Campaign/Diplomacy AI

[CavalryCmdr]

Just wanted to clarify I don't mean that some coast/coast, coast/island paths would fit an "isneighbour=true" condition in the ai file just that they are a kind of halfway "sea neighbour" and the AI behaves a bit differently with them.

Ah, there are times when is_neighbour="false" but borders_all_our_regions="true" according to the LTGD log, and indeed apears to act accordingly. Do you think this is caused by these 'semi-border' regions? I suppose why is more just a curiosity as we really cant do anything about it except to include is_neighbour="true" with any borders_all_our_regions="true" decision entry.

[nikolai1962]

Interesting thought now you mention it. Sounds possible.

I really need to get into this log business instead of just guessing what is going on.

Trying to recall the vanilla region-pairs that had "automatic" naval landings. IIRC Stockholm->Stettin was one, Denmark->York, Tunis->Sardinia, Crete->Rhodes, umm... been too long since i was using the plain vanilla map. (nb they don't always go both ways so that adds another complication.)

Something to ponder.

I suppose why is more just a curiosity as we really cant do anything about it except to include is_neighbour="true" with any borders_all_our_regions="true" decision entry.

Not sure. Personally I don't really like land-bridges so if it was consistent in the ai file and you could create a "semi-neighbour" naval path for say, asia minor to constaninople, then you could use those conditions to give a higher priority in those cases instead of say, the turks, taking the long land route round the black sea.

Not that there's anything wrong with land-bridges i just like to see the AI doing naval stuff.

[CavalryCmdr]

Not sure. Personally I don't really like land-bridges so if it was consistent in the ai file and you could create a "semi-neighbour" naval path for say, asia minor to constaninople, then you could use those conditions to give a higher priority in those cases instead of say, the turks, taking the long land route round the black sea.

Ah, so it could actually be usefull to use is_neighbour="false" and borders_all_our_regions="true" in decision entries; if these semi-border reagions are in-fact responsible for that occurance.
I'll keep notes on when, exactly, I see this occuring. Though I tend to read the log at 10 turn intervals or when something specific happens I'm trying to eliminate or reproduce, so it's sometimes hard to know what reagions were involved. I dont really think this is important enough to really dedicate research to atm, maybe if I get bored.

A little something I've noticed but not really worked with, I'm sure most have noticed this one already.
In descr_regions.txt there are some hidden resources regarding guilds. In those setlements the AI will usually build that guild while all settlements without a guild resource usually get the thieves guild. Basically I'm wondering if those hidden resources work as a flag for the AI.

[nikolai1962]

Ah, so it could actually be usefull to use is_neighbour="false" and borders_all_our_regions="true" in decision entries; if these semi-border reagions are in-fact responsible for that occurance.
I'll keep notes on when, exactly, I see this occuring. Though I tend to read the log at 10 turn intervals or when something specific happens I'm trying to eliminate or reproduce, so it's sometimes hard to know what reagions were involved. I dont really think this is important enough to really dedicate research to atm, maybe if I get bored.

Same here. Now you've made me think it's possible I might look into it more if/when i get round to removing to removing the land bridges. Assuming i can make the replacement naval paths of course which is iffy.

A little something I've noticed but not really worked with, I'm sure most have noticed this one already.
In descr_regions.txt there are some hidden resources regarding guilds. In those setlements the AI will usually build that guild while all settlements without a guild resource usually get the thieves guild. Basically I'm wondering if those hidden resources work as a flag for the AI.

I'm sure they do. I think the reason the AI gets so many thieves guilds is cos they spam spies. I have agent limits on everything so they only get one spy per town. Haven't actually checked if that made a difference though.

Also, recently added (but not tested yet) putting assassin_city, merchant_city etc on the starting towns for egypt/byzies to control their agent recruitment and hopefully get them to get the specialist guilds. Which i thought was a nifty idea (if it works).

[CavalryCmdr]

I have agent limits on everything so they only get one spy per town.

Ofcourse, I cant belive I hadnt thought of that, I knew the cause.

Also, recently added (but not tested yet) putting assassin_city, merchant_city etc on the starting towns for egypt/byzies to control their agent recruitment and hopefully get them to get the specialist guilds. Which i thought was a nifty idea (if it works).

I must be missing something, if they are flags the AI is then programmed to look for them, so you wouldnt be able to just make-up flags for it. Are you using these to increase the agent limit, for example a building that would require these hidden resources?
However I would say adding 'merchants_guild' is likely to be recognized as a flag though it dose not appear in the vanilla descr_regions but other _guilds are, so perhaps they made a flag for all of them.

These hidden resources also have the same name (exactly, minus the guild_ at the begining) as the building tree name for that guild (as per export_descr_buildings.txt) I'm wondering if the AI is, instead of programmed to look for 'guild flags,' will recognize any building tree name and increase the priority for that building in that settlement, though I suspect most likely (as the name dose not include the guild_) that it will only work for guilds.

I'll definately be experimenting with this tommorow.

[Lusted]

The main reason the AI spams thieves Guilds is because of how easy they are to get, i modified the Guild file so now the AI and player see a more varied amount of Guilds which i achieved by changing the amount of points recruiting various agents and units gave, and by making it so that when a guild of a particular type is built, the overall faction score for that Guild is lowered in order to reduce the chances of more of the same Guild being built.

The negative "pts_alliance" thing is useful to know. I'd stopped using "alliance_against" because you can get silly alliances forming.

Well with my file i've now got it so factions generally ally against common enemies or against strongest neighbours, the only slight wierdness in it is the amount of catholic and islamic alliances which i could probably solve by increasing the negative pts_alliance value for the decisions i've set up to make those factions not want to ally.

[uanime5]

One thing I've noticed about M2TW is that the AI acts a lot like it did in MTW.

In MTW the AI would have most of it's army guarding a province and some guarding the settlement. This made sense since when you entered the province you automatically had to fight the AI army in the province and if you won the army would retreat to the settlement, giving it a larger force to defend the settlement (should you attack it). However in M2TW the player can avoid enemy armies in the province and attack the settlement directly. Thus the AI's tactic of sending out most of it's army to guard the province works against it.

Any ideas about how to make the AI to keep its soldiers garrisoned unless they want to attack a faction.