Help Improve PON - basics of setting a strategic diplomatic AI

[Christophe.Barot]

while it couldn't be developed initially, game has real potential to build an exhaustive analysis strategic and diplomacy system, using accurate data provided in game system, and leading to problematics extremely close to actual European (and occosianally American and japanese ) chanceries

this evening i'll just set the principles in big lines, then I'll develop

but game HAS the potential

[color="#40E0D0"]a) data[/color]

goals are [color="#FF0000"]objectives oriented [/color](the objectives are here, and , with one or two fixes, they'rr accurate

goals may be [color="#FF0000"]offensive [/color]or [color="#008000"]defensive[/color]

as such they include :

[color="#FF0000"]- taking and keeping an objective[/color]
[color="#008000"]- preventing an opponent to take an objective
- keeping an objective
- helping an ALLY to keep an objective[/color]

the first one is an [color="#FF0000"]offensive [/color]goal
the other ones are [color="#008000"]defensive [/color]goals, to protect

besides goals, there are the [color="#40E0D0"]means [/color]: which are "goals to reach ultimate goals"

those include
- [color="#40E0D0"]military [/color]size (army or fleets)
- [color="#008000"]alliances[/color], which, defensive,
[color="#008000"]ensure against foreign agression,
help allies against foreign agression[/color]
[color="#FF0000"]or ensure a duel without third parties entering[/color] (or them entering if the third party, allied with enemy, enters)

the behaviour, intensity of [color="#FF8C00"]crisis [/color]depends on several factors :

- stake for the nation - [color="#40E0D0"]value of objectives[/color] - are they [color="#FF0000"]prioritary [/color](and crucial) or is [color="#008000"]foreign advance acceptable[/color]
[color="#008000"]an attack on national territory is prioritary[/color]
[color="#FF0000"]state of enemy advance[/color] on colonial areas : A Russian takeover of Merv is bad news for Whitehall, no more, a takeover of Kabul a serious warning, a takeover of kashmir an unacceptable threat requiring immediate action

- state of relations (but not as automatic objective per se, as would become tautologic)
- agressivity of leadership (imperialism rate) or nation (national morale)
- diplomatic quality of leader - a good diplomat can not influence enemy or public opinion, barely neutral ones, only his national one, still he can corner enemy to choices between war and huge prestige loss, while a nation with a high imperialism rate or very high national morale will corner herself
- conversely, low national morale means ceding peacetime

for simplicity of analysis, objectives problematics can be regrouped into huge "Theaters of operations" TOO, where a partial "one versus one" logic, or casually "one versus all others" - especially in colonial areas, can be implemented. each one has a limited number of actors, and therefore their relations are rather simple

AI analysis could be this one :

a) hierarchizing theaters of operation : 2 criteria :
- stakes
- level of completion of objectives (high , normal , low - getting Merv is a british very agressive move, getting Kashmir is normal)

AI analyses objective, looking if there is a need to intervene and do something, or if situation is satisfactory

then AI checks ratio of strength (own army/fleet plus any likely help from allies and supporters)

in those assessment, various intensity factors may provide, once tuned, a realist bias

[color="#40E0D0"]if action is needed and possible in priority TOO , action is taken[/color]

[color="#40E0D0"]if ratio of strength is unfavourable, then diplomatic action and military build up are attempted[/color]
- seeking allies, patching up unneeded conflicts, building up armies and fleets

[color="#40E0D0"]edit : and action taken in secondary theaters, where situation allows - corollary, less prioritary, those theaters should not lead to[/color][color="#FF8C00"] excessive intensity crisis[/color],[color="#40E0D0"] as priority objective is still in "background"[/color]

assessment takes place at regular intervals especed a enough to keep consistency of AI diplomacy

[Christophe.Barot]

[color="#008000"]Italian [/color]TOO
(includes Trieste, Sud Tirol, and dalmatia)

SIDE 1 :
AUSTRIA
objective : [color="#008000"]keeping objectives[/color]

SIDE 2:
ITALY
objective : [color="#FF0000"]conquering Austrian objectives[/color]
(FRANCE)
(temporary) [color="#008000"]protecting Italy[/color], [color="#FF0000"]compensation[/color]

***************************************************************************************

[color="#000000"]German[/color] TOO
(includes Alsace-Lorraine)

SIDE 1 :
AUSTRIA (+german minors)
objective : [color="#008000"]status quo - german minors intact[/color]
- removed when Austria excluded from germany or Hungarian compromise

SIDE 2 :
PRUSSIA
objective : [color="#FF0000"]german unity including alsace-lorraine[/color] annexation
[color="#008000"]preventing Annexation of german minors[/color] by france

SIDE 3 :
FRANCE
objective :
phase 1 : [color="#FF0000"]annexing some german minors[/color]
[color="#008000"]edit - keeping objectives [/color]- first one seems obvious, unlike venetia and lombardia, those are pure french national regions (as trieste dalmatia and trent for austrians)
phase 2 : [color="#008000"]prepare defence and alliance [/color]against Germany
[color="#FF0000"]take back Alsace-Lorraine[/color]


**************************************************************************************


[color="#8B4513"]Balkan+Ottoman[/color] TOO

SIDE 1 :

RUSSIA
objectives :
[color="#FF0000"]Take various ottoman objectives[/color]
[color="#008000"]liberate and ally with various balkan minors[/color]
[color="#FF0000"]obtain control of ottoman[/color] (supply, crossing territory, alliance, trade treaty)

BALKAN MINORS
[color="#008000"](liberate and survive[/color])
[color="#FF0000"]various objectives[/color] against OTTOMAN, AUSTRIA, and each others
include all taking national lands to ottoman, Bulgaria has contradictory claims with Serbia greece and Rumania, and Serbs and Rumanians have irredentist claims on Austria (not just Bosnia for serrbs)

SIDE 2 :

(OTTOMAN)
[color="#008000"]- survive and keep territory
- avoid vassalization by Russia[/color]

AUSTRIA
[color="#008000"]ally with various balkan minors
avoid Russian encirclement (Rumania)[/color]
[color="#FF0000"]conquer Bosnia Herzegovina
crush and occupy irrednetist nations[/color]
[color="#008000"]edit : keeping objectives[/color] - against Rumanian and Serb irredentism, but seems included in control of balakn minors annexing bostia and crushing irredentism

BRITAIN
[color="#FF0000"]protect ottoman[/color]

(FRANCE) (imperial)
[color="#FF0000"]get suzereignty over ottoman[/color]
[color="#008000"]protect ottoman[/color]
[color="#FF0000"]Syrian operation
[/color]

(GERMANY)(pangermanist)
objective :
[color="#FF0000"]support Austria to get objectives
ally Rumania[/color]

**********************************************************************************

[color="#DAA520"]Belgium[/color]TOO

side 1 :

(BELGIUM)
[color="#008000"](keeping national integrity)[/color]
BRITAIN
[color="#008000"]keeping Belgium national integrity - objectives stay Blegian[/color]
(FRANCE (republican))
[color="#008000"]keeping Belgium national integrity[/color]

possibly
PRUSSIA
[color="#008000"]defend Belgian (Luxemburg) objectives[/color] - as triggering a [color="#FF8C00"]crisis leading to war[/color] and [color="#FF0000"]german unity[/color] - to debate - Belgium itself is a british concern, concern of Bismarck is getting a war and german unity, will take any pretext

side 2 :

(France (imperial))
objective : [color="#FF0000"]conquering Belgian objectives[/color]

(GERMANY)(pangermanist)
objective : [color="#FF0000"]conquering Belgian objectives[/color]


****************************************************************************************

[color="#FF0000"]Pol[/color]and TOO

Side 1 :

RUSSIA :
objective : [color="#008000"]keeping Polish+Balt objectives[/color]

PRUSSIA
objective : [color="#008000"]status quo [/color](Poles under Russian or german boot)

side 2

(POLES) - revolt

(pangermanist Wilhelmian GERMANY)
objective : [color="#FF0000"]conquering Polish+Balt objectives[/color]
Brest-Litovsk peace, pangermanist plans ...


***********************************************************************************


[color="#0000FF"]Am[/color][color="#FF0000"]er[/color]ic[color="#FF0000"]as[/color] TOO

side 1 :

USA :
objective : [color="#008000"]Monroe doctrine[/color] prevent infringements from European powers

excludes established stable presence (Antillas, Canada), includes new ones or revolts (Cuba)

civil war, like Taipings, is not a foreign objective, still national integrity remains always the priority and hinders foreign action

side 2 :

BRITAIN :
objective : [color="#008000"]protect canada[/color]
this is compatible with monroe doctrine
[color="#FF0000"]intervention following loan repayment default[/color]

(Imperial FRANCE)
objective :[color="#FF0000"]intervention following loan repayment default[/color]

(Wilhelmian GERMANY)
objective :[color="#FF0000"]intervention following loan repayment default[/color]

ITALY
objective :[color="#FF0000"]intervention following loan repayment default[/color]

(SPAIN)
objective : [color="#008000"]keeping objectives[/color] : Cuba Puerto Rico
[color="#FF0000"]intervention following loan repayment default[/color]

*****************************************************************************************


[color="#FF8C00"]Central Asia[/color] TOO

Side 1 :
BRITAIN
objectives :
[color="#008000"]protect India[/color]
[color="#FF0000"]control central asia objectives[/color]
(Afghanistan, persia ..)

Side 2 :
RUSSIA
objectives :
[color="#008000"]protect Turkestan[/color]
[color="#FF0000"]control central asia objectives[/color]
(Turkestan, Afghanistan, persia ..)

**************************************************************************************

[color="#40E0D0"]Oceans (command of the seas) TOO[/color]

side 1 :

BRITAIN
[color="#008000"]keep command of the seas[/color]

USA
[color="#008000"]ensure safety of trade[/color]
strongly hostile to blockade and trade box warfare (cruisers, submarines ...)

SIDE 2

(Wilhelmian) GERMANY
[color="#FF0000"]contest command of the seas[/color]
[color="#FF0000"]trade box warfare[/color]

for simplicity we have streamlined : Mahan doctrine and manifest destiny are included in others objectives (Monroe or Oceania expansion,
russian access to warm water is included in far east, central asia or balkan TOO, and France never seeked to challenge Britain naval supremacy in THIS era
- set of commiting political, military, priorities reasons more simple to hardcode for same result)

***********************************************************************************************************

[color="#FF0000"]Far East[/color] TOO

side 1 :

RUSSIA
objectives : [color="#FF0000"]conquering Manchurian and Corean objectives[/color]

side 2 :

JAPAN
objectives : [color="#FF0000"]conquering Manchurian and Corean objectives[/color]

note : initial loss by China treated in China TOO logic - peripheral - minimal involvment

*******************************************************************************************

[color="#FFFF00"]China TOO[/color]

side 1

(CHINA)
objective : [color="#008000"]keeping integrity
avoiding trade and political dependancy treaties[/color]

side 2

(RUSSIA) - treated in Far east TOO
objective : [color="#FF0000"]getting objectives
trade treaty
[/color]
BRITAIN
objective : [color="#FF0000"]getting objectives
trade treaty
[/color]
FRANCE
objective : [color="#FF0000"]getting objectives
trade treaty
[/color]
GERMANY
objective : [color="#FF0000"]getting objectives
trade treaty
[/color]
JAPAN
objective : [color="#FF0000"]getting objectives
trade treaty
[/color]
USA
objective : [color="#FF0000"]getting objectives
trade treaty
[/color]
[color="#008000"]support China integrity[/color]
(preventing other nations to get more objectives)

notes : Russia is actually treated in Far East (Manchuria and Korea are far east TOO and those areas are peripheral for China - secondary)
the initial detaching them from China are part of same process, with minimal Chinese commitment
Taiwan is part of those carving China process


***************************************************************************************

[color="#800080"]Oceania[/color] TOO

Side 1 :
BRITAIN
objective :[color="#FF0000"] getting objectives[/color]

Side 2 :
FRANCE
objective :[color="#FF0000"] getting objectives[/color]

Side 3 :
GERMANY
objective :[color="#FF0000"] getting objectives[/color]

Side 4 :
JAPAN
objective :[color="#FF0000"] getting objectives[/color]

Side 5 :
USA
objective :[color="#FF0000"] getting objectives[/color]

Side 6 :
(SPAIN)
objective :[color="#008000"] keeping objectives[/color]

Side 7 :
(HOLLAND)
objective :[color="#FF0000"] getting objectives[/color]

notes : Holland objectives limited to historic part of Dutch east indies, Irian included
Philipines are part of this TOO, some part of Spain objectives transferred peacefully to germany
(others were won by USA during war)

**************************************************************************************************

[color="#A52A2A"]northern Africa[/color] TOO
(including Sudan Ethiopia Somalia but excluding Morocco)

BRITAIN
objective : [color="#FF0000"]getting objectives
[/color]

FRANCE
objective : [color="#FF0000"]getting objectives
[/color]

ITALY
objective : [color="#FF0000"]getting objectives
[/color]

(OTTOMAN)
[color="#008000"]keeping Lybia[/color]
other gains from Italy (Rhodes) or others (Cyprus) in Ottoman can be rattached to this TOO

note : [color="#FF0000"]Egypt and Sudan are srategic for British[/color], [color="#008000"]other objectives are secondary[/color] for everybody (France and Italy shouldn't go to war over Tunisia, nor Britain and France over Sudan, normally
- France backed off , historically, at Fashoda - Alsace-Lorraine had way bigger priority, and ratio of strength in Africa and on seas was not favourable
ditto Morocco attempt of germany (Black Africa TOO° was a lever to break British French entente, isolate France, and obtain a bigger part of Congo - it failed

************************************************************************************************************

[color="#000000"]Black Africa[/color] TOO

(remainder of Africa INcluding Morocco)

SIDE 1
BRITAIN
objectives :
[color="#FF0000"]annex Boer states
getting objectives[/color]

SIDE 2
FRANCE
objectives :
[color="#FF0000"]getting objectives[/color]

SIDE 3
(Wilhelmian GERMANY)
objectives :
[color="#FF0000"]getting objectives[/color]

SIDE 4
(BELGIUM)
objectives :
getting objectives (Belgian Congo)

SIDE 5
(PORTUGAL)
objectives :
[color="#FF0000"]getting objectives (Angola Mozambique)[/color]

note : here too, tensions aren't supposed to lead to war - usulally weaker side (basically weaker or isolated, backs down, Algesiras, fashoda - still, accidental wars may occasionally happen

********************************************************************************************************

just for memory, [color="#FFA500"]south East Asia[/color] TOO

should cover Indochina Burma and Siam, possibly Indonesia malaya and perhaps Philippines, but actually are covered by China (can be considered as a peripheral extension of it) and oceania TOO

it would give something like this :

side 1 :

BRITAIN :
objectives :
[color="#FF0000"]getting objectives [/color](Burma)
[color="#008000"]protecting India[/color] (independance of Siam-buffer) against French

side 2 :

FRANCE :
objectives :
[color="#FF0000"]getting objectives [/color](Indochina)
[color="#008000"]protecting Indochina[/color] (independance of Siam-buffer) against British

still, actually, while there were fears, warnings and very [color="#FF8C00"]low intensity [/color]tensions, no real seious crisis ever happened about Siam, nothing like Central Asia "great game" alarms and paranoia
(French wanted to be safe for Indochina borders, not THAT eager to take over Siam (would probably endly had done though, if British ..)
so this part can be treated in China TOO , just taking care British don't go to Indochina and French go to Indochina "en force"

***********************************************************************

another point to check is , besides [color="#008000"]territorial integrity[/color] [color="#FF0000"](paramount)[/color], checks for [color="#008000"]global balance[/color] are included

thoes may vary about nations and nations status :

UK France established (Bismarckian and Wilhelmian) Germany Austria Russia : European

[color="#FF0000"]Japan [/color]: far east (will check Russian forces and determine about it) - will seek reverse allies against Russia (or deterrent against Russian allies)

[color="#008000"]Italy/Piedmont[/color] : Italy (possibly colonial) : will check Austria, possibly France, and not include global considerations outside her green/red light against Austria and possible colonial expansion - reverse allies against Austria, possible France are seeked (either to intervene or to deter an attack - avoid hostility against France and Austria at same time) - antagonizing Britain is a big NO - wich limit Russian relations

[color="#000000"]Prussia[/color] : german situation : before unification, only hierarchization/priorization of relations/priorities between France and Austria matters, fightin,g both at a time not being an option - other powers are possible reverse allies, Prussia won't interfere outside of this sphere (exception for common interest with Russia in Poland) and notably not in Balkan and colonies - ,antagonizing Russia, and secondary Britain, is a big NO

[color="#0000FF"]USA[/color] : americas : isolationnist - once civil war sorted, US don't interfere in old world, but won't allow newcomers in americas - hence attention to fleets and naval bases, main nation to watch, britain (withn a preferred action, playing down frictions, as royal navy is theoretically unsurpassable), but a real distrust for other growing naval powers

[color="#FF0000"]UK[/color] will pay attention to any power or alliance able to overcome the European theater, and[color="#008000"] befriend the other side[/color] (playing down frictions - low intensity) and try to protect deter agression, with minimal commitment (minimal military investment) - splendid isolation - as natural[color="#008000"] maintain of balance of power[/color] is a condition to concentrate on naval superiority and colonial expansion


[B][color="#40E0D0"]France[/color] will[/B] :
-[color="#008000"] avoid antagonizing Britain[/color] as a huge naval effort is uncompatible with land objectives
- in [color="#FF0000"]dominating (Imperial)[/color] phase : try to [color="#008000"] counter preeminent nations[/color] (as rivals) especially if allows to side with Britain (eases colonial game) (should lead to counter early russia) and[color="#FF0000"] unstabilize German and Italian status quo[/color] (no gains can be made if conservative situation persists), which leads to counter Austria in both fields
- in dominated situation (Republican with loss of Alsace-Lorraine) ensure getting reverse allies against Germany as balance is to seek only versus her designated enemy - may be Russia, Britain, Italy, even Austria
- therefore, except colonial reinforcement, involvment into other areas is now minimal and caused only to support allies if can be done without provoking a war at unfavourable time (alliance tot ready to confront german one)

(United)[color="#000000"] Germany[/color] will :

[color="#000000"]Bismarckian phase[/color]
- try to isolate France as is structurally enemy (revanche) - therefore trying to ally everybody else either as reverse allies or to keep them friendly with germany and together
- patch relations with Austria as no territorial conflict subsists
- avoid antagonizing any nation, in priority Russia (main land power), then Austria (land power) and Britain (avoid distraction- may need less agressive colonialism and fleet building) - there is no natural conflict with Italy - and patching diffferences whenever possible ([color="#FF8C00"]low intensity[/color] when crisis, played down)

[color="#000000"]Wilhelmian phase[/color] : as gains should be bigger and pangermanist plus naval colonial lobby influence victory conditions (or it so should be set)
- support Austria if favourable to germany
- avoid directly antagonizing Russia as long as possible (notably versus britain) as Russia has a strong land army
- examine balance of power evolution (France and allies versus germany and allies) and choose best time to harden crisis - basic idea being that internal evolution of victory conditions (germany/russia) and loss of Bismarck diplompatic qualties should not allow a conservative consensus to remain, and that greater diplomatic isolation should be compensated by all out military/naval build up, followed by opportuny strike

(which historically proved greater isolation become a self realizing prediction)

[color="#008000"]Russia [/color]will :
push towards Balkan (Ottoman) and central Asia prioritarily and far east secondarily (endgame)
this designates Britain and usually Austria as main opponents (later Japan)
before german unification European balance are secondary considerations (as Russia is already countered by Britain and Austria, she will avoid to antagonize her Prussian/Geramn neighbour out of need)
once /if Germany unites, ensuring France subsists at all becomes important, still, if this is done, no further pression is needed as long as Germany is not hostile and fully aligned with Austria
when / if Germany aligns fully with Austria, France is at threat and a german/Austrian block bars Balkan, then getting a reverse ally ; protecting this ally, and patching things with Britain becomes needed
pression exerted on different expansion theaters depend on resistance encountered (avoid ambitious objectives and content with immediate ones if resistance expected or pression incurred on other theaters - if Austria is gaining ground in Balkans, going for Kashmir is a bad idea) and pressure exerted on Russia in other theaters

[color="#FF0000"]Austria[/color]
Austria will try to protect her influence and survival - usually by trying to protect status quo - in the three (and only three) theaters of interest for her - she is a brake, a counter factor
problem of Austria is she will have trouble protecting status quo at same time everywhere - the other one is that her potential allies in one area are not the ones in other ones and risk is antagonizing everybody

a) in Balkans - where she will confront Russia, and try prevent Russian presence in Rumania (principalties), cooperating with Ottoman, Britain, and possibly France. Britain is a natural ally, without any diverging interests with Austria. the problem is that Britain will only intervene in balkans, not in Italy and germany, and that
b) in Italy, where she'll confront Italy and France (she could later confront Italy and Prussia) - no natural ally to expect - Prussia may help, but only for a short duration
c) in Germany - Prussia is the arch enemy there, but France is supposed to be hostile - if victory conditions are correctly set, a French and an Austrian political victory should be uncompatible, any annexation of France should be a political defeat of Austria, dearly paid. A continental power with large army, Russia could be a precious ally, but 1) they risk being good friends of Prussia because of Poland common interest 2) they risk being at odds with Austria because of Balkans

so Austria in early stages is leading a delaying game, once she has lost, except in Balkans, lost ground (Lombardia, Venetia, germany) is lost forever.

in a second stage Austria has a simpler, if as difficult game :
- either get an understanding with Russia - to counter Prussia - possibly with French help - but this will be at expenses of Balkan concession, while balkans should be a major source of victory points in endgame, to reflect influence of hungarians - and Russia is less likely to influence Italy in a sense favourable to Austria - in such case, Austria will try to strike a balance between France and Prussia, dropping much of Balkan adavantage, and being on her own against Italy , whoever helps her. problem is, she could well offer on a plate, if n ot victory, at least a better position than hers, to both France and Russia
- or play the most natural game - with Pangermanism Germany will become much pro Austrian, while historical compromise makes Austria more pro German. a german alliance may deter Italy as well as Russia, and provide military support (Germany is the only land power able to help against Russia) for an offensive game in bnalkans, which is endgame expansion field, as well as a second source (Serbia, Romania) of irredentism. in this case, Austria will support germany for balance against France and Russia, or even superiorityirredentism.

[Jim-NC]

For the German TOO, wouldn't France want to defend Alsace-Lorraine during phase 1?

[Christophe.Barot]

For the German TOO, wouldn't France want to defend Alsace-Lorraine during phase 1?

indeed, this is obvious and implicit, but Alsace Lorraine is not targeted until Germany / Prussia declares war on France, and then both are at war and any nation automatically defend her national integrity. Alsace-lorraine is part of France, not a german minor (and moreover, phase 1 - imperial France is more ambitious, as wants to prevent unification with south german minors and even annex some german lands - so who can/wants the most can the less ...

diitto for Italy (and serbia), clearly Austria wants to keep her territory intact - it's the basis of any behaviour - and obviously integrity of national territory is a supreme priority

phase 1 and phase 2 marks an agressive expansionnist French Empire intefering with german minors followed by a revanchist (but defensive most of time) French republic trying to get her national territory back from a superior foe - but at this stage, having no design on german lands proper - and for good reasons, absorbed into prussia/germany, german minors no longer exist (we can sure add saarland as objective, but this si imho given the era covered, not needed, as alsace lorraine was more than sufficient motive for france to go to war - didn't cultivate revanche and sacrificed million of men to get saarland/sarrelouis, here assimilation worked the other way around, saar population feelings were 100% german)

cheerrs and thanks for remark

[Jim-NC]

For American TOO, would it be something like: Phase 1 - Enfore Monroe Doctrine (aka defend Central/South America), Phase II - nothing (inward looking), Phase III - expansion, look for colonies/territories?

[Kensai]

I hope these policies are not too aggressive, otherwise crafty players might take them for granted and rest assured of an AI's policies for years to come. This can happen already (many of us have read the events before reaching the date of firing), simply I hope it doesn't happen more.

Anyway, all steps in a good direction, great work Christophe!

[Kensai]

The game provides "interest" for the AI through the AI bias commands. There is already some hardcoded interest for objectives (both own and a rival's, in case of war) so there is no need to micromanage everything, the AI will know which assets to protect and which to attack/defend. The rest of it can be implemented with theater-wide interest settings: for example to abstract the Monroe Doctrine, one has to simply set the AI mainly be interested in the American continent.

But... these settings (biases) should not be very aggressive and we should remember to change them too, together with the objectives. For example: in the vanilla game: when the Civil War starts, the USA has its objectives (F10) changed. These objectives do NOT revert to the original overseas ones once the war is over. By design or not, am not sure, in the PBEM we changed that.

[Christophe.Barot]

for Jim NC

there is or should be or will be a turning point event where US begins to expand abroad (else, anyway, Spanish American war will do, fixed date ot random Cuban revolt - no problem if US begins to colonize Hawai or the Samoa somehow in advance of phase)

about balance between expansion and home duties, it's partly a matter of AI managing resources, and partly a matter of tempo :

clearly, when civil war erupts, top priority being integrity of territory, crushing and annexing Dixie is first thing and foreign action is set aside

that was also the calculation of napoleon III during Mexico expedition, could take place ONLY because US was busy elsewhere (US AI would compute enemies and avoid adding a new one while they're fighting the south) and ended as soon as Civil war ended !) normally, correctly tuned, it should be a natural choice of AI assessing possibilities and risks - if war is almost won and Confederation is biting dust, it should be rather normal than a central american venture would be risky for an European power

for kensai :

goal is (if this is ever coded) to make AI more reactive, so less blindly passive and predictable - AI is supposed to adapt to possibilities, analyzing situation and temporary delaying when situation is not favourable, advancing when situation allows - just like the player, or historical counterparts

does it make AI more predictable ? is it predictable that Russia will treat Britain in Merv and Khiva as a major threat and play down frictions with Austria then ? that France will rarely go to war with Britain if Germany holds Alsace-Lorraine, or Italy with France about Tunis if she's not allied to Germany and Austria holds Venice ? yes, but that looks like common sense for me. things should be that way - will be better than no analysis if ever implemented (by scripts, we'll be able to implement e few reactions and turning points, but not the whole system)

of course all reactions may be randomized so to make them more or less likely, but not certain (guess AI declarations of war and alliances already are)


presently biases are fixed by eras (1850-1860, 1860-1870, 18701890, and 1890-1920), to take into account major shifts in world and especially european situation : crimean war and risorgimento , between risorgimento and franco prussian war, bismarckian system, neuen kurz and all out imperialism - whose where about the turning points of many major powers and diplomatic system

still, this is somehow fixed - some of my turning points events already bring some flexibility - an AI coded analysis system would bring more



I agree that setting interests in the area could be the solution - for the american example, american interest outside US is zero at start, and either when Spanish war erupts, or when a turning point "manifest destiny" or "mahan" happens, US gets interest in Oceania and China - other events "Lusitania , zimmerman" or situations my give her an interest for Eurome and remove her aversion for "foreign entanglements"

is it enough ? I'm not sure AI is presently cautious enough, or too cautious - presently giving AI casus belli often does not guarentees AI will go to war, even in her best interests


agressivity of politics - for me is a matter of tuning - either we'll have AI analyzing things, or we'll have to script reactions (a solution for overloading could be making some sets of scripts optional), like textures, player will load them if he wants to, trading running time versus realism
if we script correct conditions (don't forget other wars, or ratio of strength, or alliances, ... and don't forget to rest), should do


btw one thing missing in described method is global balance, i'll have to describe incorporation of it in the global system ...

cheers !

[Kensai]

I know what you say, I just wanted to underline how important it is to be balanced: not too deterministic (knowing every event when to fire and providing certain results: ie war) but not too passive either. As I said, I like it already! Can't wait to get home to try on my gaming rig to script a couple of these ideas and report.

[Christophe.Barot]

absoloutely agree - balance between passivity and automatism is needed

some turning points or reactions are already scripted (and others in process, if only in my head - 1875 reaction of Britain and Russia for example, good example of nations watching the BOP - Belgium is rather simple) - limit is that AI is not presently set to make analysis

I'll proceed by submitting a first draft for hierarchization of objectives nation by nation (one tricky thing is to mix hierarchization inside a TOO and hierarchization between TOO, basically idea is that for example Russians threatening Kashmir is vitally important for the Brits compared to Port Moresby (or perhaps even fashoda or lagos), but Merv is not ....

another point to note and include is global balance - unequally watched - and territorial integrity
territorial integrity is always paramount (but still, when recovery is not immediately possible, nation goes to secondary objectives, in reach, see colonial republican france or Italy) - but global balance is more tricky to include - at what level ...

[HerrDan]

These ideas look amazing Barot! Are you still working on them?