AI Strange happenings

[timewalker03]

OK to start I started as Austria in all 3 games I tried. In each game first turn Prussia declared war on Austria. Also in all 3 games Napoleon was killed in first combat action.

Conditions were the same in all three games as far as what I did with Austria. Austria was human and all other countries were set to AI Hard. Each game I declared war on Romagna and Bavaria only. I selected control of all minor countries in all three games. Other than that there were no other varying conditions. Allies have varied each turn as I selected all but France to ally with.

I have had in many other game I have played versus the AI Prussia declaring on Austria first turn. With this action taking place it creates game imbalance from the get go and if France were actually aggressive which it has not been, It would take advanatage of the split. Also with Nappy deaths that frequent it also creates a major imbalance in the game.

Game version 1.04.06

[ndrose]

Check the logs: when Prussia DOWs Austria, does Austria also DOW Prussia? If so, it's because you're declaring on the same minor.

I suspect that's the cause, because from what I've seen, Prussia is (in 1.04) much better disposed to ally with Austria against France, as it should be. BUT it is also very aggressive about German minors, and I have several times seen it DOW Bavaria right away, which is ridiculous. If you went after Bavaria also, that would trigger the war, but then (as above) you should see a *mutual* DOW.

On the Napoleon casualty, that's weird. I haven't seen that, so it may be just coincidence. I will say that I've seen more leader deaths in general than I would expect. (Should be 1/216 combats, I think, but it seems more frequent; I can't prove that, though.)

Nathan

[timewalker03]

Yep it is probably happening over Bavaria. In FtF games, bavaria was always a given Austria Minor unless France goes after it aggressively which is not often. I also ran it Not DOW on Bavaria as Austria. Prussia never moved on it and it lapsed to France. There needs to be some reclamation of this to make Prussia less aggressive towards Bavaria.

[ndrose]

Yes, although the AI has gotten better about not letting wars lapse, it does still happen. I think the reason is this: when the AI is deciding whether to DOW a given minor, it looks at whether it has corps available to move against it. But I suspect it sometimes allocates the same corps for different minor wars. That is, in each case, it looks and says, "Yep, I can do that." Then it turns out that it can't do both.

At least, almost all the lapses I see now are cases of DOWs on multiple minors, in which the corps that could have attacked the lapsed minor are busy attacking a different one.

Nathan

[MarshallEllis]

ORIGINAL: timewalker03

OK to start I started as Austria in all 3 games I tried. In each game first turn Prussia declared war on Austria. Also in all 3 games Napoleon was killed in first combat action.

Conditions were the same in all three games as far as what I did with Austria. Austria was human and all other countries were set to AI Hard. Each game I declared war on Romagna and Bavaria only. I selected control of all minor countries in all three games. Other than that there were no other varying conditions. Allies have varied each turn as I selected all but France to ally with.

I have had in many other game I have played versus the AI Prussia declaring on Austria first turn. With this action taking place it creates game imbalance from the get go and if France were actually aggressive which it has not been, It would take advanatage of the split. Also with Nappy deaths that frequent it also creates a major imbalance in the game.

Game version 1.04.06

Most definitely odd???
I've not seen Pr and Au goto war in a long time???
There must be a minor that both want pretty bad because there default stance is at a 4 which is one of the friendliest settings in the game.
Can you dup this pretty regularly?

[timewalker03]

yes every time I as Austria declare on Bavaria Prussia declares war. In every FtF game I ever played Bavaria was always a non issue and really is within Austrian Realm space of influence. It has happened every time. If you could somehow lower the need for Prussia to declare on this minor it would help a bunch.

[pzgndr]

I've seen similar.  As Austria twice, upon getting Bavaria to ally Prussia would DOW?  They wouldn't do anything and we could negotiate a peace after several months.  It was actually helpful to a point since Bavaria became a Free State and Austria could start building it up.  But still odd that Prussia would do this.

[MarshallEllis]

It's pretty simple math. Bavaria is a pretty valuable minor and convenient to both. Their default alliance stance is not preventing one from backing off (Which it probably should).
I may actually share some prelim DOW info between two allies / friendly nations since this does happen in human games to prevent this type of DOW because EVEN if one backs down they still pay the DOW cost.
I'll give her a lookin over...
 
 

[Jimmer]

There's a question of historicity vs. playability. People seem to think that an alliance between Austria and Prussia is a must. Well, that's true for the GAME, but it's not true in history. In real life they were allies from 1792 through 1797, and not again until 1812. During the interim, they almost came to blows a few times over it. 

[ndrose]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

There's a question of historicity vs. playability. People seem to think that an alliance between Austria and Prussia is a must. Well, that's true for the GAME, but it's not true in history. In real life they were allies from 1792 through 1797, and not again until 1812. During the interim, they almost came to blows a few times over it.

True, but look what happened to them between 1797 and 1812. They chose unwisely.

[pzgndr]

The AIs for various countries should have some historical weighting factors so players can expect reasonable(?) performance. I am intrigued by the USAFA version rules for historical national objectives. Ideally the game could implement these and also reconsider random AI "personalities" for normal, aggressive or passive behaviors? But one needs to define "normal" first and that should be the historical national aspirations, with some modest variability. Besides historicity vs playability, there has to be replayability integrated into the game which requires some uncertainty. If Austria and Prussia AI NEVER go to war with the other then that's not interesting either.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: ndrose
True, but look what happened to them between 1797 and 1812. They chose unwisely.

Yes, but that's my point: We choose to ally them AGAINST history because of how history turned out. We (wargamers) learned the lesson of history, at least from this time period.

Unfortunately, it removes the historicity of the game in the process.

[MarshallEllis]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

The AIs for various countries should have some historical weighting factors so players can expect reasonable(?) performance. I am intrigued by the USAFA version rules for historical national objectives. Ideally the game could implement these and also reconsider random AI "personalities" for normal, aggressive or passive behaviors? But one needs to define "normal" first and that should be the historical national aspirations, with some modest variability. Besides historicity vs playability, there has to be replayability integrated into the game which requires some uncertainty. If Austria and Prussia AI NEVER go to war with the other then that's not interesting either.

I like the randomness option and the editor will allow you to set the stances to all MPs so you could change Fr and Gb to be strong allies (I know not smart but this is an example only). This would be scenario dependent today.

[timewalker03]

In reality though that is what a wargame is played for. The "Can you do better than Napoleon did?". Wargames to me are designed to give players a chance to rewrite history in their own image knowing full well that history was different. If in reality Austria and Prussia were at odds, then you have to look at their success against Nappy and his horde during this time. Each side had some positive gains with each alone versus the short Monarch, but if they stood together they may have triumphed early on and Napoleon may not have had his moment in history. Cultural differences kept Austria and Prussia from gaining more during these 10 years. Now to view it from a game's point of view, "What IF". Always trying to equate the game to History diminishes the game because you cannot get the 100% accuracy, 10 tumultuos years brought to Europe out of cardboard and Paper. If you take history into consideration then remove Nelson when he dies in October 1805. Or Kutusov in 1813. And SO on. That is also why the scenarios in the game are fun because they allow you to change history for a day and see if you are better on paper than those in History.

[MarshallEllis]

ORIGINAL: timewalker03

In reality though that is what a wargame is played for. The "Can you do better than Napoleon did?". Wargames to me are designed to give players a chance to rewrite history in their own image knowing full well that history was different. If in reality Austria and Prussia were at odds, then you have to look at their success against Nappy and his horde during this time. Each side had some positive gains with each alone versus the short Monarch, but if they stood together they may have triumphed early on and Napoleon may not have had his moment in history. Cultural differences kept Austria and Prussia from gaining more during these 10 years. Now to view it from a game's point of view, "What IF". Always trying to equate the game to History diminishes the game because you cannot get the 100% accuracy, 10 tumultuos years brought to Europe out of cardboard and Paper. If you take history into consideration then remove Nelson when he dies in October 1805. Or Kutusov in 1813. And SO on. That is also why the scenarios in the game are fun because they allow you to change history for a day and see if you are better on paper than those in History.

I tend to agree with this as well. Well said.