Brittany's ai

[MattyG]

Hi,

I have been watching how Brittany was played by the ai and it seemed very very warlike and a little weird, so I went and had a look at its ai. There are a few little anomolies.

1. Countries to conquer

#Which countries to conquer if possible. (to guide nation historically)
combat = { MTR ATJ GUY DEL BEI }

DEL is Lenape, which is not in the game. Did the designer intend this to be Delhi?

2. Trader rate

# 100 = max trader rate, lesser means slower focus on sending a trader.
traders = 800

*00 might be overkill and would explain whay Brittany is always setting up TPs and not colonies. The TPs then get burnt to the ground in wars and it has to start over. I am thinking this is a typo and that its meant to be 80.

3. War

# 100 = Total warmonger, 0 = absolute pacifist
war = 50
ferocity = no

Whoa. That explains why Brittany is constantly at war. This might be OK for one of the eastern plains countries like Suzdal or the Horde, but 50 means that really Brittany as ai is in a constant state of war. Which has been my experience of them as ai. Sometimes this works for them, when they get the jump on Burgundy, Savoy and Hansa (in Britain) but it also explains why the often do poorly, despite their generous events and leaders. Could I suggest scaling this back to 15 or 20, so they can have a little peace?

MattyG

 

[Incompetent]

We need to look at all the AI files, not just Brittany, and bring them in line with the teachings of AI gurus like Daywalker and idontlikeforms. In particular, the AI in vanilla EU2 is far too aggressive in the first 100 years of the game, and to extent the Abe AIs follow vanilla standards of aggression. For Abe's purposes, I'd divide up the powers in 1419 like this:

Caliphate, Ukraine, TO: high aggression (50+)
These are countries on the warpath, and can get away with fighting all the time, at least at first. In Ukraine's case especially, but also the others' to an extent, the AI is expected to gain territory quite rapidly early on, aided by excellent leaders and monarchs.

Burgundy, Hungary, Scotland, Kalmar: moderate aggression (no more than 40)
These are large or isolated enough to get away with a lot of fighting, and Hungary is frighteningly powerful (partly thanks to the huge area over which it has cores and/or culture). But we don't want them going mad. Scotland's island position means it's unlikely to suffer the consequences of too much BB, but we need to direct its attention towards Norway and away from England. A 'roadblock' vassal, coupled with inheritance of Norway if it's reduced to one province (thus giving Scotland that crucial foothold and land border) might help change Scotland's behaviour. Kalmar has no small neighbours, which in the crazy world of AI wars actually means that its position is fairly secure.

Byzantium, Genoa, Sicily: low aggression (10-30)
These are quite strong, but peril lies in expanding too quickly. Italy isn't as bad as Germany, but I still see a bit too much fighting and forced annexation there, as everyone and his dog tries to unify Italy. Byzantium has to watch out that it doesn't rouse the anger of Hungary or the Kaliphate too early, because if it does it's liable to be snapped like a dry twig.

Finland, Brittany, Savoy and all minors: 0 aggression (at least at first)
These countries are generally too weak to start too many fights, unless the AI sees a clear advantage. The gamble can pay off, but usually they end up pointlessly racking up BB. Savoy really needs help at the moment, as they frequently get beaten by the French minors, never mind Burgundy.

Bavaria, Swabia, Hansa: 0 aggression
Bavaria and the Hansa at least are strong enough to do a reasonable amount of conquering early on. However, Germany is full of minors, which makes the AI go completely berserk. Merging some of the HRE minors and giving the majors 0 aggression is probably the only way to stop the bloodbath, which is currently even worse in Abe than it is in vanilla.

Eire: negative aggression
I don't think this is possible, but we really need to make Eire as pacifist as we can. They need every ducat they get to colonise all that they're supposed to.

Granada: high aggression until Iberia is conquered, low thereafter.
Self-explanatory. Granada seems to lose interest in war while Leon and the like are still alive, even if it chooses Jihad. This is annoying, as it messes up the events and makes the French minors too strong relative to the majors. We might also need to give Granada a little relief in the 15th century, as the AI really takes a battering from the combination of revolts, no Iberian culture, and hordes of Christians bearing down on it.

Later on, we might want to beef up the aggression, as the AI has a natural tendency to get more peaceful as the game goes on. This happens already for Finland, but I'd like to see it extended to other powers when they have 'strategic choice' events.

 

[yourworstnightm]

The HRE aggression thing is carzy, Bavaria usually goes berserk as AI and the German countries are usually in total war for the whole period, if Bavaria is not player controlled of course.

Also I noticed that burgundy usually eat either Savoie or Brittany in the earl 1500s, which kind of upset the balance in France. and the Genoa- Sicily fight do death wars are also irritating, by the year 1500 one of them has most certainly ate the other (with help of happy Milan and Tuscany).

 

[MattyG]

I totally agree with the idea of expanding and diversifying the ais, ala Daywalker. In the New World mod-on I'm writing all of the countries have several ai changes to reflect new cultural directions. Currently only Grenada and Genoa have significant alternate ai files.

I would also like to see things 'calm down' in central Europe in the first 70 years or so. As in vanilla, the minors disappear at a rediculous rate and Bavaria either burns up or becomes a massive blob way too fast.

 

[DSMyers1]

* Wanders in *

Hmm. AI.

I can do this.

Sometime soon I'll run through the AI's and fix 'em up for you all... maybe in a week or two. I think I will go without using hitlists, according to the tests I have been running, provided this mod gives sufficient cores to use to direct expansion instead of the hitlists.

 

[MattyG]

* Wanders in *

Hmm. AI.

I can do this.

Sometime soon I'll run through the AI's and fix 'em up for you all... maybe in a week or two. I think I will go without using hitlists, according to the tests I have been running, provided this mod gives sufficient cores to use to direct expansion instead of the hitlists.

It's a kind offer, but we are now into a very great redesign of the mod. It will be more than simply redoing the existing ais, as many new ones also need to be written. Each of the European majors should have at least three new ais to cover different periods.Also, the issue of cores is part of an ongoing debate on the extent of them and how they are to be handled. Plus, cores are mostly fine for targetting, but they don't cover the areas beyond immediate neighbours. So, if we want the Euroepans to go after zaptotec, cores don't help much.

 

[unmerged(30761)]

the ai is still deterministic about where it sends ships to colonize. i looked in .inc and the save files and i think it is controlled by continent = and region = strings

and ukraine has "-" for continent

 

[MattyG]

the ai is still deterministic about where it sends ships to colonize. i looked in .inc and the save files and i think it is controlled by continent = and region = strings

and ukraine has "-" for continent

I am not sure of any other way to guide the ai in colonising than through the ai colinising files. Did you have a suggestion?

 

[DSMyers1]

Nope, that's the only way to direct colonization.

I'll do the AI's; I have done many of them in the past.

I already redid what is there, and am in the process of playtesting it. Of course, it would help if I knew exactly who should go where, and who is supposed to conquer who when, and who is supposed to be strong when.



I have noticed a pattern in the North: there are 3 powers: Finland, Norway, and the Union of Kalmar. So far, that has proved to be an imbalanced situation; 2 have allied and crushed the the other, once that was Norway and once that was Finland.

 

[MattyG]

Nope, that's the only way to direct colonization.

I'll do the AI's; I have done many of them in the past.

I already redid what is there, and am in the process of playtesting it. Of course, it would help if I knew exactly who should go where, and who is supposed to conquer who when, and who is supposed to be strong when.



I have noticed a pattern in the North: there are 3 powers: Finland, Norway, and the Union of Kalmar. So far, that has proved to be an imbalanced situation; 2 have allied and crushed the the other, once that was Norway and once that was Finland.

Well, I can't stop you going ahead and altering those files for your use. But, I reiterate that all of the European countries will be receiving a lot of changes and many new ais, so it will all have to be done again at that point. Once these event files are re-written (following more discussion, coding, testing and subsequent changes) then we will all know who is going where.

Read back through the threads and you will see the discussion on Norway/Scotland/Union issue and the excellent changes that Incompetant has written for them.

 

[Incompetent]

Nope, that's the only way to direct colonization.

I'll do the AI's; I have done many of them in the past.

I already redid what is there, and am in the process of playtesting it. Of course, it would help if I knew exactly who should go where, and who is supposed to conquer who when, and who is supposed to be strong when.



I have noticed a pattern in the North: there are 3 powers: Finland, Norway, and the Union of Kalmar. So far, that has proved to be an imbalanced situation; 2 have allied and crushed the the other, once that was Norway and once that was Finland.

Thanks for your help, DSMyers, but whoever does it, the task of writing the AIs for Abe II is not going to be finished until Abe II itself is mostly finished. Outside Europe and North America, pretty much everything's potentially up in the air, and even in Europe there are going to be some fairly significant changes (eg the Hansa will no longer have German culture).

As for the Nordic countries:
1. Norway is not much of a power, but it's meant to get help from its suzerein, Scotland. Unfortunately Scotland can only offer limited help thanks to its poor navy and the Scandinavian winter; it also tends to foolishly support the wrong sieges (ie Hanseatic ones) rather than accruing warscore on behalf of its vassal. I'm reluctant to give Scotland too powerful a fleet, though, as it's meant to be a bit of an Achilles' heel for them, and we don't want them crushing Ireland to boot.

After 100 years Scotland inherits Norway if it's still alive. I don't mind if this happens less often than not, but it ought to happen more than it does at the moment.

2. Kalmar is the major Nordic power, and it has the aim of taking over Norway, something it should often (but not always) achieve. Later, it may go for Finland. Kalmar is stronger than Finland, but it's supposed to be kept in check by its wars with the Hansa - if these countries ally it's bad news for everyone else in the North.

3. Finland is fairly weak, and is meant to have a difficult start, followed by some expansion into Russia (leading to conflict with the TO and maybe Hungary) and maybe some colonisation from the late 16th century. There are two things which aren't working properly for Finland:
a) It tends to be the target of a royal gangbang by the Latin world, sometimes even after the Reformation, and Finland ends up as a patchwork of different territories, often under control of powers as distant as Brittany or Hungary. I know it's weak, but this isn't helpful for the attackers either - they end up with a load of useless, remote provinces that do nothing except slow down their tech and provoke needless wars.
b) Finland attacks Norway early on, because Norway is weaker than Finland; it does this even without any allies, and with Scotland allied to Norway. This is probably because Finland doesn't have many neighbours it can safely attack. But this is bad for Finland as well as Norway - both need all the strength they can muster to fend off Kalmar, and even if Finland takes over Norway, it quickly loses it to the Union. Ideally Finland would hardly attack anyone early on, but this isn't really possible with the way EU2 AIs work. We could put Finland in the Scottish (=Norwegian) alliance, but it seems a bit heavy-handed, and would drag Finland into unhelpful distant wars, causing it to build more troops than it can support. Maybe simply giving Norway and Finland good relations will do the trick.

 

[unmerged(1047)]

Actually, there is (I think) a way to block out DOW's by using the "last peace" command in the scenario setup with a future date... I think I've seen this done before... perhaps something like that could be used to prevent an early Finnish strike at Norway? (I know the stock 1520 scenario did something like this with Irish nationalism)...