A new AI system for AGCEEP

[unmerged(2456)]

...um Kyushu?

Also about Japan...after the closure they will be getting their own ai which will mirror whatever the largeTrader.ai except they block about no less than 90% as it should be higher than China during its closure.

 

[Garbon]

Again, border changes, except for some specific provinces such as Constantinople, are not akin to a god we have to please. Rajputana isn't going to be a the historically most powerful nation until the arrival of the Mughuls in india if they have small.ai.

If its not historical to have Rajputana conquering provinces, then it'd be best for them to be peaceful. Whether or not this involves small.ai, I cannot say.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

If its not historical to have Rajputana conquering provinces, then it'd be best for them to be peaceful. Whether or not this involves small.ai, I cannot say.

They conquered territory though and they did subjigate others as vassals. And again, you're also missing the larger picture, they need to be a threat, even to everyone in India and to an extent the Mughuls.

 

[Garbon]

They conquered territory though and they did subjigate others as vassals. And again, you're also missing the larger picture, they need to be a threat, even to everyone in India and to an extent the Mughuls.

I think you are missing the larger picture. It is not possible to accurately reflect Rajputana by having them conquer up various provinces. If we need to artificially boost their strength (although I almost never see them being a pushover as it is) thats fine. However, encouraging Rajputana to get in wars that will never end historically is nonsensical.

 

[Toio]

Do the AI waste merchants, and can trade competition be low enough to render a profit for the AI?

I loaded up a prepared game in 1.09 as well, with all eight west african states with trade 1, stab 3, 6 merchants and 200d. The AI files had traders = 10.
I wrote they were seven before, but I was wrong, there's eight (Mossi, Oyo, Benin, Hausa, Dahomey, Mali, Songhai, Ashanti). None of them had armies to maintain.

Just before the end of december 1419 I had a look at the save, to see what money had been spent. They couldn't send diplomatic gifts, since they didn't have diplomats. Benin and Dahomey started to build fleets, Mali converted, so I didn't look into their spendings. No one built troops.
In the trade center, there was now four merchants. For Mossi and Hausa, it could be seen that they had sent one each, and they recieved 3.4 and 3.8 merchants yearly.
Conclusion: the AI do waste merchants at low value for traders.

With 1.09, or just because of change of luck, it took until jan 1424 for the AI to fill up the COT. In october the same year, the first change was seen, as one merchant was being knocked out.
I looked into several later saves, and could see treasuries remaining untouched from january to december during later years as well. During 1425, there were no changes at all in the COT, and from the six nations not building or maintaining ships, only one merchant was sent. A state with three merchants placed earned 5.6d during that year, enough to place between one or two merchants.
At this level of competition I believe the AI makes money from trading, even if I should have studied an untypical year.

EDIT: For the actual traders values for this region, it could be differentiated a bit, with the states closer to Timbuktu having slightly higher, and those far away even lower. Some of the states here are not very long lasting. If we make the COT go away and a nw spawn in some coastal colony, that COT could become very valuable for the European owning it, since they could rather easily get a monopoly, as they should.

Very interesting tests.

I have been playing with zero for traders in the peaceful file for a while and I do get the minors to last longer due to the extra income they get (or do not waste). I was thinking then, would it be better to designate the existing nations that use the peaceful file to switch to other peaceful files during the course of the game, eg, they would start with zero for traders until either a certain time or until there trading level reach a certain number. I am unsure if on how many files would be needed , but I think not many.

 

[Norrefeldt]

I was thinking then, would it be better to designate the existing nations that use the peaceful file to switch to other peaceful files during the course of the game, eg, they would start with zero for traders until either a certain time or until there trading level reach a certain number. I am unsure if on how many files would be needed , but I think not many.

I think that's a good idea. As trade tech rise, and the number of nations decrease, the same value that was optimal at start isn't so anymore. The competitiveness will decrease as a result from fewer nations, and ultimately it will become too easy for the player. I don't thik there will have to be several changes, probably we can get it working rather well with just one.

 

[Garbon]

Why would we lump nations that already have ai file changes in their respective event txts, fall under this plan? (I was thinking of the Koyunlu, Timurids, and Uzbeks specifically, although there are several others that follow)

I know its rather soon to be highlighting my own post, but this is the one issue that really bothers me about this proposal.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I think you are missing the larger picture. It is not possible to accurately reflect Rajputana by having them conquer up various provinces. If we need to artificially boost their strength (although I almost never see them being a pushover as it is) thats fine. However, encouraging Rajputana to get in wars that will never end historically is nonsensical.

You never see them being a pushover because they aren't early game, however they severly lag in tech growth behind eveyone in india and will continue to.

Stopping all wars for aggresive nations does not help the overall picture either. It just replaces one inconistancy with another one, arbitrarily. Borders are not as important beyond a few special cases.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I think that's a good idea. As trade tech rise, and the number of nations decrease, the same value that was optimal at start isn't so anymore. The competitiveness will decrease as a result from fewer nations, and ultimately it will become too easy for the player. I don't thik there will have to be several changes, probably we can get it working rather well with just one.

The problem is, early on there will be places if that's the case it will be easy for the player, they are a major to walk in and take without any competition allowing them to get massive amounts more money.

Also, there would need to a whole lot of seperate events to switch over for every nation and many would have to have special triggers which vary from region to region. What is good in europe might not work in India FE.

 

[Garbon]

You never see them being a pushover because they aren't early game, however they severly lag in tech growth behind eveyone in india and will continue to.

Stopping all wars for aggresive nations does not help the overall picture either. It just replaces one inconistancy with another one, arbitrarily. Borders are not as important beyond a few special cases.

I'd prefer things look historically accurate. And its not arbitrary. Although its historicall accurate for the Mughals to have a difficult time fighting Rajputana, its not historically accurate for them to fight a Rajputana that owns Gujarat and Malwa.

If the tech thing is such a problem, we should find a basis for pushing them ahead at some point to help them out.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I'd prefer things look historically accurate. And its not arbitrary. Although its historicall accurate for the Mughals to have a difficult time fighting Rajputana, its not historically accurate for them to fight a Rajputana that owns Gujarat and Malwa.

If the tech thing is such a problem, we should find a basis for pushing them ahead at some point to help them out.

Then have events to release them as vassals. We do that for other nations, even non-majors, when its historically justified.

They start out with level 1 land tech so that gives them an edge there, but as said, everything that could weigh them down slider-wise for techspeed, is (and is historical). They are hindus which are outteched my their sunni rivals and they are in the same techgroup as everyone else. If they were given vassals, this would help a lot since they have 0 centralization.

 

[Garbon]

Then have events to release them as vassals. We do that for other nations, even non-majors, when its historically justified.

They start out with level 1 land tech so that gives them an edge there, but as said, everything that could weigh them down slider-wise for techspeed, is (and is historical). They are hindus which are outteched my their sunni rivals and they are in the same techgroup as everyone else. If they were given vassals, this would help a lot since they have 0 centralization.

Did they historically depose the king and then set him up again as a vassal?

What we could do they is have province cession events that give them vassalizations...however that feels so...gamey.

 

[Norrefeldt]

I know its rather soon to be highlighting my own post, but this is the one issue that really bothers me about this proposal.

I'll guess we'll have both, since sometimes the AI file change depend upon the action chosen in a particular event.

The problem is, early on there will be places if that's the case it will be easy for the player, they are a major to walk in and take without any competition allowing them to get massive amounts more money.

Also, there would need to a whole lot of seperate events to switch over for every nation and many would have to have special triggers which vary from region to region. What is good in europe might not work in India FE.

The first part I don't understand.
Yes, the AI file system will include a whole lot of events, and regional adaption. Just writing files assuming they will work have been tried before, and it's been proved not to work. We know that by now.

 

[Garbon]

I'll guess we'll have both, since sometimes the AI file change depend upon the action chosen in a particular event.

As in it'll be a hybrid system...as in nations like the Uzbeks will be exempted as they have very directed AIs?

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Did they historically depose the king and then set him up again as a vassal?

What we could do they is have province cession events that give them vassalizations...however that feels so...gamey.

I don't know if deposed him, but they did defeat them and they had to pay tribute after that and, recognize them as their superior and if they were hindus, recognise rajputanian religion as superior. There were some lands that actually changed hands, but not much that can be shown on the current map. The rest of the area was a lose vassalege. They had basically the diplomatic options of any nation, except to vassalize or annex someone else, but had to pay tribute, supply troops and such to whatever Rajputanian princedom they were bound to.

I don't like giving them vassals for free, but you don't want them to go to war either and a form of vassalage is how they became as the dominant power despite their mapsize not showing it until the Mughuls.

 

[unmerged(29041)]

Why would we lump nations that already have ai file changes in their respective event txts, fall under this plan? (I was thinking of the Koyunlu, Timurids, and Uzbeks specifically, although there are several others that follow)

We won't. The problem is that the AI files are in such a sorry state that it is difficult to work with them. The bpai files are hundreds of files and are overimposed over hundreds of nation specific files, most of them not being even used.
Since it is impossible for me to review, judge and introduce changes in thousands of files, and that would still leave us with a system impossible to manage consistently, I have decided, not for AGCEEP but for my proposal to AGCEEP, to drastically simplify the AI system, and see how it works. The current situation is mind bogling, with Wurtemberg having 6 AI files.
It is very helpful to me that you point out nations that are going to need specific AI files. These are by order of importance:
1) Colonizers as without a good set of AIs they never perform.
2) Countries that need to conquer several provinces. These sometimes can perform if they have cores and the number of provinces is small.
So probably the sheeps, timurids and uzbeks are going to need a specific AI system because they fit number 2.
What would be incredibly useful to me is if you told me:
Ak Koyunlu needs to conquer provinces X, Y and Z between years 1458 and 1482 from the likely owners TAG1 and TAG2. They also have to watch out for revolter TAG3.
Same for Sweden and all the others.

Garbon, you don't need to worry if certain country has been forgotten. If my proposal shows some merit when tested, then it will be your work to make sure that some countries that you know well and do not perform well with the generic AI, get a new one, and once tested and seen that it is an improvement, gets submitted, like everything else. The important thing is that the process is made easy, and that only countries that really do need an AI get one.

Jinnai, I will put NIP in the same group as VEN, but in my games (1.08 no betas), that CoT always disappears.

But we should not get all heated up about certain countries like RAJ at this initial stage. No country is going to get stuck in a group. Changing groups is trivial, and can even be done dynamically through events.
As a general rule I have made countries between 1 and 5 provinces small, and countries over 4 provinces large (yes, there is some overlap). The difference in AI is really small and for a country 4-5 provinces doesn't make that much difference. My intention is that small countries are slightly less agresive than larger ones (war = -75 instead of -50) for their own good, and also they should like to fight a little closer to home. Other than that you can exchange them and they will probably still be fine.

 

[unmerged(29041)]

I think that's a good idea. As trade tech rise, and the number of nations decrease, the same value that was optimal at start isn't so anymore. The competitiveness will decrease as a result from fewer nations, and ultimately it will become too easy for the player. I don't thik there will have to be several changes, probably we can get it working rather well with just one.

Such a system would be very easy to implement. We can have 3 standard AIs with different levels of trade and move nations from one to the other through an event that will trigger upon reaching a certain date or a certain trade level.

 

[Garbon]

Garbon, you don't need to worry if certain country has been forgotten. If my proposal shows some merit when tested, then it will be your work to make sure that some countries that you know well and do not perform well with the generic AI, get a new one, and once tested and seen that it is an improvement, gets submitted, like everything else. The important thing is that the process is made easy, and that only countries that really do need an AI get one.

Fine do so for your testing. However, I do say I find this a bit backwards for some areas, as several nations specific AIs (not in any way related to the bpai files) are working as desired at the current moment. I'm a fan if the "if its not broke don't fix it school" which would exempt said countries prior to any implementation of these new easy to mod AIs.

 

[unmerged(29041)]

Fine do so for your testing. However, I do say I find this a bit backwards for some areas, as several nations specific AIs (not in any way related to the bpai files) are working as desired at the current moment. I'm a fan if the "if its not broke don't fix it school" which would exempt said countries prior to any implementation of these new easy to mod AIs.

Again, any help identifying those countries that are working fine will be greatly appreciated. I also don't won't to fix things that are working. However the AI system of AGCEEP is very very broken right now, and we get a lot of complaints about it.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Jinnai, I will put NIP in the same group as VEN, but in my games (1.08 no betas), that CoT always disappears.

It may partly be do to the current AI. Anyway betas and did some major overhaul with reguard to trading.