AI suggestion (quick and dirty)

[JanSorensen]

Short version:
Allow the human player to setup restrictions on which AI players may DoW each other.


Longer version:
I apologise if this has already been suggested - I only recently bought EiANW and have not read every post here.

As is plain to see the AI performs less than adequately. The problem is that making even a mediocre AI takes a very long time if its even possible. So, a real AI is a long term project yet in the short term the lack of an AI to even remotely challenge the solo player is hurting the game badly.

Now, I submit that one of the core issue with the AI presenting a challenge against a human is that the AI players tend to attack each other too much and thus let the human player win easily. While thats somewhat in the spirit of the game it also makes the game much too easy.

Now, as a bandaid on this problem till a real solution comes along I think it would be very useful if there was an option to mark which nations are able to DoW which other nations. As an example I could decide to play France and set up the game so that
- Prussia cannot DoW Spain, Austria or GB
- Austria cannot DoW Spain, Prussia or GB
- Spain cannot DoW Austria or Prussia
- GB cannot DoW Prussia or Austria
While this wont let the AI play any smarter it will make it more likely to actually fight me as France rather than fight other AI nations. Heck, if I wanted the ultimate challenge I could set it up so that none of the AI nations could attack each other.

Mind, I know that this violates the true spirit of the game EiA so its merely a bandaid till a real solution comes along.

In game terms I imagine that the restrictions could be implemented in the form of "enforced peace" treaties that are renewed at the start of every January turn prior to the Diplomatic phase. Without having seen the actual code I imagine that this would let the AI players adhere reasonably well to such a restriction without having to add more than a few lines of new code.

[MarshallEllis]

JanSorensen:
 
This is an interesting idea for sure. There may be easier some ways to implement this...
I will look at it.
Anybody else got a view on this?
 
 
 

[bresh]

Well it matters bit on alliances i guess.
But in general, it should then be limited to call to allies DOW's
 
Regards
Bresh

[Jimmer]

Marshall,
 
I agree that this is a good idea. But, if you find a way to implement it, you might want to build in a way to make it NOT be hard-coded. Perhaps use a table:
 
GB can go to war with Spain before 1809, but not after.
France cannot go to war with Spain before 1809
etc.
 
If you built a table for each game year (for example) that contained which powers could or could not DW on another, then there would be a dynamic to all this that would give it a bit more flavor.
 
This way, people could tailor the game to somewhat match history. Or, they could create their own history.
 
Historical defaults might be:
 
Prussia can't DW on France until December, 1806
Austria and Russia can DW on France starting in April, 1805.
 
Etc.
 
All sorts of possibilities could be crafted, and all without too much extra coding (use a table of variable values instead of a list of constant values).

[gwheelock]

As an alternative; implement the "Natural Alliance Table (14.3.1.2) table from the origianal EIA
(this table was used for games with less than 7 players) as a probability of AI
minors either offering alliance (between powers with POSITIVE entries  eg.  Britain/Prussa are +3) or
DOW (between powers with NEGATIVE entries  eg Britain/France are -10)
 
Add in a few other factors (being at war with someone else reduces DOW chances; having an
ally increases it)
 
 
 

[MarshallEllis]

Oddly enough, I am already using the Natural alliance tables.
 
 

[Killerduck]

This is an excelent idea.

Even better would be to allow the player to force DOWs - as the game opens or at spesific date.

Add some resilience to computer nations (only surrender after being completely beaten up) and you have many, many different difficulty levels in the game.

You could play "historical" or "Fortress Britain" or "I can beat them all even if I am Turkey!".

Really excited about this one. Brilliant, Jan! Just Brilliant! [&o]

[JanSorensen]

Jimmer,

I concur. It should not be hard coded values (which normally means the player cannot change them at all) nor should it be values that span the entire game setable only at game start.

Having a table for each year as you suggest would probably be a good idea and should not be much harder to code than having a single table that can be changed during the course of the game. With seperate tables for each year some values could be set as default to "disallow dow" leaving the player an option to change values at the start of the game as well as during the game for future years. The main advantage to having a default set of values is that those will take effect even if the player is new to the game and not yet aware of the option to set these values.

[JavaJoe]

I suggest using the uncontrolled major powers rule in EiA.

No need for AI in a 2+ game.

That way you don't have as many what if's.

[NeverMan]

I think that an AI option for countries and an UMP option would be great.

That is, when you create the game set each country to either "player", "computer" or "ump", so that you can have any combination thereof. That would be great!

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Oddly enough, I am already using the Natural alliance tables.

I thought so. But, those were written with a view to having a human on one side of the situation triggering the use of the table. They won't work as written computer vs. computer. They would have to be a lot more forceful, because a human would only start a process if there were a good chance of gain for himself. Further, the human was almost never interested in the minor (or major) if it was uncontrolled. They would strip it naked and then toss it to the wolves. But, a computer shouldn't allow that to happen to itself.

[Grognot]

Hard problem.  Part of it is because even an alliance can be worth breaking (especially for France, which tends to see every neighbor as a potential enemy, and vice versa, with the exception of Spain which isn't normally worth it), it's difficult for an AI to judge whether or not somebody is a threat worth taking note of (and therefore, say, not DOWing somebody on the other side).

Case in point -- even if Austria isn't at war with France, it should consider that possibility before engaging in any hostilities with Turkey.  For instance.  And Russia is also a potential threat, since they may be tempted to join the Dark Side at some inconvenient time.  Austria's not really in a position to unilaterally go conquesting, normally.

Rigging Austria, Prussia and Great Britain to greatly prefer to work with each other and against France probably isn't a bad idea.   France, should be reluctant to DOW Spain.  And so forth.