Why is this game losing clout?

[Hive]

Not at all. The AI doesn't have a grasp of the balance of power concept at all. A proper neo-realistic AI would measure the powerlevel of the other countries and actively seek to undermine the most powerful entity. This could be by war, expansion, espionage or building alliances to counter the leading dog. I've never seen anything along those lines in EU3 (or EU2).

Rather the most significant determinant of AI behavior in EU3 (and EU2 for that matter) seems to be badboy points. A concept which most neo-realistic approaches wouldn't agree with at all. Countries doesn't in a neo-realistic approach balance against the most aggressive country they balance against the most powerful country. These can of course coincide. The only neo-realist that includes aggresiveness AFAIK is Walt (not Waltz) in his balance of threat approach. However he doesn't equate threat simply to being a badboy. It is only one of four determinants with state offensive capabilities and the ability to project them relatively to the judging country still being the most important.

This is all true, but I was thinking more about the fact that the AI seems to be distrusting of others, only concerned with it's own security and expansion and prone to use military force above all else.

But yeah, I would really really love to see an AI that cares about balance of power. Sort of like UK leading up to TGW.

 

[Sute]{h]

Ubik
I'm just pointing out, that you can hardly say "The model is the one from international relations" about EU3 (and its mods). No more than you could about EU2.

Other than that I still feel people missed the point about the whole dynamic vs. historical debate. Noone in the historical camp called for illogical scripts forcing history on everybody. At least no more so that the dynamic camp called for no history what so ever.

Personally I think EU3 is getting better, and Magna Mundi is a large part of improving my enjoyment of the game. I wouldn't go back to EU2. I still miss the country specific feeling I got in EU2 AGCEEP though. EU3 feels pretty much the same regardsless of which country you play. Btw. I'm playing the Knight right now, and they at least seem to have some flavour events.

Still the major problem with EU3 is the weakness of the AI's strategic capabilities IMHO. I want the AI to grasp the concept of stopping up and coming powers, before it loses the ability to do so. The secondary and somewhat related problem is that EU3 feels kind of random. Both when it comes of events and AI behavior. I'm not saying EU2 didn't have those flaws as well though.

 

[Sute]{h]

This is all true, but I was thinking more about the fact that the AI seems to be distrusting of others, only concerned with it's own security and expansion and prone to use military force above all else.

But yeah, I would really really love to see an AI that cares about balance of power. Sort of like UK leading up to TGW.

That would be more in lines with classical realism, but still it doesn't do the theory service at all. I'm hoping AI will improve in future Paradox titles as well. Balance of power is such a simple theory, that it should be possible to convert it to a mathematical formula. Especially in a computer game where you do have exact numbers for unit strengths and so on.

 

[Hive]

That would be more in lines with classical realism, but still it doesn't do the theory service at all.

And saying it's all about balance of power and nothing else does the theory better service?

 

[Sute]{h]

And saying it's all about balance of power and nothing else does the theory better service?

Neo-realism? Or classical realism? The first is most certainly about balance of power... within a certain type of international system. Kenneth Waltz defines the international system as an anarchy. Since noone is able to pass judgement on trespassing countries every country has to maximize its own security. Since one failure can risk your entire existance countries are risk adverse. That means they will assume every other country is out to get them. And in that context it makes sense to balance against the greatest power. You make temporary alliances to ensure shortterm survival, but the name of the game is to ensure your own relative power compared to every other country. Of course a minor nation would prefer many top dogs to a single top dog. As a single top dog will pose a greater threat since no other power would be able to counter it. What makes Neo-realism unique compared to classic realism is this assumption of a system of automated balancing between states. Neo-realism rejects the view of classical realism that human nature has anything to do with the game of international politics.

Now... I'm don't think of myself as a neo-realist though. So personally I wouldn't making things entirely that simplistic. But in a game with a fixed starting date and a fixed endpoint where you can assume, that the player will be an oppotunistic backstabbing bastard, it does make sense to apply a neo-realistic approach.

 

[Hive]

I'm not arguing against the balance of power being very important; I'm just saying that there's also more to it than that.

 

[Sute]{h]

I'm not arguing against the balance of power being very important; I'm just saying that there's also more to it than that.

In a game about conquest? Or in reality?

 

[Hive]

In a game about conquest? Or in reality?

Well the theory remains the same whether applied to a game or not.

 

[unmerged(514)]

Not to mention such approach (MMG that is) assumes rationality of the sides and minimal effect of strong personalities/wild random elements, which have their place in the history of the world. I don't say it's wrong approach, in fact if you add random element to it that simulates such "wild cards" as happened in history it makes quite interesting "paralel history creator" with multitude of outcomes that depend on many random and semi-random factors. Thing is, I don't think all people calling for historical outcomes want 100 alternative probable Europas, but more like 10 or so that differ because 4-5 critical decisions made by player.

Hehe, I feel like discussing Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" series.

Humm... on the contrary. Magna Mundi assumes randomizing elements within a plausible context. What it avoids is "on year XPTO Genoa financed the Portuguese explroations". Why not then something like "On year XPTO, Stadt Bremen financed Portuguese explorations"?

Our aproach allows both and if coded well, it'll do it in a sensible way (meaning no chances of "on year XPTO, Hedjaz financed Portuguese exploations").

The processes are modelled, the actual history is for the most part left to the development of said processes.

 

[unmerged(514)]

I still miss the country specific feeling I got in EU2 AGCEEP though. EU3 feels pretty much the same regardsless of which country you play. Btw. I'm playing the Knight right now, and they at least seem to have some flavour events.

I entirely agree with this. But it has more to do with the lack of contextuality for each country and the feelingt hat each AI is playing exactly alike than by introducing direct events bound to happen at certain dates.

Modelling processes is much more determinant and powerful than coding specific events.

 

[unmerged(514)]

That would be more in lines with classical realism, but still it doesn't do the theory service at all. I'm hoping AI will improve in future Paradox titles as well. Balance of power is such a simple theory, that it should be possible to convert it to a mathematical formula. Especially in a computer game where you do have exact numbers for unit strengths and so on.

It is not possible to code AIs on the level you are sugesting while keeping EU premises.

One could just hope for variables fine tuned to each country to give them a particular flavour.

 

[Sute]{h]

Well the theory remains the same whether applied to a game or not.

Of course, but the presumptions on which the theory is based might be more valid in a game than in reality.

And Ubik I know that AI modding along the lines I'm suggesting isn't possible. However I'm certain that it could be done in the course of game development. To late for EU3 I know, but one can always hope for the future. Until then we have to make the best of what we've got, and EU3 is still quite good.

 

[Rankorian]

In response to the thread's title:

1. Competition for people's time is becoming even fiercer. Who has time to play all these games?--and I say that in the nicest way, as someone who bought Empire Earth II, and has yet to play it a single time. I am a big EU2 fan, of the type that enjoys just flipping through the event files, or reading about people contesting how many ships the Byzantine Empire had in 1453. But somehow I got sucked into a Civ4 game and spent 3 weeks of my available game time on it.


2. Paradox changed direction for this title, slightly. They had there reasons, and by Johan's post in this thread, I think they did just what they wanted to do. (For another example of similar unhappiness, peek at Battlefronts efforts to change the Combat Mission series. Who would think 1:1 soldier representation would be contentious?) They have their reasons. But it is like changing a Church's minister--inevitably some people will be angry because the "new guy" isn't doing things like the "old guy". (Forgetting that the "new guy" took some initial getting used to. When was EU2 really so enjoyable? 1.5? 1.7? After AGCEEP?) Mostly I played EU2 to learn history--which would seem bizarre to some of the players. WC? Never. Thus the fact that it was too "easy" mid-game was not a problem. More of a problem was that it became too ahistoric. (Reducing the number of years in EU3 was, I think, in part to meet that issue a bit. Though, if the forums are any guide, I think they would make money off a Byzantine mod/addition ) Yelling at each other over our different gaming styles/wants hardly gets anyone anywhere.


From a rookie's perspective, it would seem to me that they would please a lot of people by allowing specific time events, and nation-specific AIs. But the first may be too against the philosophy of this title, and, for all I know, neither may be technically possible with the current game engine.

On the other hand, they just might do those things in the next iteration....and......hear an uproar from those who feel it "destroys" EU3 by "straight-jacketing" the game into a historical pattern?

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Just a random thought on the issue of making the AI take more interest in maintaining some kind of balance of power: what if there were triggered modifiers for countries based on size that added some amount of badboy? Not a perfect way to model things, but it seems like it might work semi-well within the current game engine.

 

[Sute]{h]

Just a random thought on the issue of making the AI take more interest in maintaining some kind of balance of power: what if there were triggered modifiers for countries based on size that added some amount of badboy? Not a perfect way to model things, but it seems like it might work semi-well within the current game engine.

I've considered doing something along those lines. Might be interesting to give it a shot. Still I'm concerned with the artificial BB-limit. BB-points hardly mean anything until you cross the limit. Vicky had a much more flexible evalution of BB-points. I wonder why they gave that up. Come to think of it Magni Mundi already tries to do something along those lines doesn't it? If I recall correctly it adjusts the bb limit when your country change international status.

 

[Hive]

Just a random thought on the issue of making the AI take more interest in maintaining some kind of balance of power: what if there were triggered modifiers for countries based on size that added some amount of badboy? Not a perfect way to model things, but it seems like it might work semi-well within the current game engine.

But then a Russia colonizing a bunch of fairly worthless Siberian provinces would would be viewed as an as big badboy as a France grabbing half of the HRE.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

But then a Russia colonizing a bunch of fairly worthless Siberian provinces would would be viewed as an as big badboy as a France grabbing half of the HRE.

A good point; is there any better method available for measuring a country's relative power that could be turned into a triggered modifier? Total income would be preferrable to province size as that would account for the relative value of the provinces, but I don't think there is a modifier for that.

 

[unmerged(514)]

[...] Come to think of it Magni Mundi already tries to do something along those lines doesn't it? If I recall correctly it adjusts the bb limit when your country change international status.

Yes. The single most significant impact in terms of the AI is the halving of the maximum allowable BB, though...

 

[unmerged(514)]

A good point; is there any better method available for measuring a country's relative power that could be turned into a triggered modifier? Total income would be preferrable to province size as that would account for the relative value of the provinces, but I don't think there is a modifier for that.

We have a very elaborate measure for that in Magna Mundi Gold already. Alvya was the man behind it. We can do many interesting things looking just for a single flag...

 

[unmerged(27471)]

Haven't posted on the Paradox boards in a while, but I'm an onld EUII fan who recently bought EUIII/NA when it came out on Mac and have played it quite a bit for the past 3 days.

All I can say is I hope Paradox enjoys my $60 because that is the last money they will ever get from me.

This game is just awful. The graphics are mid-90's. The AI is maddening and completely ruins every game. The engine lags the hell out of even my top of the line computer. And most importantly:

EVERY SYSTEMIC FLAW WITH EUII HAS BEEN MADE WORSE RATHER THAN FIXED.

Great business model that. This is the latest in a long line of shitty games released by Paradox; the last solid release was HOI2. I think they're done for. They've gotten greedy, their once famous support now consists of offering expansion packs that are really (shitty) patches, and their games have become consistently unplayable.