How to REALLY improve the AI in the next patch!

[Hartmann]

I GENERALLY agree with the statements of both Pierre and Tom.

But in the current debate we can reduce complexity a bit, because the examples I have in mind all involved, that either:

1) A and B are both not in any alliance
2) The country which offers indemnities/province IS in an alliance, while the receiving country is not.

I had nr.1 quite often (mostly due to allies not honoring an alliance), e.g. with France and Lorraine, where Lorraine captured Paris and then payed indemnities. Marocco and Al Djazir is a case of nr.2.
Btw.: in case a minor and a major are involved, it´s always the minor which goes for the unfortunate peace treaty, never the major. So it seems a quirk in the minor default AI.
Now let´s 'recount' the Marocco example in the light of all this: Marocco and Al Djazir are both minors. Marocco wasn´t in any alliance. Al Djazier was in an alliance with Turkey, Krim and Hedschas. Al Djazier beat the crap out of Marocco, destroying their armies and occupying their capital. They shouldn´t have returned to status quo, but after the occupation of the capital they immediately did. But they MUST have had at least around five stars!
I noticed, that the peace treaty in all the cases I´ve encountered was almost always concluded immediately after the occupation of the enemy capital by the minor, which should give a lot of stars in any case. So if the stars determine the negotiation offers, there shouldn´t be any reasons to go for Status Quo or even PAY indemnities or CEDE the one and only poor province, the enemy managed to capture during the war.
I give an example for the last case (ceeding provinde&indemnities), though there was - as an exception from the rule- no occupation of a capital involved:
Poland and Brandenburg are at war. Brandenburg is in an alliance with the Netherlands, Köln and Baden. Poland is allied with Spain, but Spain dropped out of the war soon. Poland captures East Pommerania and Köln. Brandenburg and allies capture THREE polish provinces, Brandenburg alone two of them. Cologne is just about to be liberated, and there´s no polish army in the region, whereas Brandenburg and allies have a total of at least 150k (I think there was even more, but I do not remember exactly, so let´s play it save). Now after seizing the second polish province, Brandenburg settles for peace paying indemnities and ceding East Pommerania!!!! Folks, this CAN´T be explained away!

In further addition, I always play with fog of war off, so the minor should have KNOWN, when the enemy had no considerable forces left, but they never seemed to take that into account anyway.

Regards, Hartmann






[This message has been edited by Hartmann (edited 22-12-2000).]

 

[Leprechaun]

Nearly the same happened to me!
I was in war with Poland as an ally of Denmark and England ( i was Russia ).
Our alliance captured 7 polish provinces.
I captured 4, Denmark 2 and England 1....
guess what happened! Denmark accepted a peace with returning to status quo.....
Why, why???

------------------
Pour dieu et mon droit

 

[unmerged(258)]

Originally posted by Hartmann:
Btw.: in case a minor and a major are involved, it´s always the minor which goes for the unfortunate peace treaty, never the major. So it seems a quirk in the minor default AI.

Yes, this is always the case, as far as I can tell. That seems to help isolate the source of the problem.

I noticed, that the peace treaty in all the cases I´ve encountered was almost always concluded immediately after the occupation of the enemy capital by the minor, which should give a lot of stars in any case. So if the stars determine the negotiation offers, there shouldn´t be any reasons to go for Status Quo or even PAY indemnities or CEDE the one and only poor province, the enemy managed to capture during the war.

Again, this seems the same in the case I was referring to, although it was not immediately after taking the major's capital. It was, however, not more than a month before peace was settled, at most. And this was without any provinces of the minor falling to the major, while the minor still had an army occupying the major's capital and the major was raising no new armies, nor did it have any existing armies in its own territory (and at least none sieging the minor's provinces, though with fog of war on, I could not see if there were any small armies in the minor's territory).

 

[unmerged(548)]

'Other ideas that might help to create an even better (challenging) game:
d) Armies should not have eternal life after conscription, 15 years seems maximum (would slow down expansion); leaders retire and/or die when old, so do soldiers (but sooner).'

What do you think the upkeap cost is ? 'Armies' live for ever, not the people in them.

'e) Garrison strength should not only be linked to fortress level, but (for provinces with low pop) also to province population.'

It would be a safe bet that not even 1% of a provinces population constitutes the garrison. In the garrison upgrade cost the possibility of sending trained troopes from another province to the garrison couldn't be excluded (and this was probably what actually happend most of the time in reality since manning a fort/castle with local men with possibly dubious loyalties might not have been very intelligent thing) Thus this rule would make no sort of RL sence what so ever IMO.


------------------
/ Stefan Huszics

 

[unmerged(258)]

Just a followup comment on my earlier comments. Now Kazan has 4 provinces with the icons of burning buildings, while Russia had none. I did see Kazan's troops besieging a province of Russia ... however, Russia pays an indemnity this time - this time, when I expected it would be Kazan. I guess what this all goes to show is that now I am a bit surprised both ways. But in the end, it appears to have evened out.