A new AI system for AGCEEP

[Toio]

Perhaps (no need to shout), but IDLF does not say that 6 is the magic number in his bible:

read his ai bible and you will see my remarks. He talks about money problems for values above 6. also read the POR AI thread.

Again, do the tests with your 15 for POR and you will see them go broke, they will not even see india by 1600.
You clearly have not answered me on how these colonizing nations have enough money to do what you expect by certain dates.

Clearly he is not concerned that a high number has a negative effect other than colonizing too much.

why a we risking this when he knows the money issues for high numbers?
??

And if you take the effort in analyzing the AIs in EP, which are the ones he has tested extensively, and not bpai, what you find is:

• POR_3explorers.ai expansion 7
• POR_CorteReal.ai expansion 7
• POR_ManuelB.ai expansion 8
• SPA_MagellanB.ai expansion 30
• SPA_MagellanA.ai expansion 10
• SPA_LegazpiB.ai expansion 10
• SPA_LegazpiA.ai expansion 10
• SPA_Inca.ai expansion 10
• SPA_Coronado.ai expansion 10
• SPA_California.ai expansion 10
• SPA_Armada.ai expansion 10
• SPA_Alpujarras.ai expansion 10
• RUS_1480.ai expansion 65
• RUS_1560.ai expansion 65
• RUS_1600.ai expansion 65
• RUS_1650.ai expansion 15
• RUS_1760.ai expansion 12
• RUS_1780.ai expansion 12
• ENG_1635.ai expansion 10
• ENG_1740.ai expansion 10
• ENG_Drake.ai expansion 7
• ENG_Lancaster.ai expansion 7
• ENG_Raleigh.ai expansion 7

So, having established that you don't know what you talk about when you talk about IDLF views on expansion, what remains to be seeing is if you know about the negative effects of a high expansion setting in colonization success.

You are giving me files which represent nations who have already establised colonies beyond 1500. we will not get to these files with the number you are suggesting.

direct me on where he said he tested EP files, because we talked about this issue many times and he always reffered to daywalkers BPAI files for his tests.
Besides,we are useing the BPAI files, so these comments are useless, you should be basing your tests and comments on our BPAI files. I do my testing on the BPAI files.

this comment about EP files indicates to me that you have done NO testing. because you would have stated this and besides, why you wasting you time if the HC clearly is in favour of daywalkers BPAI files.
these BPAI files are good files with tweaking needed. We are not going to chase our tails again with new AI files , are we.??

I am basing my colonization settings in IDLF's because I recognize that he is the one that has tested it more with the ideal country to test these issues, Portugal. Obviously I might be wrong because IDLF settings are optimized for an AI that receives quite a lot of help, so we will see that when we test it.

Are you saying that we are going to incorporate the "cheating" methods of daywalker and IDFL for our AI files ??

Making my own values out of thin air or accepting yours at face value seems to me like a worse course of action at this point.
An important factor that you are forgetting in your calculations is that once a colony is started, in most places it will slowly grow by itself, so it is not so important if the next colonist arrives ten years later.

your number 15 means that they (AI) will not start to colonize anywhere until they have 15 provinces with trading posts in them.

not important, what ?
And how will your explorers survive a trip around africa with no port available in the return journey??
maybe you would like to have a continous flow of explorers for the colonists nations for 200 plus years. next explorer please.

You fail to realise that you are facing a race with time(years) and money for each nation.
And you must realise that the AI has only 1 explorer , exploring at any one time at sea.

if you do not know about these things, then I fail to see how your comments are relevent.

The important thing is that they grab the historic land that they did, rather than leave it empty for the wrong nation to take it.

And you can do that, ensure that in every game POR captures the same province again and again.
I cannot do that, but I can get them colonizing a province next to the one they had in the previous game. eg maybe senegal this game, Gambia the next.

Regarding base and front, again perhaps you are right or perhaps not. What Daywalker has to say about it is:
Not a big incentive to give some nations a high base value. Right?
Unless somebody does some testing setting two fantasy countries with same manpower, money and resources, and at war, checking what happens when they have different base/front coeficients, and in case they are big or small, and shows them to me, I will follow the above line, because Daywalker has more credibility to me than you.

test what you like, I am saying that these figures will be different for all nations , depending on what the nation did in history or for game balance.

you system is fine ONLY if they are at peace, because they can man their frontiers.
But its not feasible to do it as I stated above, .

Again, if you do not want minors to survive then do your method. maybe you will get an early germany by the 1500s

Finally, regarding garrison, I don't think rebels should be considered. They are a really minor issue. I often see AI armies defeating much larger rebel armies without problem, and healthy nations have no problems with rebels, only transoceanic colonizers have serious problems with them, and I don't see how the AI can help with that except having the right distance value]/QUOTE]

This is only because human players face rebel armies on equal terms as their own in ver 1.08 and 1.09 while the AI face rebel armies based on lowered valued rebels as per ver 1.07.

 

[unmerged(29041)]

Listen, you haven't even read this short thread of 3 pages if you haven't realized yet that the proposal of a new AI system for AGCEEP contemplates the complete removal of every single AI file currently present including all bpai files. Some non-bpai files like those for Morocco, Songhai, Uzbeks, China, etc, that are being used require only minor tweaking and are included. For colonizers, I have modified EP AI files slightly and simplified them a little. For the rest I have made a new set of default AI files.
I have already started the testing on this system, and soon everybody will be able to do the same. The first point to determine is if in general terms it constitutes a better more moddable system that the previous one. If that is the case, the HC will decide if it substitutes the current system. Improvements over the AI will be done continuously through the proposal-acceptance-submission system that we use for events.

Are you saying that we are going to incorporate the "cheating" methods of daywalker and IDFL for our AI files ??

I am saying what I am saying. Go back to the post and see if it says that.

And how will your explorers survive a trip around africa with no port available in the return journey??

An AI explorer can go to the end of the World and back. Its only limitation is its deathdate. No attrition, remember? I have seen Columbus explore the Antilles for four years straight and then head for Argentina directly. You just have to make sure Iberia is not in the area category and they don't need to go back home. With my mod, by January 1500 Portugal knew the entire African coastal waters. Of course the merit is IDLF's not mine.

Again, if you do not want minors to survive then do your method. maybe you will get an early germany by the 1500s

If one thing can be said about my proposal is that minor survival rate is several times higher than in current system.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

The monopoly is a debatable matter, and so I am just stating my opinion. A trade embargo produces absolutely no advantage to the AI, and the fact is that human players never embargo, except when emotions get in the way of reason. For the AI it is only a way of providing the human player with a free casus belli, and hurting her trade efficiency. If the number of minors is within historic levels, a nation in Europe would have to embargo 30 nations to ensure her monopoly, great bussines.

It only hurts them if they have no free embargos, which is if they are free trade. All of Japan will eventually become mercantilist maxed out which will give them i think 10 free embargos and trade deals that won't affect their efficency.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Finally, regarding garrison, I don't think rebels should be considered. They are a really minor issue. I often see AI armies defeating much larger rebel armies without problem, and healthy nations have no problems with rebels, only transoceanic colonizers have serious problems with them, and I don't see how the AI can help with that except having the right distance value.

Rebels can be very major issue for some nations, especially ai nations. Humans they aren't. Besides doing a little extra work for garrisoning isn't going to hurt anything really if they are going to be using the ai as well, why not optimize as best we can for all fronts possible?

 

[Garbon]

Rebels can be very major issue for some nations, especially ai nations. Humans they aren't. Besides doing a little extra work for garrisoning isn't going to hurt anything really if they are going to be using the ai as well, why not optimize as best we can for all fronts possible?

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that this ai system is being proposed as a quick fix to our currently broken system. Changes will of course be considered.

 

[Toio]

An AI explorer can go to the end of the World and back. Its only limitation is its deathdate. No attrition, remember? I have seen Columbus explore the Antilles for four years straight and then head for Argentina directly. You just have to make sure Iberia is not in the area category and they don't need to go back home. With my mod, by January 1500 Portugal knew the entire African coastal waters. Of course the merit is IDLF's not mine.

The only way an explorer has NO attrition is if you are using the random explorer command where a explorer lives for 30 years and has No attrition. This is a no no for the game (agreed by HC) as it will lead to a human player colonizing lands much faster than the AI, basically a ruined game,

I have recently reloaded EU2 from scratch and retested your theory (just in case of changes) there is NO possibility that a explorer has NO attrition.

The explorer discovers about 3 "fogged" areas, maximum, before he needs to find a port to get rid of his fatique. If this does not happen then he dies prematurely.

I already told you that IDFL uses some "cheats", thats one of the reasons why he left AGCEEP and set up his own game.

 

[Toio]

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that this ai system is being proposed as a quick fix to our currently broken system. Changes will of course be considered.

its pointless to start a new set AI files, when a majority of people do not know what they are talking about or know how the AI files work.

Its much better to tweak the current BPAI files, remove unnecassry files and still enjoy the game.

 

[Toio]

I am saying what I am saying. Go back to the post and see if it says that.

I re-read this thread and there is nothing on explorers , the only thing is talked about is trade and merchants

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that this ai system is being proposed as a quick fix to our currently broken system. Changes will of course be considered.

I am not saying this will solve all the problems. If we stop with this, yea its not going to be much. but imo, the event and weird scenerio setups are worse.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

its pointless to start a new set AI files, when a majority of people do not know what they are talking about or know how the AI files work.

Its much better to tweak the current BPAI files, remove unnecassry files and still enjoy the game.

I admit i don't know as much as IDLF, but I can get what you're saying,. My concerns are that mercantilistic nations that have free embargos should use them if they need to, especially if its historic, to keep control of their cot(s).

The other problem, is more to do with philosophy, historical "look" on the map over historic actions, even at the detriment of rest of history of that area. IMO people are overemphaising look, but that's not the same as not knowing about the ai.

 

[Garbon]

its pointless to start a new set AI files, when a majority of people do not know what they are talking about or know how the AI files work.

Its much better to tweak the current BPAI files, remove unnecassry files and still enjoy the game.

To be honest, I'd rather ax the BPAI files. If someone wants to re-integrate them once they've been modified (which is what was originally supposed to happen) thats fine. However, as it is now they are just sort of confusing as some nations have bpai files but also had individual changes in their events.

As a side note, perhaps you could try a different approach. Your tone is a little off putting.

 

[Toio]

To be honest, I'd rather ax the BPAI files. If someone wants to re-integrate them once they've been modified (which is what was originally supposed to happen) thats fine. However, as it is now they are just sort of confusing as some nations have bpai files but also had individual changes in their events.

As a side note, perhaps you could try a different approach. Your tone is a little off putting.

If i am "off putting" then accept my apology. But its how I am, I tell it how it is. I praise where it is warranted and I critizes where it is warranted.
Maybe its the job I have.

on the AI files.
I do not think that 1 file per nation will work (for the bigger nations) , I also think that us modders need to come to a consensus on how do we split files for each nation.
be it , by monarchs reign
by a certain number of years (say 50)
or by historical dates based on each nation.

I also think, our first step should be to define what files actually work at the moment.
I think all the BPAI are in operation plus the trader, peaceful and other EP files, while the old EP monarch files do not operate for nations that have a BPAI file.
with this in mind we can safely remove these files and work on what we have,

 

[Toio]

I admit i don't know as much as IDLF, but I can get what you're saying,. My concerns are that mercantilistic nations that have free embargos should use them if they need to, especially if its historic, to keep control of their cot(s).

I am sitting on the fence with this one as I can see merits for both. I think only a number of tests will reveal which one is correct

The other problem, is more to do with philosophy, historical "look" on the map over historic actions, even at the detriment of rest of history of that area. IMO people are overemphaising look, but that's not the same as not knowing about the ai.

can you please make this clearer by an example. I understand this the "look" part but this I do not fully understand "IMO people are overemphaising look, but that's not the same as not knowing about the ai."

 

[unmerged(40707)]

I will post Fodoron's new AI files and modified events files with no ai commands for 1.08 and 1.09 as beta add-on for AGCEEP 1.39 on website this afternoon. It will not be compatible with China-add-on but everyone will be able to test them.

 

[unmerged(29041)]

I also think, our first step should be to define what files actually work at the moment.
I think all the BPAI are in operation plus the trader, peaceful and other EP files, while the old EP monarch files do not operate for nations that have a BPAI file.
with this in mind we can safely remove these files and work on what we have,

I am glad you have your own opinion. Good for you. But this thread is actually about my proposal, which already is a reality and will be available for download for testing purposes very shortly thanks to YodaMaster.
My proposal is not a closed system, like bpai or most of the submitted specific ai files, but an open one subject to the same level of peer review as the rest of the AGCEEP mod. To see how a country's AI works you will need minutes, instead of having to wade through dozens of files in different places and run searches through different event files. Right now it is very difficult to know which AI a country is using at a certain time in its history.
You can make your own proposal for a completely different AI system and post it for the HC to consider it, and make it available for testing. Or you can help with the testing of mine to see if it fails like you predict. If accepted by the HC you can still submit your proposal for improvement the same way you do for events, and wait to see if they are accepted.
As you will understand, I am not going to discard my point of view and scratch my proposal, and build a new system based on your point of view. And you are going to have a hard time convincing anybody to start a new AI system according to your specifications.

Regarding your explanations about how AI explorers die due to attrition, I simply don't believe them. The AI doesn't loose ships to attrition no matter how long they are at sea.

 

[unmerged(29041)]

Besides doing a little extra work for garrisoning isn't going to hurt anything really if they are going to be using the ai as well, why not optimize as best we can for all fronts possible?

It is not a little extra work. As of now, nobody really knows how the variables in garrison really work. Not Daywalker, not IDLF, and not me. There is no information on it in IDLF's bible, and no information can be found in the AI threads in the Scenarios, Events and Modifications forum. IDLF asked about it and nobody answered, probably because nobody knows. Besides, ideal garrisoning strategies for AI countries are very debatable matters. Even players have different ideas about how to garrison their territories.
IDLF believes it is a minor issue, and says so in his bible. I tend to agree, and certainly I am not willing to put the considerable effort that it would require to run the hundreds of tests that would take to determine what each variable actually does, and what are the optimal values, specially since reasonable values seem to work just fine. But be my guest. Run those tests and present your results, and I can assure you I will pay attention to them.

 

[Toio]

I am glad you have your own opinion. Good for you. But this thread is actually about my proposal, which already is a reality and will be available for download for testing purposes very shortly thanks to YodaMaster.
My proposal is not a closed system, like bpai or most of the submitted specific ai files, but an open one subject to the same level of peer review as the rest of the AGCEEP mod. To see how a country's AI works you will need minutes, instead of having to wade through dozens of files in different places and run searches through different event files. Right now it is very difficult to know which AI a country is using at a certain time in its history.
You can make your own proposal for a completely different AI system and post it for the HC to consider it, and make it available for testing. Or you can help with the testing of mine to see if it fails like you predict. If accepted by the HC you can still submit your proposal for improvement the same way you do for events, and wait to see if they are accepted.
As you will understand, I am not going to discard my point of view and scratch my proposal, and build a new system based on your point of view. And you are going to have a hard time convincing anybody to start a new AI system according to your specifications.

Regarding your explanations about how AI explorers die due to attrition, I simply don't believe them. The AI doesn't loose ships to attrition no matter how long they are at sea.

you have the power , you are a HC member. you can do what you like.

I will not waste my time because you have already made up your mind on certain things and nothing will change it.

oh, by the way, more specific dates on when things have happened would be nice, instead of, from 1419 to 1500

 

[Garbon]

you have the power , you are a HC member. you can do what you like.

Now don't speak like that, as thats hardly true at all. Just like anyone else, he has to get approval before he adds things to the mod. This is why time would be better spent testing the AI mod then discussing it abstractly (which should shortly be doable as it will be available for everyone to download and try out).

 

[Norrefeldt]

From the naval FAQ (happens to be the most recent FAQ of all):

i.I) Exemptions to Naval Attrition

Naval supply and movement attrition do not apply to AI or to a player's ships in his own national waters (sea-zones adjacent to provinces owned by the player). When left-clicking on a sea-zone, shields are displayed of all nations that claim those waters as national waters.

There are several things that are behind building a complete new AI set. Of course old files will be looked at when doing the difficult colonising countries. In my view, the reasons to get a new AI set are that there are so much needing improvement in the old set, that a clean out is the easiest approach:

1. AGCEEP has a mix of four different system (AGCEEP, vanilla, BPAI, monarch files), and a complete mess. Many old files are written with little knowledge of AI scripting, files overlap, interfere with each other and are obsolete.
2. We have realised that a big part of the AI files needs a lower war setting than they currently have, and that negative values have a meaning.
3. We have realised that 95% of the AI files needs a lower traders setting than the defaualt most of them currently have, to certain AI's from wasting their money on trade early on. This problem has grown with all new states added.
4. In 1.09, a new negative aspect of embargos have been added, the lower TE. Before they only gave a free CB.
5. All revolter entries need AI files.

 

[Toio]

any reason why this file from the HC thread has been detached for access?

Idontlikeforms AI bible