PON - analyzing AI and flow of game AAR GIVES A FEW LESSONS

[Christophe.Barot]

btw, naval interception button has been inverted since gformer patches , he now tells its intercepts if you don't push buttopn, don't intercept if you push it

interceptions are rare, what am i supposed to do, push the button to intercept (I have a modern navy, weirdly I still take more hits from french older models than I deliver to him, of course, was an isolated cruiser), or trust the indications and not push it ?

[Kensai]

Heh, could it be you have captured Prussian corps and made them fight for you?

[Christophe.Barot]

??

I don't think so - I AM Prussian in this game - mine are drafted (happy or not is another story, have a skyrocketing NM anyway) , not captured

those weird units appear for france, who is presently my enemy

during 1870 war, they didn't take prisoners, had no opportunity - initially their corps were like tennis balls running in retreat from one province smashed by a superior army led by generals with excellent stas to another Prussian army, equally superior in numbers and with excellent stats

after two turns, was pure duck shooting, temporary halt to recover my losses (France couldn't) and besieging Paris

I'm pretty sure they didn't make prisoners ever, not just cause angry Franc Tireurs would have massacred them, but just cause they didn't get a single local victory in the war - was pure german smashing

for me, either those units are (rare) captured Austrian (unitb identification doesn't look like my usual prussian ones, nor uniforms) or I haven't the faintest idea where they are coming from ... France had no wars with german minors I know of, and never crossed the Rhine (or entered palatinate either) isolated initial capture in Italy before the main of Austrian army forced their defensive first, their political surrender then ? else, strange

[seathom]

Christophe.Barot wrote "There is also the additional advantage that, if trade is effective, regular and large, your relations are going to slowly improve up to a very high point, where you can have alliance proposals - such was case for Sweden - historically makes no sense as Swedes were very keen of their neutrality then, but is handy to have as guarantees some additional flexibility for fleets, benevolent attitude, and continuity of trade agreement, so access to generous iron, mineral, timber and food resources (plus one rare nation who has a surplus of luxury goods)."

Can anyone elaborate on what constitutes effective, regular and large trading that results in improved relations? I have kept some trading relations going for over 10 years with Britain, France, Sweden, Japan and Germany yet I don't see any improvements in relations with these nations. Does large equate to a certain number of goods traded, whether imports or exports or is there some % of something you need to maintain? I am stumped on effective. Does it mean if you import supply from Sweden even if you produce a surplus it won't help relations in the long run?

I am assuming all this applies only to trading relations set up in the trade boxes. Just because China continually buys substantial fish, grain and other products does not mean relations will improve.

So far, I have only seen improvements in relations when ending my civil war (I'm playing USA), lowering trade taxes, guaranteeing support and probably from state visits (but I can't say for sure on this one).

On the point of not scripting during game play. I took one class in Basic Plus back in 1982 and got the lowest grade I've ever received in my scholastic career (OK, the professor was a dufus and I rarely attended classes in protest; don't judge, I was only 19). So, my ability to writing script does not compare to the fear of going into files and changing something and really messing something up. Will this hamper my game play in the Grand Campaign as USA post civil war? I'm currently in January 1864 and I plan on starting the Spanish American War within the next few years (unless I change my mind a go for an attack on Canada to put a dent in the extremely large lead Britain has in VP). I can't think of any other major events, save the Great War, that might require following a chain of events to transpire.

[loki100]

hi

re trade I'm not sure what the trigger point is but at a certain point diplomacy radically moves in your favour due to building up relations (the support offer helps here) and agreeing commercial agreements etc. Having said that the diplomatic routine sets certain states to either neutrality (which I guess is the case for the USA) or outright hostility (eg France-Germany) so they may be immune to the general trend.

scripting is not really coding, especially if you work on the event files. its more a case of using a slightly fiddly syntax. Somewhere on the main forum I did a thread with lots of basic examples, it might help to find that back.

In general, in a campaign game I think you need to do some scripting. This can be minimal like imposing a peace if the AI gets stuck in an endless war - I had one in my AAR where Britain and Germany were at war for more than 6 years with no real action. Also sometimes provinces change hands due to rebels and how the rebels are defeated. I taught myself who to do this by using the existing event files and finding one that suited me and adapting it.

as an eg, if you force the release of a nation in a war, it spawns purely with its capital province and no army. In my game, I forced Britain to release Scotland (ahem), so I scripted in the rest of Scotland and gave it an army - if you look at the event that spawns Bulgaria in the Balkans file you'll find a template for all this. Good advice is to make each event do one thing only so if it fails you know where to start looking.

I created a 'use and delete'.sct event file and popped all this one off corrections in there, let it run and then deleted it

[Sir Garnet]

Good reads. PON has great potential - I would put trade and production AI well up on the priority list just to get the world economy humming early on, except I don't know if there is a practical way.

My experiene was that the syntax was inconsistent with the wiki or other descriptions at times, the format, syntax and effects often enough obscure, and the one-off lessons hard to remember. The main reason I got too frustrated to keep trying to script was that things that logically should work in the syntax did not. A related issue - with revising the manual - is that the game is complex enough that even the designers don't know all its intricacies - they do know what is intended, but it sometimes does not work out as intended.

That said, I would like to help with a resumption of the scripting library approach if the scripts/commands are verified (at least within their own limited context). Also, updating new solid knowledge into the manual. Getting into print the exact syntax and usage for commands is critical and extremely useful.

Whether wiki (most useful, if indexed or searchable) or elsewhere, this can be incredibly useful. Writing them up in problem-solution-script-procedure format with explanatory annotations is not hard. For me testing scripts is agonizingly slow with a plodding PC.

PM or email are best to get my attention. Cheers.