AAReport - Ralegh as Prussia

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

Very interesting. Please continue with further exploits. I agree, Austria and Russia should have forsaken their alliance with Prussia and joined the Grand Coalition in order to halt Prussian hegemony. Maybe the diplomatic AI needs a tweak so that whenever any nation starts to approach a win, all treaties with that country go by the board and a Grand Coalition against said warmonger is the result. I thought this is how it was already.

Can the Glory Level be modified by the player? Say, increase it to 1500 or so before victory is declared?

Glory level can be set by the player.

The AI does begin to break alliances with nations that are getting close to winning. I used to have it happen more deterministically but beta testers thought there should be a lower chance of losing your good allies when you start winning -- it's something that could easily be tweaked more aggresively in a patch.

Russia and Spain start at war in the 1805 scenario and the AI does not often surrender or propose peace unless it has a good reason. A third nation starting to win is one of the "good reasons", but it doesn't happen automatically.


Eric

[Mr. Z]

Can the player set their own political goals?

Not exactly. Political goals, inasmuch as they exist, are preset for each scenario (though IIRC they may currently be identical for each scenario, but I think we did change them slightly) and consist of a list of target provinces to either capture or keep independent. Otherwise, "political goals" are just whatever strategic and diplomatic options the player decides would constitute a winning strategy. (However, Eric has noted in another thread that you can easily modify the target provinces for a nation in the appropriate text file.)

[Mr. Z]

Russia and Spain start at war in the 1805 scenario and the AI does not often surrender or propose peace unless it has a good reason. A third nation starting to win is one of the "good reasons", but it doesn't happen automatically.

Is losing an ally a good reason? I again propose that if it isn't, it should be.

[Warfare1]

Keep up with AARs - I enjoy reading them

What I would like to see:

1) Maps of the situation as you progress

2) Casualty reports for many of the battles


Issues:

1) I think any country that starts winning should be looked upon as a threat and countries should start joining a coalition against that country. It just seems odd that Prussia would have been allowed to go on to victory in that fashion.

2) Does Napoleon offer special bonuses for the French? He repeatedly destroyed larger armies than he had under his command time and time again, by attacking them separately. Is this modelled in the game?

3) What is modible in the game? What can the player himself change in the game files? Is there an editor?

Thanks

[ericbabe]

I've been considering making an infallible-Napoleon game toggle switch that could be set from the .INI file. If turned on, the French would never lose a battle in which Napoleon participated. It would be kind of a cute little thing to add.

[Arditi]

EricBabe says...."I've been considering making an infallible-Napoleon game toggle switch that could be set from the .INI file. If turned on, the French would never lose a battle in which Napoleon participated. It would be kind of a cute little thing to add".

Ha ha ha...

[Guderon]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I've been considering making an infallible-Napoleon game toggle switch that could be set from the .INI file. If turned on, the French would never lose a battle in which Napoleon participated. It would be kind of a cute little thing to add.

AAAACK! I get to be the French! [;)]

[dpazuk]

I want to give my 'thumbs' up to your AAR's. Please by all means continue!

I have been chomping at the bit for this title. I can't wait for the long weekend!

[Ralegh]

ORIGINAL: cbpraem

Good AAR. Nice to read how the game plays
The past 3 AARs have left me wondering of the capabilities of the AI...

Why would Russia and Spain figth it out on Prussian territory? What could they possibly gain by doing that?
Allso it seems the AI should have avoided an alliance with Prussia in the later part of the game, and when in the alliance, Russia and/or Austria should have forsaken it to keep Prussia from winning after less than 5 years?

Ralegh what is your take on the AI? Is it a deasent challenge?

a) Russia and Spain started at war, and neither ever had a good reason to stop. (The Turkish attack on Spain was over too quickly to affect the other war.) I think Spain should have included Russia in its surrender to Turkey - after all, it didn't have anything to gain out of the war. Or declared a cease fire. Once France (Spains ally, and the reason they start the game at war with Russia) surrendered to the Russians, Spain should have taken a cease fire or something.

b) Austria really liked me at this point - I had been trading with them, and had diplomats stationed there improving our relationship, and I offered a really good trade deal to get the alliance. At the same time, I tried to get alliances with Sweden and Britain - no way. Even though I had never done anything bad to either of them, (as opposed to Austria, who I had attacked at the start of the game), neither of them liked me much, and neither would even consider an alliance with me. I think this was the AI working really well!

What I raised as a bug was Spain continuing its pointless war with Russia. Spain hated my guts, and didn't mind their Russian enemies. The "All of Europe is Alarmed" message should have triggered Spain making a cease fire with Russia so they could attack me.

c) I don't want to brag, but I am the most experienced tester - Eric (the designer) concedes that I might have actually played more games than he has! I wrote most of the briefing material for the testers on game dynamics, tactics etc, and co-wrote the strategy and tip guides for the manual with Eric, and will provide tip sheets etc to help people at release. All of that said, at Napoleon level even if I try my very hardest, I don't always win. And that is WITHOUT using the handicapping feature!

Is the AI a challenge? Definitely. Is it perfect? No - the other playtesters and I are raising bugs and working with both Matrix and WCS to fine tune the AI. Although the game has gone GOLD, work hasn't stopped - mainly at the moment on a free service pack, and then we are hoping for an expansion pack. For me, this is one of the most exciting things about this game (and why I have been willing to pour so much time and effort into it) - they care, and plan for it to continue improving!

[Handicapping feature: at the start of the game you can modify the 'power' of each country on a scale of +3 to -3, with 0 being normal. I use it in solo games so I can play 2 or 3 countries and have a challenge even if they work together!]

[Ralegh]

A number of people have said things like:

Austria and Russia should have forsaken their alliance with Prussia and joined the Grand Coalition in order to halt Prussian hegemony

Do you all really think that? I have been very outspoken with the idea that very strong allies should be quite happy for you to win (historical) - especially if they have no chance (gameplayer). Remember that I was the main trading partner for both of them, had fought on their side against France, had provided access/supply/etc, had active treaties with them where I promised not to attack them.

[Ralegh]

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
2) Does Napoleon offer special bonuses for the French? He repeatedly destroyed larger armies than he had under his command time and time again, by attacking them separately. Is this modelled in the game?

3) What is modible in the game? What can the player himself change in the game files? Is there an editor?

Napoleon is awesome
- Napoleon provides an awesome initiative bonues to the army he is in: that makes it more likely they will be able to carry out the movement orders you give them on the strategic map, which is the precise implementation of this particular feature of Napoleon - his army is likely to move first and most precisely to hit enemy stacks before they combine.
- He has a fabulous impact on the division he accompanies in battle - more movement, easy to change formation, more morale recovered from rallying. The only thing he doesn't do is provide a special cav commander bonus.
- As a national commander (thats his rank) he helps all units on the battelfield to rally
- As an inspiring leader, he gives the nation +20 morale each month

The game is designed to be modible. (modable?) whatever
Quite a lot of stuff is in simple text files that can be readily understood. (Including some stuff about the AI's strategy!) - In particular, starting relationships, forces, locations, attributes of generals. Also game features: cost of units, unit capabilities, effects of terrain and weather. I believe things like icons used can be changed too, but I am not sure what is involved there.
I expect that information about this won't really come out with the game, but will be provided after launch.

[Ralegh]

ORIGINAL: Feralkoala
It appears that there is no penalty to having foreign armies (particularly two as rapacious historically as the Russians and Spanish) fight on your land--you might as well rent it out like an arena [8|]

That's not quite the case. Rapaciousness is configurable by the player - you can set your units to "plunder", which offsets some of their upkeep costs. You can actually do this in your own territory, as well as in enemy territory. In this case, neither of them did any plundering on my territory. So you could say they were on their best behaviour.

Russia got access because they were willing to ally with me during the fight against France - they probably hoped I would help against Spain too, but noone ever ASKED me to attack Spain, and I couldn't see any point.

When I originally gave Spain access, it was to get their colonies, which I really wanted. I didn't really think they would send so many troops up, or fight the Russians for so long. After the access term ended (it only goes for a year), I didn't give them another one (they weren't willing to pay me with anything I wanted). For a while they were violating my territory, but once my armies got back from France (late 1808), I issued an ultimatum every time they violated my territory, and they stayed out.

Now, it is true that I try to abuse game features (before Eric made it much harder, I was encouraging play testers to HIRE armies and fleets from AI countries) - so we end up with a better game. The question is:
- what should the affect be of having other countries march through (or have battles on) neutral territory? Is it simply that it makes foraging more difficult in the areas they are in? Or should there be some other penalty?
- although I didn't do it, I could have been providing depot supply to both armies! Should we make that impossible?
- perhaps my ally should gotten all huffy over me giving Spain access, and demanded that I either break my treaty with Spain, or break my alliance with them? We don't have that feature (which would be cool, so I will recommend it for the first patch), but even if we had, I think a good Russian player would have swallowed their angst and kept Prussia onside. (Remember, at that time, France had beaten Austria, and had Spain helping them against the remaining allies, Britain, Sweden and Russia.)

[Naomi]

Needless to say Ralegh was a master of everything, but that doesnt stop me feeling CoG's AI has proclivity to hand out victory to gamers fairly generously, at whichever level. The threads above said enough about the sum of not very clever (or flexible) decisions and strokes AI chose to make, coupled with its failure to stop Prussia getting to the top, let alone to SPOT her surge (more precisely, the incremental increase in her Glory Points over time, or more GPs she achieved in a turn than the other powers).

France, in the majority of AARs, came out in tatters. Appears to me that Nappy was really no threat. He shouldve been able to increase SUBSTANTIALLY the chances of winning a battle, even if he was leading a far smaller size of inferior, ragtag army against his foes. I vote for a tweak that will make Nappy a sure winner unless extremely overwhelmed.

Finally, about rally points for the allies.
Is it absolutely certain that the allies march to the rally point we chose for them?
Can we tell our allies WHEN to turn up at the rally point?
Would the allies tell us to do the same things, i.e tell us where to go and when to be there?

[Ralegh]

ORIGINAL: Naomi
Finally, about rally points for the allies.
Is it absolutely certain that the allies march to the rally point we chose for them?
Can we tell our allies WHEN to turn up at the rally point?
Would the allies tell us to do the same things, i.e tell us where to go and when to be there?

Hmm - you have put your finger on an issue I have raised for fix/enhancement. - Got any ideas how it should work?

At the moment, allies obey the rally point command unless their national morale goes below a threshold - even if it is silly (I once accidentally left a Russian army at Malmo to defend Sweden for a year or two after the relevent war stopped!). They do keep an army or a few corps for home defence, and if at war may keep some units to prosecute other battles, but in general all of their spare armies march.

We can't set WHEN they should appear - they often dawdle. Allies may refuse to violate neutral territory and hence not come. Allies willnot use naval transport to respond to the rally point - so when you set one for Britain, you are waiting for the AI to decide to move the army to europe and THEN respond to the rally point.

AI allies donot set such points for us. If a human ally set a rally point for us, there is no indicator on the map that this has happened. Although you can see this in the military screen

[Naomi]

Most important is to enable the allies to employ ALL the possible ways (especially naval transport) and choose the SHORTEST route to meet a rally request. We never need their final arrival when the war is over.

[sol_invictus]

I see your point as you made the effort to retain a solid alliance; however, I feel that your warmongering and territorial aggrandisement should have steadily erroded the alliance. Maybe not fast enough to cause war, but war should have been the eventual outcome if the game had continued long enough. Its a tough call and I'm sure it's hard to get it just right. Overall, the AI seems competent and the game stunning.[&o]

[dpazuk]

c) I don't want to brag, but I am the most experienced tester - Eric (the designer) concedes that I might have actually played more games than he has!.... All of that said, at Napoleon level even if I try my very hardest, I don't always win. And that is WITHOUT using the handicapping feature!

Whoa! That indeed says alot about the capability of the A.I.

I look forward to your tip sheets. I am going to need them [:D]

[Feralkoala]

Now, it is true that I try to abuse game features (before Eric made it much harder, I was encouraging play testers to HIRE armies and fleets from AI countries) - so we end up with a better game. The question is:
- what should the affect be of having other countries march through (or have battles on) neutral territory? Is it simply that it makes foraging more difficult in the areas they are in? Or should there be some other penalty?
- although I didn't do it, I could have been providing depot supply to both armies! Should we make that impossible?
- perhaps my ally should gotten all huffy over me giving Spain access, and demanded that I either break my treaty with Spain, or break my alliance with them? We don't have that feature (which would be cool, so I will recommend it for the first patch), but even if we had, I think a good Russian player would have swallowed their angst and kept Prussia onside. (Remember, at that time, France had beaten Austria, and had Spain helping them against the remaining allies, Britain, Sweden and Russia.)

I didn't really intend to be snippy about how you played: rather, it was a concern on my part from AI behavior I had observed in other AARs, as well.

Right now, I have 2 problems with the way this played out, one AI related, one not:
1) The non-AI one is simply having these armies campaign through your most prosperous lands for months on end should lower the value and productivity of your provinces. This should be true all of the time, of course. Depots might negate some of this, but looting and pillaging were going to happen no matter who comes to visit. Historically, the Russians and Spaniards had very poor track records in this regard, which is why I found it ironic that your provinces were prosperous and growing despite a qurter million enemy soldiers campaigning through them. While it was (and still is) considered a plus to have enemies and potential enemies fighting amongst themselves, I think very few people would agree that the best place for them to do it is on your own land [;)]

2) The AI problem. While Spain and Russia begin at war as members of coalitions, what impels them to stay at war when their allies are no longer fighting? In situations like this, the AI needs to be able to adjust and let the war lapse.

In any event, poking holes in things are what testers should be doing....sounds like you have been doing good work [:)] This game does sound very impressive and is on my 'must buy' list. [8D]

[sol_invictus]

I completely agree, there should be strong disincentives for having armies fighting over your territory. Production and tax revenue should plummet in those provinces that are traversed by armies and if enough provinces are devestated in such a matter, National Morale should start to suffer. The government; you; are not performing the priciple function of effective government; protecting the lives, property, and prosperity of your citizens. If this condition persists, revolts should break out. I also agree that after the Principles in a war conclude peace, the allies of said principles should conclude peace as well.

[Jordan]

I have been very outspoken with the idea that very strong allies should be quite happy for you to win (historical) - especially if they have no chance (gameplayer). Remember that I was the main trading partner for both of them, had fought on their side against France, had provided access/supply/etc, had active treaties with them where I promised not to attack them

Arnivald's response: I see your point as you made the effort to retain a solid alliance; however, I feel that your warmongering and territorial aggrandisement should have steadily erroded the alliance. Maybe not fast enough to cause war, but war should have been the eventual outcome if the game had continued long enough. Its a tough call and I'm sure it's hard to get it just right

I bet programming a diplomatic AI is one of the toughest parts of the job: so many variables and so many relative considerations. Prussia's warmongering and territorial aggrandising would probably mean different things to Russia and Austria depending on who's being mongered and aggrandized. If Prussia was becoming powerful and taking Poland and eastern europe then Russia would probably be a little concerned no matter how much Rhenish wine they were obtaining via trade - even more so if Prussia's other threats - France and Austria - were no longer threats (potential Russian allies to keep Prussia in check). And I can't see Austria thinking Prussia is a "good" ally when Prussia has taken key Austirian provinces (provinces like Bohemia that Maria Theresa vowed to regain and then protect if it cost her every last soldier) or has undermined Austria's position of German leadership. If Prussia controls Bohemia then Austria should be losing major points...no way for Austria to win unless they take it back.

So I think relative considerations based on national interests need to figure high in the algorithm (much higher than trade) and that should be combined with general rule inherent in the "Europe is alarmed" concept (which I like a lot) that acts as a check on any one nation that acts with "Napoleonic" ambitions.