Dumb Diplomacy: 2nd 'Screw the Player Event' Avoided.

[Didz]

It not the AI. AI stands for 'Artificial Intelligance' and implies that the program has an element of logic and reason for its actions. These 'screw the player' events are completely random, they occur for no reason at all, and include a random choice of faction.

If there was an element of AI involved then the 'reload and rerun' workaround would not work, becuase the same logic and reason would prevail and the same response occur.

So, its not the AI doing this, its some geek programmer deliberately screwing up our games with a random DOW routine.

[AussieGiant]

Yes Didz and it's probably been done deliberately to create a level of uncertainty in games so they don't play out the same way.

You're really pushing the conspiracy angle.

[Didz]

Yes Didz and it's probably been done deliberately to create a level of uncertainty in games so they don't play out the same way. You're really pushing the conspiracy angle.

I do agree with your point that some level of uncertainty should be included, but it should not be random, and it should not be illogical.

My own preference would be to replace all the pointless 'Mozart has constipation' messages with random events that have a relevance to gameplay and influence the diplomatic situation. Likewise, a change in the Head of State for a faction could bring into power a man with a quite different attitude to your faction, or the future goals of his own. e.g. Napoleon could be born early, or Hitler for that matter.

However, there is a world of difference between that approach which would provide the player with an ongoing challenge and a variety in gameplay, and the illogical fait-accompli 'screw the player' events that current get thrown out by the program.

As for the conspiracy angle, I think I've proven beyond a doubt that these events are not scripted or calculated by the AI. And to quote Data a.k.a Sherlock Holmes 'Once you have eliminated all other options, then what remains must by definition be the truth.'

[AussieGiant]

So a random DOW script is not scripted?

[Didz]

So a random DOW script is not scripted?

All the evidence suggests not, and I've tested it on at least a half a dozen 'screw the player' events so far.

Every 'Declaration of War' I have had so far has eventually disappeared simply by reloading the quick save taken just prior to the End Of Turn and re-running the end of turn procress. So, the only thing that has changed is the system clock, and yet the DOW doesn't occur again.

If these 'Declarations of War' were scripted, then assuming your definition of a script is the same as mine the same behaviour would occur given that the situation has not changed. But comparison its pretty certain that the 'Mozart is suffering from constipation' Events are scripted, in that they tend to occur in the same sequence and at the same time in every campaign.

I'm also pretty certain that not is the 'Declaration of War' event itself completely random and unscripted but that they choice of factions involved is also random, or at least Random within a list of candidate factions with very limited exclusions. Thus, you can and do get nations who have never met declaring war on each other, and nations who are the best of friends and mutually dependant upon each other declaring war on each other.

In effect these events have nothing to do with the situation in the game, whether diplomatic, military or economic, they are literally random events designed to screw up the players game.

This is quite artificial and there should be a far more sophisticated system in place which is what I think all of us want, but it is a Total War game and being able to complete the game or fulfil campaign objectives completely peacefully would seem to be counter intuitive and best left for other games which promote that type of game play.

Yep! We are in complete agreement on this point.

All I am looking for is a tanglible link between the current diplomatic, economic and military situation and the behaviour of the factions. So, that at least I can 'play the game', and not be 'played by it'.

[Dayve]

It isn't uncertain though if we know it's coming. I just made peace with the Plains Nations, and sure enough, next turn France declared war, after several years of peace and trade. That isn't adding randomness, it's adding crap.

You're defending something that's clearly crap... how can you say somebody probably did it to add an element of randomness so that all campaigns don't play out the same? That's rubbish. An element of randomness is two AI nations going to war, in one campaign, and dragging so many allies into the war that it becomes a world war, with several nations being wiped out and a few becoming superpowers, and then in the next campaign you play, the two nations that started the world war in the previous campaign staying great allies for 100 years.

That's randomness! A script that forces a random neighbour or close neighbour to declare war on the human player if he is not at war with anybody is just crap, especially when they declare it for no reason, don't make any attempts to attack or block your trade, and accept peace the very next turn without hostilities being exchanged.

Nah, this isn't randomness, it's a disgraceful, pathetic attempt at randomnes, a lazy half arsed piece of script thrown in there to compensate for a lack of anything meaningful and worthwhile in the hopes that nobody would notice.

[AussieGiant]

If it proves to be true and it's certainly seems to be the case with what you have observed Dayve, then it does seem a very rudimentary way of ensuring the player faction is constantly at war in one way or another.

This is quite artificial and there should be a far more sophisticated system in place which is what I think all of us want, but it is a Total War game and being able to complete the game or fulfil campaign objectives completely peacefully would seem to be counter intuitive and best left for other games which promote that type of game play.

Diplomacy in Total War (in my opinion of course) should be an extension of power and it's usage.

And Dayve, can you refrain from labelling my opinion as "rubbish"?

PLEASE?!

[Dayve]

If it proves to be true and it's certainly seems to be the case with what you have observed Dayve, then it does seem a very rudimentary way of ensuring the player faction is constantly at war in one way or another.

This is quite artificial and there should be a far more sophisticated system in place which is what I think all of us want, but it is a Total War game and being able to complete the game or fulfil campaign objectives completely peacefully would seem to be counter intuitive and best left for other games which promote that type of game play.

Diplomacy in Total War (in my opinion of course) should be an extension of power and it's usage.

And Dayve, can you refrain from labelling my opinion as "rubbish"?

PLEASE?!

Well... i would if you'd stop defending the most pathetic excuses for AI, they're clearly crap. There are other ways for war to be declared than a pathetic scripted event, and i don't think diplomacy should be just an extension of power. These games aren't called Total War because you're supposed to be at war 24/7, they're called Total War because it's catchy. Some people, me being one of them, enjoy playing politically and without war as much as playing WITH war. I like wars in a 5 year burst every 20 years. The rest, i like peace and consolidation, revolution and diplomacy. I like funding wars rather than fighting them most of the time.

I don't always feel like fighting a battle every single turn in the game, and i should be able to achieve that, at least some of the time. As it is, i can't. I can't have any peace. Peace is more important than war, In reality, nations back then were involved in a major war for maybe 15-20% of a century, AT WORST! Not 100% of it.

[Didz]

Well speaking as someone who took great pride in being one of the few players to win Shogun Totalwar without declaring war on anyone, I would argue that 'The Player' should be given the choice of how he wants to play the game, and that the game should be designed to allow him to make that choice, not railroad him into 400 turns of meaningless conflict.

ETW is supposed to be a strategy game, that in itself implies that the player should be able to use some level of strategy in order to prevail.

[AussieGiant]

@ Dayve: So you'll stop stating my opinion is "rubbish" if I stop saying that CA have done a reasonable job on the AI and have room to improve? i.e. defending that point?

In addition you just stated that the Total War series is named "Total War" because it's catchy, rather than the concept that the games will be about war and perhaps "a lot of war'?

Let me ask you another question.

What would it take for you to agree that there are other points of view in this game that are as valid as yours?


@Didz:

What I meant by script is a piece of code, not a preset time for a DOW to occur. Meaning, there is a script running that periodically selects a random time, for a random faction to declare war on the player faction.

This of course would have absolutely nothing to do with any aspect of the game and what is happening in it. This does seem to be what has been observed by yourself and Dayve.

I'd say we agree on this.

The difference is, your stance on this is that it screws up the game, while my stance is that it seems to be a piece of code designed to ensure the player faction is not left "alone" for too long. That seems somewhat acceptable as Empire: Total Peace is not the solution.

Having said that, I just want to say what I said before. IF, this is the case, then it does seem a little pathetic after so many years of AI programming by CA. I expect a fully immersive interactive, AND slightly random, AI diplomacy system by now. I certainly see you point in terms of feeling "played" rather than "playing" the game.

[Ordani]

I don't always feel like fighting a battle every single turn in the game.

More importantly, it's a pretty boring game when you've won by 1705 after weathering the initial deluge of incompetent belligerence.