Aggressive AI and other musings

[George Geczy]

Now that the latest update has (hopefully) fixed the biggest issues about the Economy, the points mentioned in recent threads seem to be an echo of a lot of the criticism and discussion about the AI in SRU, especially in the GC2020 map. I just scanned through our player reviews on Steam, and this is a recurring theme.

It has been extensively (!) discussed over the past few years in lots of threads, and as mentioned often the "World Volatility" was an added element to attempt to address the issue. However it certainly doesn't seem to make everyone happy.

One game mechanic that used to exist in the early SR2020 versions is that the AI was rather more aggressive, but in the end it was still based upon the player to take on the role of wanna-be "Supreme Ruler", and the AI regions were there to stop you. An alternate desire, of course, is to have the AI be just as power hungry and want to do the same.

So... should the maps, especially GC2020 and Shattered World, have the AI's playing an aggressive, warmongering path? Should this be controlled by the volatility setting, or should it be the default, or should it be a separate Sandbox (Global Crisis II etc)?

A related factor is that when the AI's played more aggressive, they would often ally together and take on the player as a larger group, and many players did not like this "Gang up on the human" tactic. But to do otherwise would be tying one of the AI's hands behind its back.

Thoughts?

[way2co0l]

Wow, breathing new life into this game. I'm thrilled!

My thoughts on this.

I'd like to see world volatility play more of a part in this. Unless I'm mistaken, all world volatility does right now is increase the magnitude of modifiers right now, so a higher volatility would make friendly actions increase friendly relations faster (at least for the AI) and negative actions would more quickly result in hostility. I personally don't care for this, at least not when it's only this. The problem is that high volatility has just as much of a chance (if not more) to get AI nations to form super alliances which other AI nations become too afraid to provoke so they eventually join them too.

What I'd like to see is with normal volatility, the world takes on the stance you described where the player is the catalyst and everyone else will only try to stop you. At higher volatility, I would like to see nations take on more aggressive roles regardless of player action as they pursue what the player does. I think that a countries tendency to gang up on the player or form alliances at all should depend on threat. If they face no real threat they shouldn't be in as big a hurry to form alliances. ON higher volatility, they should be willing to form alliances with less provocation, medium should have them forming alliances only when an enemy poses a relatively significant threat, and the lowest settings should have them forming alliances only when absolutely necessary after extreme provocation.

To add, while not expressly what you were asking, I feel peace treaties are a very important part of this. I know it's been an issue brought up by many people, but the AI will almost never make peace with another AI, regardless of its potential to achieve victory or it's ability to continue to wage an effective war at all. I'd like to see some form of mechanic where a country would be willing to pursue a peace rather than an outright surrender under the right conditions. Those conditions could be debatable but the honest truth is I'd rather see ANY mechanic to avoid endless wars that bog down and will never see a resolution.

A combination that allows for more aggressive AIs and the potential ending for long drawn out wars would really add to the dynamism this game could offer.

[Cdiplayer]

I would say that AI should be changed for Global Crisis and Shattered World. Bring back the whole "gang up on the human player" thing and make the AI more focused on world domination, that way the player has some competition. I think the World 2020 map and the other historical maps should largely be left as is though, for players who want a more realistic experience.

[ricey]

I would very much like to see a more aggressive AI. I can invade several country's and no one does anything, I very much would like to see the AI gang up on the human player if this is the case. I would also like to see bigger country's have more of an expansive agenda.

So for example shattered world, I would like to see the various country's struggle for unification once this in complete certain nations can be naturally more aggressive and look to overpower weaker nations who haven't unified? Currently most games i play result in endless alliances and can become quite boring

And really to end endless Ai vs Ai wars when neither country tries to engage at all so make the Ai sue for peace etc I have played a game where china took on the whole of asia, many nations would of accepted peace but instead china took on around 12 nations and lost.

[Zuikaku]

Please:

- teach AI not to annex only
- teach AI to sue for peace more often and to stop endless and pointless wars especially when in bad economic or military shape
- make AI honour alliances
- ad some randomness in AI behaviour ( if ruling party in AI region loses elections, make new AI government more keen on releasing non loyal hexes, breaking alliances or starting wars with neighbours - not a big chance for this to happen but a chance)

[amynase]

I must agree with the people who commented before me! I'd love to see alliances working, it is too easy right now to just attack all the countries one after the other, without any of their allies really helping them! Also, teaching the AI to accept a peace sometimes and to use all three peace options is a brilliant idea aswell. Please add this! Also, Nato and other military alliances in the 2020 maps would be great!

[Fistalis]

Now that the latest update has (hopefully) fixed the biggest issues about the Economy, the points mentioned in recent threads seem to be an echo of a lot of the criticism and discussion about the AI in SRU, especially in the GC2020 map. I just scanned through our player reviews on Steam, and this is a recurring theme.

It has been extensively (!) discussed over the past few years in lots of threads, and as mentioned often the "World Volatility" was an added element to attempt to address the issue. However it certainly doesn't seem to make everyone happy.

One game mechanic that used to exist in the early SR2020 versions is that the AI was rather more aggressive, but in the end it was still based upon the player to take on the role of wanna-be "Supreme Ruler", and the AI regions were there to stop you. An alternate desire, of course, is to have the AI be just as power hungry and want to do the same.

So... should the maps, especially GC2020 and Shattered World, have the AI's playing an aggressive, warmongering path? Should this be controlled by the volatility setting, or should it be the default, or should it be a separate Sandbox (Global Crisis II etc)?

A related factor is that when the AI's played more aggressive, they would often ally together and take on the player as a larger group, and many players did not like this "Gang up on the human" tactic. But to do otherwise would be tying one of the AI's hands behind its back.

Thoughts?

Ideally the PlayerAIstance or Playeragenda in the .CVP could turn a more aggressive play style on for the AI.. my wish would be to further expand these settings (not just the agressive stance) and the creation of a new scenario with more agressive etc AI would be rather simple from your point of view at that point.

[GIJoe597]

So... should the maps, especially GC2020 and Shattered World, have the AI's playing an aggressive, warmongering path? Should this be controlled by the volatility setting, or should it be the default, or should it be a separate Sandbox (Global Crisis II etc)?

A related factor is that when the AI's played more aggressive, they would often ally together and take on the player as a larger group, and many players did not like this "Gang up on the human" tactic. But to do otherwise would be tying one of the AI's hands behind its back.

Thoughts?

I would prefer there be a more aggressive AI, even allowing them to intelligently ally to tackle a human player. Including negative benefits for the human player such as; lack of, or decreased access to world market. Also, Domestic Approval declining if your country is universally hated, requiring the human player to run a very tight ship with economy/domestic polices/prices/taxes. These/this settings should be on a toggle for those that want it and those which do not.

[Aragos]

Now that the latest update has (hopefully) fixed the biggest issues about the Economy, the points mentioned in recent threads seem to be an echo of a lot of the criticism and discussion about the AI in SRU, especially in the GC2020 map. I just scanned through our player reviews on Steam, and this is a recurring theme.

It has been extensively (!) discussed over the past few years in lots of threads, and as mentioned often the "World Volatility" was an added element to attempt to address the issue. However it certainly doesn't seem to make everyone happy.

One game mechanic that used to exist in the early SR2020 versions is that the AI was rather more aggressive, but in the end it was still based upon the player to take on the role of wanna-be "Supreme Ruler", and the AI regions were there to stop you. An alternate desire, of course, is to have the AI be just as power hungry and want to do the same.

So... should the maps, especially GC2020 and Shattered World, have the AI's playing an aggressive, warmongering path? Should this be controlled by the volatility setting, or should it be the default, or should it be a separate Sandbox (Global Crisis II etc)?

A related factor is that when the AI's played more aggressive, they would often ally together and take on the player as a larger group, and many players did not like this "Gang up on the human" tactic. But to do otherwise would be tying one of the AI's hands behind its back.

Thoughts?

I mod the aistance, et al, to get higher aggressiveness from the AI, and have had some pretty good games from that (USA vs. UK vs. France vs. Italy and so on). I'd like to see an "Insane" setting on the Volatility; all other normal, just one where the world is pretty much crazy.

[BlackSoulReaper]

World Viotality doesn't work is because it's too random. Nations start declaring random wars against eachother for no particular reason. I don't think others (my self included) are looking for a nation vs nation death match. But rather... More legit reasons for one nation to declare war on another. This is where diplomacy and espionage needs to shine.

What Zuikaku mentions is good so far... I disagree with AI Honouring alliances though. They already do this, mostly in the form of participating in a proxy war. Most wars Post WW2 is fought this way. You don't really see cascading alliances though I'm sure it would if the world was elevated to a higher warning status.

I feel like what we really need is the ability to do some posturing and taking advantage of the sphere system. A lot of people dislike it but it's actually very very good to have. Promote more Sphere vs Sphere diplomacy. The great powers will try invest in neutral countrys to flip them towards their sphere or change their government/ect. Lesser powers will spread through influence through war with rival neighbors/lesser powers in neutral/rival spheres. There are more chances for lesser spheres to declare war on one another if they are near one another, or want a resource from them.

Say for instance you invest in brazil as the USA and Columbia as Russia in the cold war. Once they are leaning or flip completely there is a chance that there will be a break out of war between the two. Then you can help them out via proxy war. We need more diplomatic actions that do things and build CB over time. Embargo, fund insurgency (Like really create partisans) comes to mind. We need to AI to react and start doing the same thing until war tips off.

Hope what I said makes some sense.

Randomness is a good thing but I would just like to see diplomacy lead up to a war. If I want just random battles I'd just use Saddam cheat.

[nicholas70]

I think adding a some chance scripted events that could lead to war would do the job. I'd be a bit bummed out to see this issue resolved by just having the AI gang up on the human player. I mean sure it makes the game more challenging but it also makes it much more predictable.

You could go with a chance scrip that starts the game out having one of the more major powers leaders secretly planning to take over the world. All would seem fine for the first year or two while they make preparations and perhaps a few allies before they just start annexing other countries. You could also have major market disruption scripts that could trigger sudden resource wars. Example 1 GMO corn crop mutates causing widespread food shortages. At this point any country effected would see a decrease in food production of 25-50% and the player would be given the objective of taking over a country running a food surplus in order to restore normal production. (of course a similar template could be used with other resources) The other thing I like about market scrips is it makes it hard for the player to play the market. Another scrip that could be used is one that causes new countries to come into existence and to make them hostile. The larger part of the Middle East could suddenly become ISIL and start trying to take over the world or the EU could become a true state and start trying to do the same.

I would also like to see the AI be a bit more willing to use nukes and be less hesitant to go to war if they have them. I mean lets face it, based on historic events a country that has nukes is more likely to engage in military actions, and less likely to be concerned about a countries allies. Building on this idea the AI should actually try to trade for techs from time to time as it seems this presently never happens.

Finally I think any country undergoing prolonged economic hardship should be more inclined to go to war or under go a revolution resulting in a more aggressive leader taking over.

[way2co0l]

I think it's important to remember that there has always been a limitation of resources for development and this is unlikely to be any different now. There appears to be a resurgence in effort to finish this game but I think we all have to keep our expectations in check to what might be feasible to do. Adding new features is probably unlikely, especially the more complicated they are.

I think there are a lot of things we'd all like to see from this game in an ideal world but at this point suggestions that involve using and manipulating existing features increases the chances of actually getting it in game. What we need is to get the game in a state where everything works reasonably well and if we can find simple solutions to achieve that we make it more likely we can get other popular requests in while they're currently knocking through them.

[IHateThinkingUpNames]

I was very impressed in SR:2020 that the AI tried to stop me when I went down the warmongering route. On one save I played as Serbia and had Poland, Germany etc declare war because I invaded Kosovo. This seemed a lot more realistic and alliances felt more meaningful. I've got hundreds of hours of gameplay and yet my most fun & memorable experience of the series was that save.

I definitely miss this aspect in the newer games. The game world feels empty when the AI isn't engaging with me no matter what actions I take.

[Ater]

Can we see some wars between states soon? I think that high volatility on shattered world should throw the United States into a sort of "civil war" situation, assuming the states want to get key resources that a lot of them don't have access to.

Also will Ruges Mod ever be a scenario for SRU?

[George Geczy]

Thanks for all the comments and suggestions in this thread, it's very useful.

Of course, some of the suggestions are contradictory, and that's because factors such as "more random" and "more anti-human" are controversial. The original SR2020 used to have a lot more of both, and in fact I myself have always been a fan of both, but there have been many criticisms of those mechanics.

AI Regions using more "random" weighting to their actions feels for many players as a bug ("Why did the AI do that? Stupid AI.") so the trend has been to base AI decisions on more objective weightings in the modern era maps. The "gang up on the humans" effect is another one that many players were not fans of; however having AIs go on war free for alls against other AI's will just weaken them all and allow the human to walk over them.

Of course, this is all a matter of balance, and also scenario/sandbox choices and options that could be tailored to different gameplay styles.

I'm thinking that tweaking some of the lobby options (especially the volatility option) combined with new, more aggressive/unpredictable sandboxes for 2020/GC, may get a lot of the way to addressing many of the wishlists above. The "Endless wars" issue is also a top priority to address for the next set of updates.