a lot of the type of industry you have. Only industrial facilities capable of boosting the military power is relevant. A fully civilian industry doesn't pose a significant threat.

Which part of capable is hard to understand? The US clearly had the capacity to reroute their industry for military purposes within a short timeframe. Fact is that American companies such as Ford helped Germany build up their army prior to WW2.

Also I hardly agree with the US having a negligable military in 1938. Relative power is what matters, and I would clearly place the US within the top 10 countries in 1938.

 

[daemonofdecay]

Great Power status doesn't equal military power. The AI should evaluate other countries based on their military score not their standing. At least if it is balance of power we are attempting to create.

I think it should all be taken into account; Imperial Russia heavily industrializing during the 1910s would be a threat to Germany, even if they are not increasing their military size or building directly military-oriented buildings. Just by being stronger economically they were becoming potentially more dangerous.

However I do agree that the AI should see a rapid growth in military score as a more imminent threat than a rapid growth in culture or industrial score. Thus a rapid growth within a state that is a possible threat to ones position in the world could lead to an arms race as England tries to keep its military score above Germany's by building more ships.

Personally I see the speed of any growth as being instrumental to how much of a "threat" the AI perceives any nation to be. Doubling your military score in 10 years should be a very big worry, while doing that in 50 would be less so.

 

[Sute]{h]

I shall rephrase my originale statement, since it seems to be causing a lot of confusion: Industrial capacity only matters the extend that it can increase military capacity. As noted earlier because of the WM in Vicky pretty much any industry can translate directly into weapons and thus qualifies.

The reason I'm saying this is that if industry and especially trade are to be included in the diplomatic AI, we are swiftly leaving the balance of power logic for a logic of interdependence. According to the logic of interdependence countries those economies interact gains more from peace relation and trade than by warfare. Thus the game turns from a zero sum game of relative power into a plus sum game of cooperative economic development.

And prestige is a hoax as far as power evaluation goes. Why should a high prestige cause my to fear you more, if you don't have the arms to back it up?

As to the idea of factoring in the speed of growth I've been considering it as well. The trouble is that it is again irrational. If country A grows from power 5 to power 10, is it really a bigger threat than country B, that was reduced from power 20 to power 15? B clearly still have a bigger capacity to hurt you. Also it is really reflected by the current BB point system. Expansion costs BB points which reduces over time.

A more needed factor is effective military capacity. Very few countries has the capacity to project power effectively on a global scale. Thus a country like China should feel far less threatened by Austria or Prussia than by Great Britain. After all GB has the navy needed to support a war against China something Austria and Prussia does not. Likewise Saxony shouldn't really feel threatened by Great Britain, since it would need military access through Prussia in order to reach them.

 

[daemonofdecay]

I shall rephrase my originale statement, since it seems to be causing a lot of confusion: Industrial capacity only matters the extend that it can increase military capacity. As noted earlier because of the WM in Vicky pretty much any industry can translate directly into weapons and thus qualifies.

The reason I'm saying this is that if industry and especially trade are to be included in the diplomatic AI, we are swiftly leaving the balance of power logic for a logic of interdependence. According to the logic of interdependence countries those economies interact gains more from peace relation and trade than by warfare. Thus the game turns from a zero sum game of relative power into a plus sum game of cooperative economic development.

I agree. Thats why nations should always seek to increase their own "rankings" while simultaneously preventing others from doing so. Not by wildly declaring war on everyone who builds a factory, but by taking steps to address the nations who are bigger threats to their own position in the National Rankings and who are a bigger threats militarily.

And prestige is a hoax as far as power evaluation goes. Why should a high prestige cause my to fear you more, if you don't have the arms to back it up?

For gameplay reasons, really; each nation should seek to be on top. That doesn't mean that war should break out just over high culture/prestige, but that should be taken into the equation of which nation threatens the AI's hold on power.

Nobody wants to end up in the dustbin of history, after all.

 

[telesien]

I used to think that prestige is more cultural ranking. Fashion, arts, architecture, literature and such. But since it is also won and lost in a war, it must also contain the "aura of fighting glory" and respect it brings. Nation with high prestige should also be feared more.

If you ask me I would split prestige into two different stats, one for culture and science and other for military reputation, but now it works how it works.

 

[TheLand]

Also I hardly agree with the US having a negligable military in 1938. Relative power is what matters, and I would clearly place the US within the top 10 countries in 1938.

The US Army was probably hovering around 10th place in 1938 - however the US Navy was tied with Britain for first place.

 

[Hardcore_gamer]

Victoria magnificently depicted the era of the 19th century, complete with European conservatism and colonial expansion. "Badboy" played a major part in this; expanding in Europe was as expensive diplomatically as it was financially.

Unfortunately, this meant that warmongering countries tended to have no allies at all. Aggressive powers did not enter into treaties with others; you could have +200 relations but, if your badboy was high enough (which wasn't always all that high), there was no chance to capitalize on such close relations.

I wonder how easily expansion will be in this iteration of Victoria. I see that we now have claims for component states and not merely provinces, which should improve things tremendously; victory will mean something in terms of gaining whole economic units. But will it still be impossible for the world-straddling conqueror to do anything but go it alone (even when there are other conquerors whose strategic interests might be compatible)?

While gaining allies can be hard if you have a high BB score, can't you just turn defeated enemies into vassals and then force them to join your next war with you until you have a collection of vassals by your side?

This is one of the things I would do in the Hearts of Iron games. If you can't make allies, then just "create" some

 

[Surgünoglu]

Quite a fair point, and yet those vassals could only be so big in relation to oneself. They could also only be toggled between fighting for the player and fighting against him or her... I would prefer allies who might hold their own, not be subservient with me, but exist as potential rivals--potential friends. In short, I want the realm of warmongers to be as fraught with potential as with the freshly loaded nation. Instead, the more we achieve in game it seems the less we can manage and the more we find ourselves in a grudge match with everyone else in the world. I understand Balance of Power, but sometimes I wonder if every ascent has to be marked by the same routine.

And I think even a colossus might find someone interested to fight alongside them. What autonomous, independent nation would turn down the chance to ally with a world-conqueror? It would be lunacy, and yet this lunacy is enacted in game, whether or not that country has a chance of surviving alone.

 

[Sute]{h]

And I think even a colossus might find someone interested to fight alongside them. What autonomous, independent nation would turn down the chance to ally with a world-conqueror? It would be lunacy, and yet this lunacy is enacted in game, whether or not that country has a chance of surviving alone.

Realism predicts that states will bandwagon rarely, only when there is no possibility of building a balancing coalition or their geography makes balancing difficult (i.e. surrounded by enemies). Bandwagoning is considered to be dangerous because it allows a rival state to gain power.

So yes in extreme cases a country might ally the world-conqueror.

 

[Projekt 919]

I'm Guessing they might do a Modified Version of the threat System in HOI# if i were a dev i'd envision something like this

1. All Great Powers Generate roughly 5.0 threat to any nation bordering them

2. All Great Powers Generate 8.0 threat to all other great powers

3. All Countries Military Forces Generate threat at a rate of 1.0 per 40 brigades

4. All Middle powers Generate 2.0 threat to any nation Bordering them

5. All Middle powers Generate 2.0 threat to other middle powers

6. all middle powers generate 1.0 threat to great powers

7. As A great Power Every Capital Ship You Possess would have an Effect of 1.0 threat on all other great powers.

8. if two great nations Feel Mutually threatened by a country (more than 20) thay should have a progressivly higher chance of allying with each other ( a la Germany and ottoman empire, germany and austria-hungary germany and ottoman empire; France and Russia, France and Britain)

So for Example in 1892 when the Franco-Russian Alliance was signed German would have a threat of about 25 on russia and 45 on france ( Because of Franco-Prussian war) , making them both more likely to ally with each other, it woudn't force it vicky one style but it would make it more likely

 

[Sute]{h]

I don't see the need to calculate yet another value (or making arbitrary differences between countries) when we have military score.

Threat could simply be something like:
[industrial score]/2 + [military score] * [proximity modifier]

The proximity modifier being a value between 1 and 0 calculated based on distance and naval strength.

Once the AI have identified the country with the highest threat value it will attempt to seek potential allies. This is done by looking at which countries the threatening country in turn feels threaten by. Attempting to find one or more allies whoes combined threat value exceeds the threat value the country faces from the enemy and his allies.

 

[telesien]

I don't see the need to calculate yet another value (or making arbitrary differences between countries) when we have military score.

Threat could simply be something like:
[industrial score]/2 + [military score] * [proximity modifier]

The proximity modifier being a value between 1 and 0 calculated based on distance and naval strength.

Once the AI have identified the country with the highest threat value it will attempt to seek potential allies. This is done by looking at which countries the threatening country in turn feels threaten by. Attempting to find one or more allies whoes combined threat value exceeds the threat value the country faces from the enemy and his allies.

Interesting debates like this always make me regret I have virtually no knowledge of AI programing. It sounds quite simple and it should provide interesting results. But is it possible to implement and balance?

 

[unmerged(25947)]

Implement, yes. Balance, what? Wars are rarely balanced.

 

[telesien]

Implement, yes. Balance, what? Wars are rarely balanced.

Balanced to be fun and not create stupid alliances or drive the whole world bonkers in first 30 years

 

[Surgünoglu]

And location and one's own territorial ambitions affect this too. If Germany annexed the Netherlands and Belgium, but opposed the Russians, the Ottomans would not necessarily say "Whoa, Germany's way too belligerent for us to work with!" Now, if they annex one of the Turks' neighbors, like Greece, that starts getting scary, but it's all about location. In Victoria, if Japan takes Russian Siberia and annexes Korea in one go, it's a pariah, and that might make sense with consciously interventionist powers like the UK whose interest was very much in the status quo, because they ruled things. But who's to say that, again, the Ottomans wouldn't ally with a similar power whose star is rising over Asia--and who is far too distant at the moment to pose a threat?

Alliances ought to be marriages of convenience, as they are in life, rather than the nice guy's clubs they become in Victoria. And don't even get me started on that one war I fought against Peru. Ecuador nearly doubled in size and I took a few provinces too, but that was enough to make the allies who'd glutted on Peruvian blood to turn their back on me. I was no longer a nice guy, evidently, even though I was a terrific warmaker. Then we all got picked off by Brazil, who should have frightened us far more than any one of our now collapsed alliance.

 

[Nikolai]

In Victoria 1, I felt forced to make a custom event removing BB, as the whole diplomacy aspect of the game went down the toilet as soon as you had taken a few provinces. That even was the case when I freaking BOUGHT the provinces!

 

[Sute]{h]

In Victoria 1, I felt forced to make a custom event removing BB, as the whole diplomacy aspect of the game went down the toilet as soon as you had taken a few provinces. That even was the case when I freaking BOUGHT the provinces!

I just used uncivs to wash off BB points. Conquer it in bits for zero BB points, and release it once I got to many BB points from something else.

As for location and territorial ambition it is already included in my model. If Germany annexes holland it doesn't get closer to the Ottoman Empire. If it annexes Greece they are now bordering the Ottomans and their proximity modifier goes up.

Also I would stick to the KISS-rule. The more factors included the greater the chance of simply paralyzing the AI.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I'm Guessing they might do a Modified Version of the threat System in HOI# if i were a dev i'd envision something like this

1. All Great Powers Generate roughly 5.0 threat to any nation bordering them

2. All Great Powers Generate 8.0 threat to all other great powers

3. All Countries Military Forces Generate threat at a rate of 1.0 per 40 brigades

4. All Middle powers Generate 2.0 threat to any nation Bordering them

5. All Middle powers Generate 2.0 threat to other middle powers

6. all middle powers generate 1.0 threat to great powers

7. As A great Power Every Capital Ship You Possess would have an Effect of 1.0 threat on all other great powers.

8. if two great nations Feel Mutually threatened by a country (more than 20) thay should have a progressivly higher chance of allying with each other ( a la Germany and ottoman empire, germany and austria-hungary germany and ottoman empire; France and Russia, France and Britain)

So for Example in 1892 when the Franco-Russian Alliance was signed German would have a threat of about 25 on russia and 45 on france ( Because of Franco-Prussian war) , making them both more likely to ally with each other, it woudn't force it vicky one style but it would make it more likely

There is a flaw in that system. A GP/MP would give threat to someone of equal or greater value, but not someone of lesser value that doesn't border them. Indeed the treat should grow the smaller you become because they are more likely to be gobbled up.

I don't see the need to calculate yet another value (or making arbitrary differences between countries) when we have military score.

Threat could simply be something like:
[industrial score]/2 + [military score] * [proximity modifier]

The proximity modifier being a value between 1 and 0 calculated based on distance and naval strength.

Once the AI have identified the country with the highest threat value it will attempt to seek potential allies. This is done by looking at which countries the threatening country in turn feels threaten by. Attempting to find one or more allies whoes combined threat value exceeds the threat value the country faces from the enemy and his allies.

([industrial score]/2 + [military score]) * [proximity modifier] (^ 2 if no direct route of attack)

That would be more approrpiate. A country is less likely to worry if you can't hit them easily because of buffer states.