The Daily Update at the Com

[Husar]

The simpliest way of fixing that is to take Z sized set of the best options at every step so instead of a list, you generate a tree. After Y steps, you select the single path in the tree that results in the highest reward score. So once you adjust the AI to look at a set of decisions, it gets more intellegent. This is why Chess AIs take forever. They are analyzing all possible good moves.

"Everytime I click end turn, it takes hours to finish, Buhuhuhuhu!!!"

In a TW game there are even more options to consider than in chess unless you make them rather abstract in which case you'd arrive for example at the prestige ratings, which reflect a faction strength somewhat well, irf the AI sees that the enemy has twice the army prestige, maybe it should look for a reliable ally before attacking, etc. You get some kind of relatively simple tree using things that are already there.
One thing that would really help though is a "my armies are crushed maybe I should offer money for a peace deal" consideration. Wars should be relatively quick and bloody, not always the drawn out back and forth (or just a never ending forth in some cases) that they currently are because the AI hardly ever accepts or offers a peace deal. People who do like the current wars can just deny the peace deals, no problem whatsoever.

[antisocialmunky]

It would take as long as pathing for one unit as they do it now.

[Servius]

I have to say, I haven't really played ETW is a while. Dawn of Discovery has been drawing most of my attention lately. But I think the primary reason I stopped playing ETW was the diplomacy. I don't like the "me vs. everyone" situation that arrises with the irrational diplomatic AI. I don't want to conquer the world. As GB, I want to rule the seas, keep the French bottled up on the Continent, fight pirates in the Carribean, fight frontier wars vs. natives in America, control many trade nodes, and begin to colonize India.

If I take Flanders, the dinky little German states should not declare war on me. I could destroy them in a single move, which is why it's stupid for them to declare war on me, and I don't want to garrison lots of little city states in Europe, which is why I won't declare war on them.

I want a logical diplomatic AI that only declares war if it thinks it has a real chance of winning. Once a nation is at war, I want the CAI to act aggresively to execute that war, achieve its war aims, and if it's successful (or tragically unsuccessful), it should sue for peace. What I don't want is a diplomatic AI that's more aggressive than the CAI. I also don't want a stupid DAI that basically makes suicidal decisions.

When the diplomatic AI acts rationally and with some thought to historic relations between nations, it feels more rational and realistic, which helps with immersion and significantly increases my enjoyment of the game. When it acts stupidly, I see through the facade, the immersion is gone, and it's apparent that it's just me vs. a single (yet multi-faced) AI that just wants to crush me.

[TB666]

Hi guys,

We have stopped the "Backstabber" and "Dishonouring Treaties" diplomatic factors being applied when joining an ally in war. We have also checked in the first pass of diplomacy improvements. This consists of updating some of the diplomacy calculations to use new functionality that has been added to the AI since release and tweaking some of the factors. In addition, we have made changes to increase AI counter offers.

Thanks,

Mark O'Connell
(aka SenseiTW)

[Fisherking]

WOW!

I hope this is the end of the Black Knight suicide factions!

Maybe we won’t be at war for the whole game and some factions may even except peace!

[Slaists]

WOW!

I hope this is the end of the Black Knight suicide factions!

Maybe we won’t be at war for the whole game and some factions may even except peace!

Well, I think in TW series being at war is the point. The problem was that many of the wars were meaningless and random.

[Hooahguy]

finally!

[FactionHeir]

Let's not get too hasty with these exclamations, for all you know it might not work with player-AI diplomacy but only with AI-AI diplomacy. Nothing said about the AI still prioritizing and going out of its way annoying the player above all else.

[Husar]

They also increased the amount of counter offers for one of the previous patches but I'm not really getting any in 1.3.
I'm curious nd waiting for the patch to arrive before I'm going to celebrate anything though I must say I really hope they're going to work this out and make it fun.

[Zenicetus]

Well, I think in TW series being at war is the point. The problem was that many of the wars were meaningless and random.

Right, the game is based on territorial expansion through warfare, but the player should get the chance to work the diplomatic angle while scheming for expansion, and make his/her own declaration of war once in a while... instead of being constantly on the defensive, or goaded into steamrolling the map. It's supposed to be a strategy game, not a Zombie survivalist game.

SenseiTW's post sound promising as an improvement to alliances (right now I'm just avoiding all alliances due to the problems they generate). But there are deeper issues involving a factions ability to back up a declaration of war with an actual threat. I hope they're looking into that too. No faction should declare war unless it's serious about it, and can back it up with a strong enough economy and military. This is one reason the warfare in a game like GalCiv2 never seems illogical.... there is a threshold of military power (judged against the power of all other factions) required before a faction decides it can pursue military conquest.

P.S. I'm wondering if part of the problem isn't the fairly short time span in the game, compared to the last two TW games. Are we getting so many illogical and badly-supported DOW's simply because the clock is ticking, and all the factions only have 100 years or so to achieve their programmed goals? In a game like GalCiv, there is no time limit and games can run for a very long time on the largest maps. Without time pressure, the ebb and flow of warfare seems much more natural. If this is part of the problem, then maybe each faction could be told, essentially, "look... you only get to initiate a major war 3 times during this campaign, so you'd better be serious!"

[Slaists]

P.S. I'm wondering if part of the problem isn't the fairly short time span in the game, compared to the last two TW games. Are we getting so many illogical and badly-supported DOW's simply because the clock is ticking, and all the factions only have 100 years or so to achieve their programmed goals? In a game like GalCiv, there is no time limit and games can run for a very long time on the largest maps. Without time pressure, the ebb and flow of warfare seems much more natural. If this is part of the problem, then maybe each faction could be told, essentially, "look... you only get to initiate a major war 3 times during this campaign, so you'd better be serious!"

I agree with that notion. 4 turns per year probably would be much better with all research/build times adjusted accordingly.

[Quickening]

P.S. I'm wondering if part of the problem isn't the fairly short time span in the game, compared to the last two TW games. Are we getting so many illogical and badly-supported DOW's simply because the clock is ticking, and all the factions only have 100 years or so to achieve their programmed goals? In a game like GalCiv, there is no time limit and games can run for a very long time on the largest maps. Without time pressure, the ebb and flow of warfare seems much more natural. If this is part of the problem, then maybe each faction could be told, essentially, "look... you only get to initiate a major war 3 times during this campaign, so you'd better be serious!"

That is exactly the problem. The time limit on Medieval 2 was also ridiculous. They made it two years per turn (despite Generals still aging only six months) because they didn't think most people would play as long as it would take to get to gunpowder and the New World. While this may be true, it's also stupid. If the issue is that they want to appeal to casual gamers who won't want a truly epic game, then why not simply let the player choose whether to start in different eras of the Medieval period like they did in the first Medieval? Then the casual gamers could have their gunpowder spectacles as soon as possible and the rest of us can have our truly epic nine hundred turn games. I won't play Medieval 2 on anything other than a 0.5 timescale now. Nothing else makes sense. The point is, I understand that CA want to appeal to more than just the hardcore, but customisation is the answer. Let us choose the kind of experience we want to have whether it's in terms of victory conditions or possible game length.

[Durallan]

personal customisation for many different tastes, IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ordinary game AND A GREAT GAME!

Civ 4 gives you sooo many options before starting a game it makes you drool, Gal Civ 2 lets you design your own ships, random events that shake up the universe of the game, choices choices and choices and default choices for those that don't want to choose makes the difference, what raises the bar, the definition of an EPIC GAME.

[antisocialmunky]

GalCiv2 for me was jus another expandorama focussed 4X. If you truly want an fun 4x not much beats the good old MOO2.

Civ4 also has endless replayability and distinct AI personalities(which really made that game stand out. *Mansa Musa you friggin tech whore, oh how many times I've stomped on your Spaceship building butt with modern armor*).

[Durallan]

well I have to say that I really enjoyed my games of GC2, but don't misunderstand me some of the old games are great even with dated graphics, what they couldn't do with grahpics they had to make up for with an exciting and engaging and immersive game.

[Slaists]

well I have to say that I really enjoyed my games of GC2, but don't misunderstand me some of the old games are great even with dated graphics, what they couldn't do with grahpics they had to make up for with an exciting and engaging and immersive game.

Amen!

[antisocialmunky]

Yeah, old games FTW. Moo2 was a wonderful game and so was TA. STW is still probably the most immersive TW.

[Daveybaby]

Best 4x games ever IMO : Moo1, MoM, SMAC.

Is that too many acronyms for one sentence?

[Prodigal]

new functionality that has been added to the AI since release

Hands up if anyone thinks the new functionality may be the ability for factions to sign peace treaties

[Durallan]

*hand goes up* hehehe, and yes that is too many acronyms for one sentence, please explain!

[Elmar Bijlsma]

*hand goes up* hehehe, and yes that is too many acronyms for one sentence, please explain!

Master of Orion, Masters of Magic and Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri.
If you haven't played at least two of these, you are not a strategy game player. Also a must try: Dominions.

[Quickening]

Master of Orion, Masters of Magic and Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri.
If you haven't played at least two of these, you are not a strategy game player. Also a must try: Dominions.

I haven't played any

[antisocialmunky]

Master of Orion, Masters of Magic and Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri.
If you haven't played at least two of these, you are not a strategy game player. Also a must try: Dominions.

Your forgot HoMM3, noob.

[peacemaker]

please tell me that in the next update they are going to fix some of the diplomacy values. I remember they were going to tweak it a little, but I had a revolution as spain to go to a republic, and guess what? -140 relations with EVERY nation. Even France, my good buddy ever since the start of the campaign 5 years prior, hates my guts. Even new spain hates me. I have had my first game-breaking moment and have quit in disgust.

[Durallan]

I do have very high hopes on this next patch aswell, getting to be 4 or 5 months now since release, for me this diplomacy patch will be make or break. third time lucky I hope, its possible that the baackstabbing penalties that were given as a result of helping allies may be why the AI was being so stupid I'm not sure, but the fact that no AI nation ever declares peace is another problem as well and if the Black knight AI (it should declare war when it has a great chance of winning and prepare for counter attacks) and the AI will declare peace with other factions, that will get rid of most of the complaints, till then, whhyyyy areee weee waiiitinng! lol

[FactionHeir]

please tell me that in the next update they are going to fix some of the diplomacy values. I remember they were going to tweak it a little, but I had a revolution as spain to go to a republic, and guess what? -140 relations with EVERY nation. Even France, my good buddy ever since the start of the campaign 5 years prior, hates my guts. Even new spain hates me. I have had my first game-breaking moment and have quit in disgust.

End turn and it will fix itself. Its related to Carlos values not updating.

[Durallan]

I'm just wondering if the more expensive state gifts are broken, because if you gift a nation fine china, you will see a +100 in relations that turn or next, but I don't believe I've ever seen a benefit shown from the horse or the jewelery, which I'm guessing should probably give +200 and +300 relations, what makes sense to me anyway, that way when relations get really bad with an AI you can make it up although by the end of the game the cost of the gifts should probably increase, unless the AI is going to get harder which means that it won't be so easy to make money, I don't know! lol

[FactionHeir]

Yeah, its strange that all the gifts give +100, making the higher ones useless.

But then again, the AI doesn't seem to give a damn about relations anyway if you are a human player as well all well know.

Its also interesting that if you gift them 10000 (in cash) which they can actually use, you get maybe 3 relationship points, while if you gift them the 10000 in items they can't put to any use, you get 100.

[Durallan]

truth be told I find the +100 rep helps alot in trade agreements, proctectorate agreements and alliances, but I haven't really found it helping peace treaties, but by that time I've normally taken a territory so that doesn't help and because of the black knight AI I just don't bother giving any territory back

[Slaists]

truth be told I find the +100 rep helps alot in trade agreements, proctectorate agreements and alliances, but I haven't really found it helping peace treaties, but by that time I've normally taken a territory so that doesn't help and because of the black knight AI I just don't bother giving any territory back

Weird. I have not really encountered this extreme difficulty in making peace with the AI and I am playing on VH campaign difficulty. For example, playing as Prussia, I was at war with 7 factions at the same time, but I was actually fighting only two of them. For the heck of it, I offered the other five trade rights + peace (no cash, no land). All accepted...

Sure, there is a faction here and there, that's just stubborn to death. But that's alright.