• 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 #24 - AI

Hello everyone and welcome to yet another development diary for Stellaris! Today, I'll be talking about AI, and not of the robotic kind. I'm talking of course, of the game AI, which is currently being developed by myself and @merni who is the dedicated Stellaris AI programmer, while I'm just temporarily on the project to flesh out certain aspects of the AI before launch.

Artificial Personalities
A major challenge when making the Stellaris AI has been the randomized nature of the game. With thousands of different combinations of ethoses and traits, there's a risk that every AI Empire ends up feeling the same to the player, or fall into a very basic categorization of 'aggressive aliens' and 'peaceful aliens'. I as the AI programmer might know that an AI with Fanatic Collectivism makes their decisions differently from with plain old vanilla Collectivism, but it might all look the same to a player who doesn't have this foreknowledge.

In order to address this problem, we've implemented a system of AI Personalities that govern almost every aspect of how they behave, such as who they'll pick a fight with, which trade deals they are interested in and how they budget and utilize the resources available to them. This personality is determined by their ethos, government form and traits, and will be shown to the player when diplomatically interacting with that Empire. To feel recognizeable to the player, all of the personalities are rooted in sci-fi tropes, so that you'll immediately know who the Klingons are to your United Federation of Planets.
6ZK8UQS.png


Personalities naturally have a bigger impact on diplomacy than anything else - if your goal is to form a Federation, it'll be much easier to do so with an Empire of Federation Builders than a bunch of Ruthless Capitalists, and forget getting Xenophobic Isolationists to agree to any such proposal unless they have a very pressing reason. You can tell how an Empire feels about you from their Attitude, which is primarily driven by opinion, and affects factors such as what diplomatic offers they'll consider and how fair a shake they will give you in trade deals.
h76nTL1.png


In addition to the regular personalities, there is also a special set of personalities for Fallen Empires. Instead of the usual mix of Ethoses, each Fallen Empire has only a single Fanatic Ethos - the single remaining ideal they hold to after centuries of seeing what the galaxy has to offer. This Ethos determines their personality, which in turn affects how they view your actions. For example, a Xenophobic Fallen Empire will want nothing to do with you or anyone else and will be very upset if you start encroaching on their borders, while a Spiritualist Fallen Empire will consider themselves the protectors of the galaxy's holy sites, and will not look kindly on your colonists trampling all over their sacred planets. If you think angering a Fallen Empire is harmless because they won't conquer you - think again. Fallen Empires get a special wargoal to force you to abandon planets, and will be more than happy to cut your upstart species down to size if you don't show sufficient respect for your elders.
KViqQD9.png


Threats and Rivals
So what then, is a pressing reason for an AI to go against their personality? Well, one such reason is Threat. Threat is a mechanic somewhat similar to Aggressive Expansion in Europa Universalis 4. Conquering planets, subjugating other Empires and destroying space installations will generate Threat towards other Empires. The amount of Threat generated depends both on how far away the Empire is from what's happening and on their Personality. Xenophobic Isolationists won't care if you're purging aliens half a galaxy away, but if all the planets around them being swallowed up by an expanionistic Empire, they'll definitely take note. Empires that are threatened by the same aggressor will get an opinion boost towards each other, and will be more likely to join in Alliances and Federations - if you go on a rampage, you may find the rest of the Galaxy uniting to take you down, and while Threat decays naturally over time, there's no guarantee that the alliances formed by your imperialism will break up even if you take a timeout from conquering... so expand with care.

Another feature borrowed from EU4 to drive AI behaviour is Rivals. Any independent Empire that are you not allied to can be declared a Rival, up to a maximum of 3 Rivals at the same time. Having an Empire as a Rival will give you a monthly increase of Influence, with the amount gained based on how powerful they are relative to yourself - having a far weaker Empire as your antagonist will not overly impress your population. It is further modified by Ethos, with Militarist Empires benefitting significantly more from Rivalries than Pacifist ones (but paying more influence to be part of an Alliance). Naturally, Empires won't be particularly happy about being declared a Rival, and are pretty likely to rival you right back. Having a Rival will improve relations with their enemies and worsen relations with their friends, so the Rivalry system will act as a primary driver of conflict and alliance in the galaxy.
pEIgTBV.png


AI Economics
Finally, I wanted to cover the topic of the AI's bookkeeping. While it may be far less exciting and far less visible to the player than its diplomatic behaviour, having solid economics is one of our biggest priorities for the Stellaris AI, for multiple reasons. Firstly, so that the AI is able to compete reasonably with the player without resorting to outright cheating. True, the AI will never be as good as an experienced player, but there is a big difference between the player being able to outproduce one AI Empire and the player being able to outproduce five of them together. Secondly, because of the Sector mechanic that was covered in DD 21, the AI will actively be making construction and management decisions on the player's planets, and while - again - it will never be as good as an experienced player making the decisions themselves, it needs to be good enough that the player doesn't feel like the AI is actively sabotaging their Empire.

In order to accomplish all this, a huge amount of time has been put into the AI's budgeting system. Every single mineral and energy credit that the AI takes in is earmarked for a particular budget post such as navies or new colonies, with the division between the posts being set according to the AI's personality and what it needs at the time. The AI is only permitted to spend appropriately budgeted resources, so it'll never fail to establish new colonies because it's too busy constructing buildings on its planet, or miss building a navy because mining stations are eating up its entire mineral income. In times of dire need, it can move resources from one budget post to another - if it's at war and its navy gets destroyed, expect it to pour every last mineral into building a new one.

When making decisions about what to construct, the AI looks primarily at what resources it has a critical need for (such as Energy if it's running a deficit), secondarily at what resources it's not producing a lot of compared to what it expects an Empire of its size to produce, and lastly at whatever it deems useful enough for the mineral investment. Sectors have additional logic to ensure they produce more of the resource you've set them to focus on, so an Energy sector will naturally overproduce Energy - you told it to, after all.
12eo2mu.png


Alright, that's all for today. Next week we'll be talking about debris and the fine art of reverse engineering.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 156
  • 128
Reactions:
Y'know what might be a good personality type for an AI with one and only point in pacifism and a point or two in xenophobe: one that keeps an unusually large military for a "pacifist" nation, rarely/never starts wars save to constrain unchecked bellicosity that might pose a future threat, and engages in absolutely brutal, unrelenting, overwhelming, planet-glassing retribution when their hands are forced to ensure warlike nations tread very lightly around them.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
I think it's stupid from the perspective you take as well, seeing as there is no justifiable reason a country with a population in the hundreds of millions could only field a few generals, or that an interstellar civilization could only maintain a few embassies. That is ridiculous.

But it's justified in context by game balancing. Why is this a bad thing IYO?
Because it's not balanced. It's an arbitrary limit that serves absolutely no purpose but to limit you, with no trade-off in return.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
Because it's not balanced. It's an arbitrary limit that serves absolutely no purpose but to limit you, with no trade-off in return.

In the context of embassies, it gives pacifists more diplomatic leverage and protection from militarists.

In EU4, the lack of generals stops you from steamrolling the AI with hordes of 100 tradition generals.

Whether or not they succeed at doing this is besides the point.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Probably to read more accurately quickly. Say hypothetically if 300 is the absolute most you can benefit from the reputation or that anything beyond that is so marginal it doesn't matter. And you have 360. You can easily see that you can do something dishonorable that will hurt your rep -60.
If i'm not mistaken in eu4 relations go beyond 200 aswell. It just stops counting at 200. For example if you had Royal Marriage 25+. Alliance 50+. Improved relationship 200+. the total would say 200+ even though it's really 275 and you have an invisible 75+ buffer.
hows it possible to ally a vassel?
because its only subjects that you can improbe more than 100 relations with :)
 
The AI does not hate you just for declining trades, but for instance if they're boxed in by you and you refuse access they might consider that a reason to go to war.

Is it wrong that I find this incredibly sexy ...?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Start to use 'kindergärten' instead of 'kindergartens' because 'kindergärten' is the correct German plural of kindergarten!
But those inferior languages don't know how to use ä/ö
 
  • 1
Reactions:
But those inferior languages don't know how to use ä/ö
They can still use "ae" and "oe" so it would be 'kindergaerten'. Or „kindergaerten“ because hell, if you're supposed to use proper german grammar for german-stolen words you should also use proper german quoting ;)
 
They can still use "ae" and "oe" so it would be 'kindergaerten'. Or „kindergaerten“ because hell, if you're supposed to use proper german grammar for german-stolen words you should also use proper german quoting ;)
Except ä isn't really ponounced ae and ö isn't pronounced oe.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
That can be discussed, but nonetheless it's how those letters are transcribed (or transliterated, sorry, can't ever get distinction between the two) e.g. Goethe.
Yes it often is funny you should mention that one since it leads us to the old joke "Goethe was a great pöt (poet)". The joke being that the oe in poet is in no way similiar to how the ö in goethe is pronounced.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Yes, and "ghoti" is pronounced "fish" :)
Or the joke my english teacher used to say: "One of my students approached me and asked 'Can you recommend me a good texbook about rules of pronunciation in english'? 'My dear, there are no rules of pronunciation in english.'"

But back on original topic: is there gonna be a personality of ruthless opportunists?
 
But back on original topic: is there gonna be a personality of ruthless opportunists?

The god damn fanatical materialist militants strike again. They're probably going to be like warmongering Vulcans.

"It would be illogical not to declare war on you while you're already at war".
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Yes, and "ghoti" is pronounced "fish" :)
Or the joke my english teacher used to say: "One of my students approached me and asked 'Can you recommend me a good texbook about rules of pronunciation in english'? 'My dear, there are no rules of pronunciation in english.'"

But back on original topic: is there gonna be a personality of ruthless opportunists?
The joke is however not an old english joke but an old swedish joke. Thus the inadequacies of the english language has no part of it.
 
Ask the British, I think Gandhi taught them a similiar lesson.

you are aware that Ghandi got Lucky that his opponents were the British and not some other group with less qualms about making rivers run red with blood.
 
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
you are aware that Ghandi got Lucky that his opponents were the British and not some other group with less qualms about making rivers run red with blood.
I don't think they were nearly as enlightened as you think they were. The british starved million of indians to death during the two world wars. They already had the blood of millions of indians on their hands, gandhi went into this course of action full well knowing, or perhaps even expecting the response you suggested. And I also don't think mass murder would have quelled the resistance, it usually doesn't. Sure it may stomp out rebillion short term but long term it always makes matters worse.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I don't think they were nearly as enlightened as you think they were. The british starved million of indians to death during the two world wars. They already had the blood of millions of indians on their hands, gandhi went into this course of action full well knowing, or perhaps even expecting the response you suggested. And I also don't think mass murder would have quelled the resistance, it usually doesn't. Sure it may stomp out rebillion short term but long term it always makes matters worse.

That's not the point. The point is that British society had changed over the past hundred years to such degree that using excessive force to quell colonial unrest had become... distasteful. Especially if said force was applied against non-violent resistance. Images that made it home of non-violent protesters being beaten resulted in outrage among the British population and politicians. At the same time, Gandhi realized this as a shrewd politician / freedom fighter and therefore picked a way of resistance that would give the British leadership only losing counter strategies. If they used violence, they would lose favor at home, if they ignored it, the movement would only grow.

In the 1800's, Gandhi would have been eliminated early by force or by silent assassination and replaced with a more pliable alternative. If British society had not changed, or society with a less contrary 'civilized and liberal' image of themselves had been the colonial power, non-violent resistance would not have been an option, and the only way to break free would be to use the numbers against them in a violent revolt. It would likely have worked too, even if the losses would have been catastrophic.

Overall: Non-violent resistance work best to produce grand results, when the opposing force is unwilling to use violent means to bring it to an end or will face opposition at home after doing so.
 
  • 3
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions: