Investigation of AI reassessment upon reload

[Kraxis]

Wow... I'm impressed. You guys have done a gerat job.
It seems the player will have to play a good number of turns before doing a load, so that the political scene can work towards active AI factions. But even in that case many people are forced to reload pretty much every turn for a wide range of reasons. For them it is still impossible to get the AI to pose a threat, at least a fun one.

We know they read this forum, so this is more of a plea.

[Bromley]

Thanks for the hug ShellShock .

Another extension of my test. I loaded up the 260 save where I'd not save/loaded during play. That gave me some nicely expanded AI factions, so they could be expected to turn most of their efforts towards other factions rather than Rebels.

I then played 20 turns with a 2 turn save/load interval. But this time, I was active and really played them. If nothing else, this proved to me that the Medium portion of the strategic game is ridiculously easy . Greece and Macedon both felt my wrath.

Check out the results. Although there's obviously a slight problem with my method of determining how many provinces were taken from other faction (as I know I took 6 yet the function spews out 5), the variance is pretty immaterial.

What isn't immaterial is that I was responsible for ALL of the faction on faction province swaps. So I think that it's fair to assume that, for the purposes of AI expansion, player activity is not a determining factor.

I'm not going to perform an interval-2 test with no activity by myself because I think it's pretty obvious from earlier tests that the AI won't expand. I've included the 250 no-load data where I was passive for comparison - you can see that the AI might be expected to have nabbed 8 provinces off other AIs in those 20 turns without the save/load feature (on top of an extra 5 Rebel provinces)..

[roguebolo]

But even in that case many people are forced to reload pretty much every turn for a wide range of reasons. For them it is still impossible to get the AI to pose a threat, at least a fun one.

Not really. It just takes longer for the game to reach a more stable situation. The political climate will be DIFFERENT, not less challenging; the factions you are at war with may be different and they may be stronger or weaker, but eventually you need to face the majority of them and their wishy-washy alliance changes become less likely. However, the same logic that allows it to change alliances if they look equally viable could cause a long-time ally to suddenly break their alliance with you and form one with your primary rival. Or vice versa. Especially right after a load game, or any other event that triggers a reassessment.

The territories that started out as rebels, however, will always be underdeveloped if you were using a lot of load games in the earlier moves of the game. That's why my main gripe is regarding the fact that the AI is treating rebel factions as "just another faction." Eventually they will conquer the nearby rebel territories...just a little too late, and too slowly.

In my game I was saving and loading every turn, and the political climate *started* stabilizing by turn 14 -- but as someone mentioned, I formed an awful lot of alliances. It would take quite a bit longer if the human player is not as proactive about forming alliances. I like forming alliances early because it gives me more control over the political climate.

[drone]

Something Puzz3D said got me thinking:

Turn 1, 270 BC. Scipii sieges Syracuse which can hold 7 turns. This initial siege of Syracuse might be scripted. Hit end turn.

Does anyone know if the first AI moves are scripted? If they are, do the scripted decisions get saved and how do they fit into the reassessment? If they are scripted but not saved, this could be causing problems at the start of campaign games.

Nice work, Bromley!

[roguebolo]

Especially right after a load game, or any other event that triggers a reassessment.

I feel funny quoting myself, but thinking about it I began to wonder...ARE there any other known events that can trigger a reassessment? Has CA mentioned any, or has anyone else observed any? Or is it just the load game?

I agree that it is the rather strange two patch policy that needs to be changed, but since it has been settled already (actually before the game was finished at all)

That's what I meant when I called the two-patch policy arbitrary. It's not a very realistic approach to software development. It's entirely arbitrary. I'd like to share a few anecdotes with you of similar situations but its too off-topic.