• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary #239 - AI++

Доступно на русском в ВК/Read in Russian on VK

ai_3.png



Hello and welcome back to another update on the Stellaris AI. This is Guido again. Today I’m here with my fellow human Offe who also enjoys doing organic things. Like generating energy through processing photosynthesised light in the form of matter via ingestion. I like bacon and ice cream. Everybody likes bacon and ice cream. So Offe, please, take it from here.

Hello, it is me, Offe!
I’m a 28 cycles old Human manufactured and operated up here in the north. I’ve worked here at the Arctic office for two years and recently joined the Custodian team as a junior programmer. Guido and I have previously worked on other projects together and he has taught me a lot about game development, but most importantly I learned some tips on how to improve my diplomatic interaction protocols. Where I would often use phrases like “it’s an absolute disaster”, he would instead prefer “This is pretty good, but it can be even better!”. This may prove to be important later on.

I would like to say Thank You to all the people out there who took time playing on the open beta and provided us with feedback and bug reports. If you ever find the AI in a situation where it is doing something strange, please bug report and most importantly attach save games, it helps tremendously! For example, two separate issues were found and addressed with the new job changes.

And lastly, this dev diary will contain older changes and screenshots that were made long before the beta, but also new changes which were not part of the beta, meaning that you still have some new changes waiting for you in the 3.3 release.

Changes to pop job system​

I will start with this change since it will also directly affect players and not only AI!

How it used to work:

Each time something important would happen on a planet, such as a pop is grown, a district/building gets constructed or an upgrade finishes, every single pop would update their desire (also known as weight) to work each job. Then all pops would be unassigned of their jobs, and all of them would be put back on a (potentially) new job.

Now there are some pros and cons with this approach. The good thing is that we are not doing any calculations when we don’t have to, since if nothing changes then we don’t update any of the jobs. However, the downside is that if you have scripted conditional job weights, for example, based on how many amenities there are on a planet, it will cause mass migrations of pops between jobs when the system eventually does update because all pops move at the same time.

In the current 3.2 system the most obvious problem is for hive mind empires where pops will mass move to the maintenance drone job when the planet amenity level is low, and then during the next update, all of them will leave due to having way too many amenities causing a perpetual ping pong effect.

This also affected non hive mind AI empires because in 3.2 the AI would prioritize a job producing a resource during a shortage across all its planets. For example, during an energy credit shortage it would prioritize the technician job on all its planets, causing every single job to be instantly filled. This would likely cause a shortage of some other resource such as minerals, resulting in most types of AI empires to get stuck in a ping pong behaviour once they had entered a resource deficit. This also had the unfortunate side effect of AI starting constructions that were not really needed, but the sudden shift of pop jobs made it appear so.

How it works in 3.3:
- During each monthly update, update the jobs on all planets
- Only remove or add maximum of one pop per job during the update

Many of you are now probably immediately clenching your fist in anger while picturing your poor CPU melting, as scripted calculations based on number of pops in stellaris can be very CPU demanding. But I have some good news for you, first of all in 3.2 there were some redundant calls to the job weight calculation. By removing them where possible, we could already reduce the amount of job weight calculations by about 75%.

Furthermore, we are now reusing job weights between pops that are of the same species and share the same job. Meaning if you have 40 pops working as miners on a planet, and they are all of the same species, the scripted job weight calculation will only be performed once instead of 40 times as in 3.2. This comes with some limitations though, as it is no longer safe to base job weight on individual pop data, such as which faction they are in or their happiness. In the end the vast majority of all job weight calculations were removed while still updating jobs every month.

With the new system it allows you to write a scripted job weight calculation that depends on itself without causing ping pong behaviour. For example, jobs that produce amenities can now base their job weight on the planet’s amenity level, or the enforcer job can now base its job weight on the crime level.

The intention is that you will not notice any difference from the system in 3.2 other than some jobs like enforcers and maintenance drones having a more reasonable amount of pops working that job.
AYhCFhqM2Y.gif


Jobs for your pops​


In 3.2 AI would look at the number of free jobs on a planet when deciding if it needs to build new jobs. So if there were for example 3 free jobs then the AI would clap its hands together and call it a job well done and move on. At the same time the planet could have huge numbers of unemployed pops rioting on the streets.

This scenario comes from the fact that not all pops can work all jobs, so while there are technically free jobs on the planet, that doesn’t mean that the unemployed pops can actually work those jobs.

In 3.3 we are changing the way that the AI is looking at planets when it is deciding what jobs to create. Instead of looking at the number of free jobs on the planet and then creating more when this number is low, the AI will now look at actual unemployed pops and make sure to create a job that the specific pop is actually able to work.

This solves a variety of issues present in 3.2 where AI doesn’t make good decisions for pops such as slaves or robots, this is something we will continue looking at but it is a big first step in the right direction.

AI scaling economic subplans​


Scaling subplans was something we mentioned earlier as a planned feature for the future, well the future is now so strap yourself in!

In 3.2 we got rid of the old economic plans which had a predefined early/mid/late game strategy and introduced the shared base plan which doesn’t look at what year it is, but rather looks at what state the empire is in.

Now when I first saw Guido’s new economical plans I immediately thought wow this is pretty good, but it can be even better! So I started working on the scaling sub plans which aims to remove all upper limits of production (previously mentioned 500 alloy per month cap in 3.2) but still provide the AI with a responsive plan that adapts to the current state of the AI economy.

How the system works as for 3.3:
The base economic plan is now very small, it sets a minimum target for all types of strictly needed resources such as minerals, energy and food (such as +20 monthly income). Once these targets are met, then a small amount of CGs, alloys and science targets are added.

Once all of the above base plans are satisfied we then enable the scaling sub plan, which is just like any other economic plan except that it will add itself each time it is fulfilled, an unlimited amount of times. The scaling plan contains a small amount of energy/minerals but primarily contains alloys and science. This means that the more mature the AI economy becomes, the focus on base resources becomes smaller and the primary focus will shift to military and science production.

Additionally we have added 3 separate conditional scaling sub plans which we enable for materialist, militarist(and total war empires) and spiritualist empires that add additional science, alloy or unity targets to their economic plan as a first step to making AI economy more distinct from each other.

Grand Admiral hive mind reaching a monthly income of 3k alloys and 22k science in one test run by year 2422. (Screenshot from before the unity rework)

topbar.jpg


AI district/building specialization​

One of the big advantages that fellow Humans like you and I have over the AI is that we can easily make long term strategies which are based on assumptions and goals. So we may have a long term strategy to turn a planet that we have not yet colonized into a factory world. As mentioned in answers to the last AI dev diary questions, the economic AI is stateless which means that it has no notion of past nor the future, it only looks at what it has right now and what it can do to satisfy it’s economic plan. This makes it very good at adapting to the situation it is in, it will keep a close eye at the current economic situation and immediately react to any shortages but lack some of the long term planning capabilities that we have.

So how can the AI make specialized worlds without planning for the future? Well one straightforward way of doing it is simply by switching places of districts that we have already built in the past. So if we compare two planets where both of them have 5 mining and 5 energy districts each, we can gradually specialize the planets by replacing the districts one pair at a time until we end up with one planet with 10 energy districts and another with 10 mining districts.

This approach works quite well in practice and is also very dynamic in the sense that it allows the AI to make hybrid planets in the early game which becomes more specialized over time as the empire expands.

planet_view.jpg


AI consumer goods vs alloy production and planet designations​

In 3.3 we are adding an AI system where the AI will manually pick a planet designation instead of using the default scripted planet designation system which is the same one as the player gets if you do not change it yourself.

The AI system looks at the available designations for each planet and calculates how many resources it would get each month from choosing the designations. It then scores each designation by judging how well the gained resources fits into the AI’s economic plan, giving extra score to designations that align with its economic goals.

Normally it is very easy to pick the designation, for example, a planet with only mining districts on it will clearly have the mining designation. However, other designations such as Factory/Forge world are more complicated and the AI needs to carefully assign these designations in a way that keeps the economy balanced.

For non hive mind empires consumer goods and alloy production is the biggest AI economy challenge we have faced so far, since the AI needs to produce both resources independently of each other to meet their economy plan targets even though they are produced from the same district in three different possible ways. The current system is a step in the right direction but this is definitely a tricky problem that will require additional fine tuning in the future.

AI alloy spenditure​

Now that AI adjusts its alloy and consumer good production separately it was time to tackle how AI spends its alloys.

In 3.2 the AI really liked defense platforms, and keeping them up to date by upgrading them any time it was possible. Not only is this a massive drain of alloys, it would also more or less permanently fill the production queue in the shipyards with upgrades which meant that in some cases it wasn’t able to build any new ships even if it wanted to.

Further there was an issue where the AI would get blocked from building any modules or upgrading any starbases if there was an open module slot in which it wasn’t possible to build anything according to the AIs starbase templates. For example, the AI has dedicated shipyard starbase templates and if it has open slots in it then it would really like to build the titan assembly module on it. But if it wasn’t researched yet then the AI would get blocked here, preventing construction of new starbases.

In 3.3 the AI alloy spending priority goes something like this:
- Build new ships until we reach fleet cap
- Build starbase modules
- Build new starbases
- Upgrade starbases
- Upgrade ships (and defense platforms) if it gives a +30% fleet power bonus, and upgrade the entire fleet this ship is in while we are at a shipyard anyway. Saving both alloys and time!
- Build defense platforms as a last resort

AI tech picking​

The AI has scripted weights for each tech in the game, this gives it some direction as to what technology to pick next every time a research is completed. Both in terms of which technologies are more powerful but also taking into account AI personalities, militarist empires are for example more inclined to research weapon tech.

In 3.2 the majority of techs had some modifier on it which increased the chance of it being selected by the AI, but when you prioritize everything, well then you prioritize nothing. For 3.3 we went through all the techs in the game and remade the AI priorities from scratch, emphasizing techs that will help the AI scale into the mid and late game. For example, resource production boosting techs, pop growth techs and resource producing building chains are now more encouraged.

Additionally AI will now look much more favourably on techs that are cheaper compared to the other options, this allows the AI to more quickly cycle through the available options and find the techs that it really likes.



AI superfluous destruction​

This one is short and simple. AI will now delete stuff if it gives jobs, housing or building slots that we do not need. Meaning, if we for example have more free jobs and housing than provided by an energy district we will simply delete it to avoid paying the upkeep cost and freeing up this slot for something else in the future.

This scenario most often happens when an AI empire invades another planet and purges their pops, so determined exterminators will now be able to repurpose the conquered planets into something that aligns with their economy!

AI rogue servitor and bio trophies​

While there has been a lot of focus on the AI’s ability to compete economically with the player in this dev diary, one of the primary objectives of the AI initiative is also to enhance the role playing capabilities of the AI.

In 3.3 we are adding additional AI support for the rogue servitor civic and how they handle their bio trophy pops. The AI should now build an organic sanctuary on each planet that has an upgraded capital structure causing their bio trophies to spread to other planets. And they should build additional sanctuaries on planets with a lot of complex drones.

Additionally we have addressed a group of related bugs where the AI was unable to build special types of buildings like gaia seeders, spawning pools and chambers of elevation.

AI comparison​

As a final note we would like to share some comparison graphs between the 3.2 and the 3.3 AI. Please note that what you are about to see is based on one single test run on ensign and one test run on grand admiral. This comparison is not meant to be interpreted as evidence but as an indication of what has changed between 3.2 and 3.3.

In any AI playthrough there is a huge variance in the AI performance due to random factors such as how they pick techs, traditions and ascension perks. The experiment setup is also used for internal AI testing only and not representative of an actual playthrough.

Experiment setup:
  • Tiny galaxy
  • 1 AI empire
  • All test using the United Nations of Earth empire
  • Mid and late game years set to 2575/2600 so they don’t trigger
  • The map is the same between the 3.2 vs 3.3 comparison, but NOT the same between the ensign and the grand admiral test.

Let’s first look at the comparison between the 3.2 and 3.3 ensign difficulty:

image (6).png


Up until year 100 the military power is roughly the same, but from that point on the results of the work we put into mid and late game AI scaling starts to really show. This allows the AI to act and react in a lot more interesting ways in the late game than before.


image (9).png



1) Around year 150 the 3.3 (“develop”) AI reaches the 32/32 starbase capacity due to having researched all techs in the game, resulting in the slowdown of the military power development.

2) 3.2 AI gets stuck in an economic death spiral for about 30 years shortly after year 100, AI eventually manages to escape the death spiral and then has massive economic growth and is able to build up to the 32/32 starbase cap quickly due to having saved up alloys for 30~ years.

At year 200 the gap between both AI military strength gets smaller since neither AI is really building that many more ships due to having maxxed out starbase capacity and already way above their fleet cap resulting in very expensive fleets. The power gap at year 200 is mainly due to 3.3 AI having superior technology.
However, it turned out that for GA difficulty the AI wouldn’t correctly apply the increased buff from trade value. Now, when it does, the AI takes a good step in the direction of making it more challenging for players.

Overall the GA and ensign test show a similar pattern where the first 100 years are roughly the same and then the difference becomes substantial. However, in the GA test the upper limit of 3.3 AI scaling can be seen around year 150-200 as the military growth curve tends to flatten out at this point when reaching the starbase cap.

And that’s it for today's dev diary, if you have any questions related to AI economy feel free to post them below and I will do my best to answer them!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 164Like
  • 63Love
  • 9
  • 3Haha
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Honestly I'd be happy enough if the AI were able to RP with its ships, for example if it was all "I like kinetics" and all its designs predominantly used kinetic weapons, that would be fine with me.

This, plus eventually maybe the AI should behave bit differently during the wars and other gameplay though in all honesty it might be too much scope for Stellaris 1.

I posted some thoughts on the personalities in the earlier dev diary.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I think my logic circuits have processed your communication protocol successfully now on the second iteration.

I didn't know that you could mass allow/forbid jobs via the shift clicking stuff. I will add it on my todobedo-list.

Found another place that it happens:

before replacing Commercial Zone with Reserach Lab.jpg

^^^ that is BEFORE a Commercial Zone got replaced by a Research Lab

immediately after replacement.jpg

^^^ this is the day after the CZ got replaced by the RL


month rolls over.jpg

^^^ This is the next month roll-over.


Note that there are no unemployed Specialists, but those former Clerks just don't want to put on the diving suits.
 
Found another place that it happens:

View attachment 800389
^^^ that is BEFORE a Commercial Zone got replaced by a Research Lab

View attachment 800390
^^^ this is the day after the CZ got replaced by the RL


View attachment 800391
^^^ This is the next month roll-over.


Note that there are no unemployed Specialists, but those former Clerks just don't want to put on the diving suits.
As active as Offe is in this thread (and as much as we love him for it), stuff like this should probably be posted in the bug reports forum.
 
  • 5Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Actually what I think is worse is having an AI where every AI empire follows the same design strategy. While AI personality is supposed to give us some variety it has that bog standard escape clause "all bets are off when facing an enemy with heavy emphasis on one type of offense and or defense. At least with space monsters and end game crisis there is some flavor. They don't modify their behavior and remain something you can remember when encountering them time and time again; it actually might be a cool toggle on the game start to "randomize space monster offense/defense" but I digress.

In other words, I think bringing up some of the more lackluster weapon systems would go a long way to improving the game while at the same time giving AI less flexibility in designing away from what they start out with; I would randomize at game start each empires preference for weapon and defense strategy. While I am not against them adapting to specific crisis I think they should face difficulty adapting to every opponent.
This times one hundred million.

I understand people wanting a challenge, but this shouldn't occult that what makes great sci-fi 4X games memorable is your opponent's personality, and personality doesn't stop at a few quips on a diplomacy screen - although those are needed to communicate things to the player.

I don't know to which extent the AI already does this, but it definitely needs to have different ship design profiles that can be picked from when generating a race, so you get the ones that obstinately refuse to use anything else than beam weapons because according to their warrior-knight past, other weapons are not honorable; perphaps they also believe that using shields is for cowards. Or the one that firmly believes missiles and torpedoes are the weapons that truly win wars.
Of course among the profiles you can also have the complete min-maxers who don't think about anything else than winning, or the partial min-maxers who have some preferred techs but will only use them in a min-max-compatible way.
Those profiles/traits could be generally associated with ethics, with a chance of having an exception to keep some surprises.

I'd also hope that the tactics on the galaxy map would vary. Having reckless and prudent types as well as subterfuge ones (who try to distract your fleets only to pop out a bigger one out of a system where you had no recon) would make things interesting.

Some casus belli against races using "dishonorable weapons" would be amusing.

I game setup option (or at least the ability for mods) to turn every empire into flavorless min-maxers could be included for people who just want total war.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
I can have a look. The thing with the job weight is that it is pretty hard to make it work perfectly as usually when you change the weights, something else then breaks somewhere else due to there being such an insane amount of combinations of different traits that should all work "optimally" together.
Understood, and thank you.

My feeling is that a pure weight system will indeed always be broken somewhere.

It's needed because it's the only way to compare things that can't be expressed into a common unit or currency. For example, how else would you decide if it's better to assign some race to soldier jobs because it has the Very Strong trait, or to technician jobs if it also happens to have a trait for 15% extra energy production.
Or how do you decide whether to assign a soldier position to the Very Strong race at the expension of a specialist job it could work, or the Servile race which won't make as good a soldier but would free up the other pops to work as a specialist.

(Side-note, perhaps shortages of specialists should be taken into account into the weight computation? At least in slaver empires, those tend to be always in shortage.)

On the other hand, the weight system ends up completely occulting the raw data of whether the overall resource production has been optimized. That's why after the weights have done their job you could bring back the raw economic data to have a last pass that only affects pops that could be freely swapped without inconvenient to optimize their resource output. The prerequisite would be to remember whether pops have a "reason" other than raw resource output to be there. i.e. "I'm a soldier because I was picked for being Very Strong" vs "I'm a soldier because I was eligible to work any menial job and just happened to be picked, feel free to swap me with someone else".

Until that system is perfected (which is unlikely, as you yourself pointed out), I think giving back some manual control to the player is really needed, at least at the race level. These are some user stories, which can obviously translated into a variety of UI systems:
  • "I want to globally disable clerk jobs" (I'd settle for being able to do it race by race)
  • "Yes I know that my main race is Very Strong but I still want the Servile race to always take soldier jobs if possible."
    • Alternate rule with somewhat similar result: "I want my main race to always prioritize specialist jobs"
  • "This race of robots should always take technician jobs in priority"
  • If amenities are higher than 10, this Domestic Servitude race should prioritize relocating to planets with open jobs. (Instead of piling up more servants on the same planet needlessly.)
Is this getting completely off-topic? My hope is that as an AI programmer you can exert some push-back on the game designers to respectfully inform them that the jobs AI will never (or not in any reasonable time frame) make it to a point where it can completely replace player decisions, and that they need to give the player some control.
 
I don't know to which extent the AI already does this, but it definitely needs to have different ship design profiles that can be picked from when generating a race, so you get the ones that obstinately refuse to use anything else than beam weapons because according to their warrior-knight past, other weapons are not honorable; perphaps they also believe that using shields is for cowards. Or the one that firmly believes missiles and torpedoes are the weapons that truly win wars.
Of course among the profiles you can also have the complete min-maxers who don't think about anything else than winning, or the partial min-maxers who have some preferred techs but will only use them in a min-max-compatible way.
Those profiles/traits could be generally associated with ethics, with a chance of having an exception to keep some surprises.
With the exception of "chance of having an exception", the game already mostly works like this. And it sucks. Once you learn them (or go look them up on the wiki), you know exactly how to counter-build most empires, because they're quite predictable from the moment you see "Honorbound Warriors" or "Evangelizing Zealots" or "Federation Builders" or whatever. There is logic to let them adjust their ships based on enemy builds (which they seem to get access to without even having enough intel, interestingly?) but mostly they're just stupid about it.

If you insist on having the AI be stupid about their design choices - and choices that are both predictable and counterable are stupid, that's strategy 101 - they could at least do the following:
  1. Randomize it for every empire on every game start, rather than tying it to empire type (which in turn is tied to ethics, authority, and civics, and also very easy to discover).
  2. Focus research on the relevant techs, perhaps moreso than a human player can. If you're going to give somebody a huge handicap of not being adaptable, at least give them a commensurate bonus at being good with the thing they refuse to adapt out of!
  3. Avoid designs that they just can't make viable with their preferred weapons/defenses. Missile-lovers shouldn't invest in destroyers at all (or the game should catch up to the, uh, 1950s and invent the DDG), etc.
  4. Pick their fights, rather than doing the equivalent of yelling "Flamethrowers [a short-range anti-infantry weapon] are great!" and expecting this to work against an enemy who uses tanks festooned with machine guns.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Part of the problem here is that there's just too much weakness in certain weapons. -50% damage against a certain defensive layer is crippling; -75% is "might as well fly the fleet into a black hole" if that's all you use. If there was a way to make kinetic weapons good against armor - e.g. armor-piercing munitions, which are very much a real thing and are used when fighting well-armored targets - it would make more sense to be all "we love guns, we're all about guns". There's also the thing where energy-weapon-lovers just have a clear advantage here, because energy weapons are *mostly* weak against shields but do include a few decent-to-excellent anti-shield weapons.

Honestly, the game suffers from a big weapon type imbalance problem in general. In isolation, Energy weapons are far and away the best single category; although Strike Craft are better in a few scenarios, it makes far more sense to put all your late-game research into energy repeatables than into anything else. Kinetics just can't come close to either Energy or SC. The less said about Explosive weapons, the better; they have exactly one really viable scenario and are marginal even there.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Part of the problem here is that there's just too much weakness in certain weapons. -50% damage against a certain defensive layer is crippling; -75% is "might as well fly the fleet into a black hole" if that's all you use. If there was a way to make kinetic weapons good against armor - e.g. armor-piercing munitions, which are very much a real thing and are used when fighting well-armored targets - it would make more sense to be all "we love guns, we're all about guns". There's also the thing where energy-weapon-lovers just have a clear advantage here, because energy weapons are *mostly* weak against shields but do include a few decent-to-excellent anti-shield weapons.

Honestly, the game suffers from a big weapon type imbalance problem in general. In isolation, Energy weapons are far and away the best single category; although Strike Craft are better in a few scenarios, it makes far more sense to put all your late-game research into energy repeatables than into anything else. Kinetics just can't come close to either Energy or SC. The less said about Explosive weapons, the better; they have exactly one really viable scenario and are marginal even there.
This might be off topic but...

I would say the game is more bias toward kinetic tbh cuz the first layer of defence is always shield this means that alpha strike will always favour Kinetic one.

Making the optimal alpha strike battleship build be Gigacannon + Neutron Launcher, not Tachyon Lance + Kinetic Battery which is really sad for cuz I like Tachyon Lance more.

Even with penetration weapon which happen to be energy weapon too is not decisively better than kinetic cuz last time I check Focus Arc Emitter + various penetration weapons are draw against Gigacannon + Neutron Launcher, it's rng who is going to win.

So no, energy weapon is not the objectively best weapon in game.

Explosive isn't doing particularly bad, it lost against PD destroyer with same naval cap and against any carrier but it murder everything else especially battleship performed really bad against torpvette (except carrier battleship ofc).

Carrier is kind of ridiculous in that it's win against all except against battleship, in which it get stomp hard.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Even with penetration weapon which happen to be energy weapon too is not decisively better than kinetic cuz last time I check Focus Arc Emitter + various penetration weapons are draw against Gigacannon + Neutron Launcher, it's rng who is going to win.
You're forgetting how ludicrously many bonuses there are to shields and amor, compared to hull. Early game and most of the midgame, penetrating weapons are garbage, because shields and armor are weak and non-penetrating weapons are strong enough to quickly batter them down and get to hull (plus there are good anti-hull weapons like plasma). Starting around the end of the mid game, the inherent strength of late-game armor and shields plus the bonuses you get from techs, edicts, and so on make it a relative draw which weapon to use; weapons all get the same bonuses but hulls don't get the bonuses that shields and armor do, so skipping them starts to be worth the hit to average damage. In the actual late game (or when fighting fallen/awakened empires, who start with ten levels of repeatables), defenses and offenses scale the same but hulls do not, so penetrating weapons absolutely run away with the show. By the time you have ten levels of the relevant repeatables, a disrupter-armed fleet can often beat twice its combat strength in non-penetrating-weapon ships (although part of that is because the game's strength calculation is too simple and undervalues penetrating weapons).

Yes, I've tested this. Not super recently, admittedly - this would be back around 2.8 - but they haven't changed a single thing that would make a difference here except for the 3.3 beta making it take slightly longer to get repeatables and making the strategic resource edicts too expensive to run for long (you can still toggle them for actual fights though).
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Shiftclicking and designation switch should both fixed on the internal build now :)
BTW this can also happen when a colony designation changes (destroys & creates) a lot of jobs at once, like if I change from Industrial -> Forge and then 20 Artificer jobs disappear and 20 Metallurgist jobs appear. In previous versions those 20 pops were able to immediately become employed.


Honestly I'd be happy enough if the AI were able to RP with its ships, for example if it was all "I like kinetics" and all its designs predominantly used kinetic weapons, that would be fine with me.

Missiles / Strike Craft / Disruptors would need some special handling since they don't fit in every hull, but I bet you can make me as the player feel the AI's preference even with that hurtle.
 
  • 4Love
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Found another place that it happens:

View attachment 800389
^^^ that is BEFORE a Commercial Zone got replaced by a Research Lab

View attachment 800390
^^^ this is the day after the CZ got replaced by the RL


View attachment 800391
^^^ This is the next month roll-over.


Note that there are no unemployed Specialists, but those former Clerks just don't want to put on the diving suits.
This belongs in the bug report forum, upload the save game there and I will try it tomorrow if it works or not with the other bug fixes that are already in place
EDIT: Haven't seen this one before so ty, but question, if you just unpause the game and let two months tick by do they go back to work or stuck there forever?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Understood, and thank you.

My feeling is that a pure weight system will indeed always be broken somewhere.

It's needed because it's the only way to compare things that can't be expressed into a common unit or currency. For example, how else would you decide if it's better to assign some race to soldier jobs because it has the Very Strong trait, or to technician jobs if it also happens to have a trait for 15% extra energy production.
Or how do you decide whether to assign a soldier position to the Very Strong race at the expension of a specialist job it could work, or the Servile race which won't make as good a soldier but would free up the other pops to work as a specialist.

(Side-note, perhaps shortages of specialists should be taken into account into the weight computation? At least in slaver empires, those tend to be always in shortage.)

On the other hand, the weight system ends up completely occulting the raw data of whether the overall resource production has been optimized. That's why after the weights have done their job you could bring back the raw economic data to have a last pass that only affects pops that could be freely swapped without inconvenient to optimize their resource output. The prerequisite would be to remember whether pops have a "reason" other than raw resource output to be there. i.e. "I'm a soldier because I was picked for being Very Strong" vs "I'm a soldier because I was eligible to work any menial job and just happened to be picked, feel free to swap me with someone else".

Until that system is perfected (which is unlikely, as you yourself pointed out), I think giving back some manual control to the player is really needed, at least at the race level. These are some user stories, which can obviously translated into a variety of UI systems:
  • "I want to globally disable clerk jobs" (I'd settle for being able to do it race by race)
  • "Yes I know that my main race is Very Strong but I still want the Servile race to always take soldier jobs if possible."
    • Alternate rule with somewhat similar result: "I want my main race to always prioritize specialist jobs"
  • "This race of robots should always take technician jobs in priority"
  • If amenities are higher than 10, this Domestic Servitude race should prioritize relocating to planets with open jobs. (Instead of piling up more servants on the same planet needlessly.)
Is this getting completely off-topic? My hope is that as an AI programmer you can exert some push-back on the game designers to respectfully inform them that the jobs AI will never (or not in any reasonable time frame) make it to a point where it can completely replace player decisions, and that they need to give the player some control.
If anything this is more of UX design. The job system isn't even part of the AI at all really. The only thing that the AI now does with the job system is to down prioritise jobs manually when they have too many amenities on a planet.

Adding some player choice for which species should work which job would be cool. This is what the weights are supposed to do but I like the idea of giving the player control if they want to go in and tweak it themselves
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
This belongs in the bug report forum, upload the save game there and I will try it tomorrow if it works or not with the other bug fixes that are already in place
EDIT: Haven't seen this one before so ty, but question, if you just unpause the game and let two months tick by do they go back to work or stuck there forever?
Here you are:


Save included.
 
BTW this can also happen when a colony designation changes (destroys & creates) a lot of jobs at once, like if I change from Industrial -> Forge and then 20 Artificer jobs disappear and 20 Metallurgist jobs appear. In previous versions those 20 pops were able to immediately become employed.


Honestly I'd be happy enough if the AI were able to RP with its ships, for example if it was all "I like kinetics" and all its designs predominantly used kinetic weapons, that would be fine with me.

Missiles / Strike Craft / Disruptors would need some special handling since they don't fit in every hull, but I bet you can make me as the player feel the AI's preference even with that hurtle.
I think that such huge changes could still warrant a "complete redistribution" event (as in do something not as in ingame event) for this particular planet.
There is definitelly a difference between incremental changes during "normal" development and huge steps in development like the ones you mentioned.
 
I think that such huge changes could still warrant a "complete redistribution" event (as in do something not as in ingame event) for this particular planet.
There is definitelly a difference between incremental changes during "normal" development and huge steps in development like the ones you mentioned.

Replacing an upgraded Commercial Zone can remove 7 jobs (or more with the right Traditions) while adding whatever jobs the new building provides.

That's a normal, incremental change which will happen many times in many games.
 
Use the aggressive stance on your transport fleets.
This does not automatically look for reachable planets, it only auto invades planets in the same system and follows random military fleets (usually the wrong ones).

Im talking about the science ship "auto survey" feature, in the sense that it would be an increadible improvement to QOL if I would not have to manually send armies to systems.
 
This might be off topic but...

I would say the game is more bias toward kinetic tbh cuz the first layer of defence is always shield this means that alpha strike will always favour Kinetic one.

Making the optimal alpha strike battleship build be Gigacannon + Neutron Launcher, not Tachyon Lance + Kinetic Battery which is really sad for cuz I like Tachyon Lance more.

Even with penetration weapon which happen to be energy weapon too is not decisively better than kinetic cuz last time I check Focus Arc Emitter + various penetration weapons are draw against Gigacannon + Neutron Launcher, it's rng who is going to win.

So no, energy weapon is not the objectively best weapon in game.

Explosive isn't doing particularly bad, it lost against PD destroyer with same naval cap and against any carrier but it murder everything else especially battleship performed really bad against torpvette (except carrier battleship ofc).

Carrier is kind of ridiculous in that it's win against all except against battleship, in which it get stomp hard.
I'd actually say the bias is towards energy weapons. The reason is that it's better to concentrate damage. By wanting to focus on armor, it means that the first few ships which lose their shields are more likely to be targeted, and thus killed. Focusing on shields just distributes damage across the entire fleet.
 
Mhm, there does seem to be a fairly low incidence of dev responses to bug reports. Counting, it looks like 9 of my 48 reports have been flagged as either Confirmed or Duplicate, with the other 39 recieving no response.

That 18.75% acknowledgement rate is a bit disheartening and has definitely impacted my report rate, especially for the bugs I can fix myself in less time than it takes to write out a report.
We've been a bit quiet on the forums as of right now our focus is on our internal bug backlog. A good chunk of said issues are duplicated by posts on the forum.

We're moving focus now and will be doing a forum pass to make sure we didn't miss anything that the community has reported.
 
  • 6Like
  • 6
Reactions: