Kensai wrote:[color="#40E0D0"] Thanks for your input[/color]
Regarding the infringement reasons, every now and then you should see messages for all nations regarding [color="#FF0000"]disputed regions[/color]. These do seem to appear every 3 months (6 turns) as the infringement CBs refresh. As assistance, I use a lot the little filter buttons that show de jure and claimed regions on the map. - [color="#40E0D0"]can be a good idea - I'm perhaps too sure of myself not doing it - still am pretty sure there is not, and cannot be cross claims between france and Austria - I'm pretty sure it was caused by random frictions "frictions which degenerat"e - littlle historical grounds - likeliness untested, too sandbox imho[/color]
Regarding your "resume" proposals, most are good, but [color="#FF0000"]can be difficult to implement.[/color]
[color="#40E0D0"]- yes nobody serious thought all are easy I think3 steps :
- [color="#008000"]defining the correct accurate historicaldiscriminating factors/concepts[/color] by analysis and simplification - which I try to do / passion for history, games, immersion in 19th century, previous knowledge of design problematics - designed a game long ago, is where I became acquainted with Philippe - needs knowledge (and passion) for involved subject, but I'd say is the easy part
- [color="#008000"]analyzing present mechanisms, desirable mechanisms, present shortcomings, coming with solution (s[/color] - there are often alternatives), trying to project consequences of algorithms and criteria choice - historicity/gameplay, player reaction (we can have ahistorical aberrant game, snawball easy game, boring game, stereotyped play, unbalances, purely random effect ruining player merit, block AI progression, blocking player, frustrating player, making game mastering (or understanding) out of reach
-[color="#008000"] choosing level of intervention [/color]: basic mechanisms defining (needs coding, possibly heavily, correct parameters, you may have to write concepts, like alliance peace), parametering (for example setting alliance duration is easy), scripting conditionally (alliance between Britain and Germany if France and Russia are hostile, Germany not excessively dominant on land, and Germany not a naval threat, can be tested, written, ban be very complex too, multiplication can load game - our present work, mainly), hardcoding scripts (Russia and britain patching up in 1907, whatever) , or hardcoding data (Alsace-Lorraine binational, so structurally claimable by France AND Germany, as you know, we can also set relations, buildings, SOI, lots of things) also things we can do
- when this is done, [color="#008000"]coding[/color], which requires competence and time if beyond scripting, only fernando, besides Philippe and Pocus (or a few other AGEOD team perhaps) can do that, but it comes in competition with other priorities (historical accuracy, especially strategic and diplomatic , balance and game flow are desirable, and my motive, but biggest grievance is turn duration - no customer satisfaction, no sell, no sell, no team to codeeven if I know everybody is OK for a good historically accurate diplomacy - may be LOT of work - "95% of transpiration" are to allocate
One has also to anticipate pervert effects - create an incentive for getting Savoy, and AI or French player could attack Italy instead of helping her, create a badboy due to a powerful army, and Boer will reject German protection offered to them, or Rumania will be scared by Russian troops massing on Turkish borders, give Serbia as objective to Russia without mechanisms hindering agressivity (hardcoded relations, Serbia not annexable and test of it) and rewarding allied ownership[/color][color="#008000"] (create an EvalRegionAllyOwned ?)[/color] [color="#40E0D0"]and Russia will attack Serbia, punish relationships with neighboorhood when you mobilize, and relations will deteriorate between Germany and Austria when the Kaiser will mobilize to prevent Russian to swamp Galicia, tune relief for moderate terms TOO heavily, and Germany will be France 1871 best friend, run diplomacy purely by relations, relations driving to war and alliances, which create bad/good relations in turn, and diplomacy will snowball and you'll have next 60 years of game with rigid blocks ... examples are many[/color]
We really don't know what goes behind relations as you don't have access to other nations' decisions. For example, if a nation is keeping its tariffs high, eventually every other nation will hate it. [color="#40E0D0"]agree [/color]
Perhaps the AI is not balanced enough to make the best decisions regarding tax levels [color="#40E0D0"]I guess a test could be possible and needed - not only relations, but also internal unrest snowballs - even if some rubberband mechanisms have been set (100% rebel control will become 100% state control, still partial rebel alliegance won't change, nor will strikers revert back to work, creating other shortages, and unrest )[/color] ,
I have seen that in my Game of Victorian Thrones where the AI nations always keep most taxes towards the max, even if they have plenty of money. Also, if armies are kept at the borders, which happens a lot in continental Europe, crises might erupt that make relations take a further dive. [color="#40E0D0"]agree - German army in French borders should worsen relationships, as revanche or premptive war makes sense - test to set - to NEW low point - not to zero - after rubberband compensate - Russian troops around Rumania shouldn't - Bucharest is a "friendly" objective, Russia has no claim on Rulanian land (and Dobrudja should be transferred to Rumania anyway, against strong VP compensation - easy to script, or can be done likewise national land goven to allies -[/color]
War and peace proposals can only happen vis-a-vis. Call this a limitation of the game engine, but it doesn't seem you are able to sign separate agreements en block, as an alliance. [color="#40E0D0"]I think it is possible to code it -[color="#008000"] we already have alliances in some scenarios[/color] - question is how costly to code timewise - even alliance moves coding is possible, as some scenario include it - look Risorgimento - ditto cost problematics [/color]
There might be some workarounds, for example if an ally surrenders then the other ally should get a hefty VP-NM penalty so that (unless winning considerably in its own right) it becomes more convinced to sign the end of the war too - problem was rather the huge drop in relations if war becomes desperate, the partner will do [color="#40E0D0"]I have seen Italy the France surrender to Austria, good terms but bye Lombardia, was really a short war - impressive, ditto my Russian - Turkish war engineered by script petered out [/color]- [color="#FF0000"]we may have a case of recovering from war for balance too .[/color]
For the historical wars of the game, and there are many, after we make a complete review of all the can possibly go wrong, I believe we should author war ending events to help the AI. [color="#40E0D0"]we can and will do that[/color] There are more than enough instances for complains that wars (like the Crimean) would reach a standstill. Actually, I think there should be some kind of "leaking NM" for long wars so that nations eventually stop them. I believe it is already implemented but way too weak. Wars over long terms have to stop unless you make miracles to content your population.[color="#40E0D0"] That is historical, still take care about tuning, as it can be extremely frustrating for player to have to stop when results at last come - but basically OK - no result, no persistance - had you a look on my new alternative terms for paris congress ? [/color]
Indeed, a max duration for alliances should be in. Then, perhaps, a decision to continue or abandon them should come up with an increasing "cost" (haven't thought in what, yet) to keep them [color="#40E0D0"]looks even simpler to me - allainces lapse, and you have to make new ones (less costly for balance, let's say 2 diplomats), and as we avoid snowball effects and political conditions change, they may not renew (diploAi bias of 1860 1870 1890 and dedicated scripts) past good relations are a bonus, but not fully determining [/color]. This way perpetual alliances will be out of question.
Regarding NM, VPs, and generally contentment, there are a lot things that these parameters could balance to show winner-loser[color="#40E0D0"] (yep, and I'm a firm believer in objective ownership test - look what happens on the field, after all those are grounds for war) .[/color]
Effects of regime are nice,[color="#40E0D0"](I agree they should play some role but I believe it presently overrated - an old debate I had with Pocus - legitimacy times are over, 19th century is nationalsm/imperialism driven - game date => objectives or security - threat and balance -[color="#FF0000"] numerous counter examples [/color]- Franco Russian alliance (german land threat) - Austro prussian war (objective germany) , Austro Russian principalties and balkan tensions (objective germany, russian land threat) - Anglo - german alliance attempt (Chamberlain, not the neville one) - authoritarian/liberal regime didn't matter, german fleet fleet did, and so did fact that Russia's army hostility would have mattered more than British fleet friendship, French-British tensions in EDgypt and fachoda (agree democratic regimes helped perhaps, but popular nationalist passion wasn't helpful, determining factors were superior value of alsace lorraine and unability of france to win a colonial war against Britain) - so I'd really like to limit its influence to reasonable size[/color]
actually I would suggest we go to the other direction, tie decisions more to strong-weak rulers. A weak ruler should be a relatively passive period for a nation, a strong ruler a period for energetic decisions and war.
This is historically accurate, otherwise the human player will gang-ho his way through the entire game.[color="#40E0D0"] - you got a strong point and idea here - to dig - peaceful ruler forcing even player to passivity, smart ruler (Bismarck Cavour, rulers while Andrassy or Delcassé office) allowing agressive and smart play (bonus for alliances, crisis, favourable alignments in congress), agressive but not smart ruler (napoleon III, Nicholas I (menchikov) Nicholas II, Wilhelm II leading to blunders and crisis resulting in wars or diplomatic defeats through alignements - Algesiras - Berlin - Paris (no prestige loss, just wars - some of it may be scripted[/color]
[color="#008000"]Now I really think determining factors guiding strategy are objectives (offensive and defensive - national ones, minor allies ones, allied ones) and outcome of crisis led by allies and size of relevant military[/color] [color="#40E0D0"]- imperialism (mood of government), relations (mood of diplomatic vision), and national morale (mood of population, high NM = intransigeance, France in 1870, Germany in 1914, Russia in 1877) are/should be factors governing tension level in a crisis, but not his survenance nor a Nation strategy[/color]
Regarding CBs without territorial dispute or crisis, indeed, I don't think they happened a lot in this era. - [color="#40E0D0"]they were rare, and usually sorted out without fuss - crisis happened when an(usually unexpected) pretext met a contested hot spot with big stake - Fachoda wasn't such big a stake for france [/color]- The current CBs are ok. Perhaps as an addition, the AI could be taught to forge its own CBs as a rare occurrence, when everything is fine. - [color="#40E0D0"]actually roughly a third of present CB per turn in my games are absolutely without reasons - I would advise to CONDITION those random CB to existance of a territorial or colonial dispute - and even to existence of both parties involved (CB of Britain against Ukraine or Bohemia are ridiculous, honest)[/color]
Last, the badboy effect: this could already be abstracted through worse relations with the rest of the world and falling NM.[color="#40E0D0"] badboy seems real, and strike Prussia whose relations of transvaal are + 75 - and germany is almost everybody and his cousin's friend - no way to have an allaince, with Bismarck as diplomat, no bad bias - I know, was the one proposing the values - a normal Boer player would jump on the proposal - I'm pretty sure there is a badboy, experienced difficulties to get treaties as soon as I closed British VP - of course, can be repeated bad luck, of course ... [/color] Perhaps bad relations should have catastrophic rises in costs of trade with the nations the relations are bad, in order to have a difficulty to survive. [color="#40E0D0"]present system creates mechanically bad relationships it is not AI or player choice [/color]
PS. All the above have been more or less my own remarks in these last two years I have been playing the game. Only a v1.1 can address them, but unless you hear official communication don't hold a big basket. That's life, we can enjoy the game as it is.
there is work we can do , and we'll do - some coding may happen, but of course we shouldn't expect expensive time consuming adapatatios - but some may be possible
