Leader Personalities

[Ahriman]

Monte is the one exception: he's interested only in strength. If we're stronger he'll want to be our friend... if he is stronger he will attack. He doesn't care about diplomacy or what was going on the last turn.

This is fine, but then let him display Neutral at basically all times, unless specifically affected by military strength differential.
So he can only ever be Neutral, Afraid or Hostile.
He shouldn't be displaying a Friendly characteristic if that is meaningless or misleading.
And if he isn't affected by any history of actions (settling near him, etc.), then don't display any of those modifiers for him.

 

[Txurce]

This is fine, but then let him display Neutral at basically all times, unless specifically affected by military strength differential.
So he can only ever be Neutral, Afraid or Hostile.
He shouldn't be displaying a Friendly characteristic if that is meaningless or misleading.
And if he isn't affected by any history of actions (settling near him, etc.), then don't display any of those modifiers for him.

I think Thal was saying that those definers can't be adjusted at the moment.

That aside, if he's the only bald-faced liar in the game, I don't think it'll cause any game play issues.

 

[Ahriman]

I think Thal was saying that those definers can't be adjusted at the moment.

There aren't parameters for things like how much they care about having a friend in common, or having a DoF, or having been denounced, or people settling near him, that could be set to zero?

That aside, if he's the only bald-faced liar in the game, I don't think it'll cause any game play issues.

Except to the casual user of the mod who hasn't been trawling through the forums and doesn't *know* that none of the diplomatic ratings from Monty have any meaning, and get frustrated by what seems like a broken diplomacy engine to them.

 

[Thalassicus]

Considering that in vanilla everyone acted that way while now only 1 leader out of 23 does, I think the statement this one leader could make the whole diplomacy engine feel broken might be a little hyperbolic.

I honestly don't know the answer to the first question, it's more Sneaks' area of expertise. I know how much they care about actual diplomatic events can be altered globally for all AIs (which is what he does in WWGD), and is somewhat influenced by the factors I've listed below, though I'm uncertain how some of them work. A few like WarmongerHate and MinorCivCompetitiveness obviously interact with specific diplomatic events, but not the ones you asked about (sharing friends, dof's, settling, etc).

Here's the stats for one leader, Napoleon, as an example of what we have access to. I ran it through some formatting it so it's easier to read than the original data. Most of this is self-explanatory, though I don't know how a few things work. Like... what's the gameplay difference between Boldness and Meanness? And why is Napoleon so reluctant to attack a neighbor he hates if he has a big army and such high Boldness, Meanness, and approach_war biases?

An important thing to point out is the first three blocks of data are referred to as "bias" values in the files, while the last block is "flavors." This is an important distinction. Bias's appear to be weighted probabilities, while flavors are more absolute. For example, I've seen leaders with this 1:8 ratio of protective:conquest still protect citystates, and I've seen Napoleon still do DoF's. In contrast, flavors have the potential to lock out everything else. I once put production flavor at 9 and they built 100% mines and lumbermills. I think flavors are more like a "tier" system where the AI picks something of the highest flavor tier, then works its way down if that option is unavailable. Flavor 5 appears to be the midpoint.

LEADER_NAPOLEON

Personality
8: VictoryCompetitiveness
1: WonderCompetitiveness
5: MinorCivCompetitiveness
9: Boldness
3: DiploBalance
1: WarmongerHate
8: DenounceWillingness
1: DoFWillingness
1: Loyalty
4: Neediness
9: Forgiveness
6: Chattiness
7: Meanness

Diplomacy
8: MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_WAR
6: MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_HOSTILE
1: MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_DECEPTIVE
5: MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_GUARDED
1: MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_AFRAID
4: MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_FRIENDLY
5: MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_NEUTRAL

Citystates
5: MINOR_CIV_APPROACH_IGNORE
1: MINOR_CIV_APPROACH_FRIENDLY
1: MINOR_CIV_APPROACH_PROTECTIVE
8: MINOR_CIV_APPROACH_CONQUEST

Priorities
6: FLAVOR_OFFENSE
5: FLAVOR_DEFENSE
4: FLAVOR_CITY_DEFENSE
7: FLAVOR_MILITARY_TRAINING
5: FLAVOR_RECON
6: FLAVOR_RANGED
8: FLAVOR_MOBILE
5: FLAVOR_NAVAL
6: FLAVOR_NAVAL_RECON
5: FLAVOR_NAVAL_GROWTH
5: FLAVOR_NAVAL_TILE_IMPROVEMENT
5: FLAVOR_AIR
5: FLAVOR_EXPANSION
5: FLAVOR_GROWTH
6: FLAVOR_TILE_IMPROVEMENT
4: FLAVOR_INFRASTRUCTURE
5: FLAVOR_PRODUCTION
8: FLAVOR_GOLD
4: FLAVOR_SCIENCE
8: FLAVOR_CULTURE
4: FLAVOR_HAPPINESS
5: FLAVOR_GREAT_PEOPLE
4: FLAVOR_WONDER
4: FLAVOR_RELIGION
3: FLAVOR_DIPLOMACY
6: FLAVOR_SPACESHIP
5: FLAVOR_WATER_CONNECTION
6: FLAVOR_NUKE

 

[Ahriman]

Considering that in vanilla everyone acted that way while now 1 leader out of 23 does, I think the statement it could make the whole diplomacy engine feel broken might be a little hyperbolic.

How so? In vanilla the diplomacy engine *does* feel broken.

If something is the goal but isn't achievable with current tools, that's fine, I'm just trying to convince people that it should be an appropriate goal to *never* have the UI give you deceptive information.
[But that I think its just fine to have a leader AI who is swayed by nothing except military size.]

I see from your list how generally vague many of the parameters are. I guess we won't be able to do much except trial and error until we have more code available.

 

[Txurce]

Here's the stats for one leader, Napoleon, as an example of what we have access to. I ran it through some formatting it so it's easier to read than the original data. Most of this is self-explanatory, though I don't know how a few things work. Like... what's the gameplay difference between Boldness and Meanness? And why is Napoleon so reluctant to attack a neighbor he hates if he has a big army and such high Boldness, Meanness, and approach_war biases?

My guess is that boldness refers to willingness to go to war without an overwhelming advantage. This would definitely fit with my experience with France.

Meanness is more vague, but could have to do with the level of insults or willingness to negotiate peace.

 

[Thalassicus]

@Ahriman
Right. That's basically my point: I would like do it the way you describe, but I'm not certain how to yet, so the current mechanism for Monte is a temporary measure.

@Txurce
Like you, my first thought is 'meanness' is simply an insult-frequency modifier, especially since it follows right after 'chattiness'. I could set it to 1 for everyone and see what happens. You probably noticed I've avoided setting anything to 0... I'm not sure if it might cause an divide/0 error somewhere in the core game code.

These are what I believe each one does:

• VictoryCompetitiveness - Diplomatic penalty: attempting the same victory strategy as us.
• WonderCompetitiveness - Diplomatic penalty: we covet wonders you built.
• MinorCivCompetitiveness - not sure.. but it's likely one of two things:
  • Diplomatic penalty for going for the same citystates.
  • Modifies strength of "ignore" minor civ approach vs the others.
• Boldness - not sure, but probably deals with comparisons of military strength.
• DiploBalance - not sure... this one is particularly mysterious, it varies from one leader to the next without a discernible pattern (aka it looks random)
• WarmongerHate - Diplomatic penalty: warmongering menace to the world.
• DenounceWillingness - Hostility level needed to denounce.
• DoFWillingness - Friendship level needed to DoF.
• Loyalty - Mostly likely the willingness to backstab.
• Neediness - Frequency of demands.
• Forgiveness - How long they hold a grudge.
• Chattiness - not sure, frequency of random compliments?
• Meanness - not sure, frequency of random insults?

 

[Ahriman]

I would like do it the way you describe, but I'm not certain how to yet, so the current mechanism for Monte is a temporary measure.

Ok, np then. Thanks for confirming.

Your guesses seem reasonable.
Could DiploBalance be about their desire to form balancing coalitions; ie to gang up on whoever is ahead (as opposed to trying to befriend whoever is ahead)?

 

[Thalassicus]

I really don't know about that one. It doesn't seem to follow patterns of leader aggression, the variance is rather small (values of 4 to 7), and it's not referenced anywhere in the lua files so it's not a diplomatic penalty of some sort.

 

[alpaca]

ARGH!
Dumbest design decision ever.

The game should *never* present you with false information.

I think it's part of the "the AI should feel like a human" doctrine. Humans are backstabbing, scheming bastards (well, politicians anyways, and that's what people who play games mostly become) and often pretend untrue things - so they wanted to make an AI that does the same. Of course, that's probably not what 90% of players want an AI to be, but it is consistent, at least.

 

[doktorstick]

This is for 4.05 combined with WWGDv3.

Frankly, the game is boring as hell[1]. A half-a-dozen civs are in the modern era. The map is huge/tectonics/70% water and the players involved are: Persians, Aztecs, Chinese, Siamese, Egyptians, Arabians, Iriquois, Germans, Americans, Russians, Romans, and me (Japanese). I REXed and left huge gaps in land to seal off the Iriquois, Egyptians, and Siamese.

• Power-wise, I'm ranked about 8 of 12.
• I signed an early DoF with Siam. Later they became covetous of my lands, but are still friends.
• I signed an early DoF with Egypt.
• In the Industrial era, I met the Aztecs and signed a DoF with them.
• Only one city-state has been attacked and conquered. The only major war has been an ongoing one between Rome and Russia. Yup, the only war.
• I gave 600 to the Siamese as per their request back in the BC-era--they were and are much more powerful than me. In the Industrial era, I capitulated and gave them 25/turn.
• The Aztecs asked for 800 and I declined. I now have that blemish with them, but so far no aggression.

That's it. It's mostly me expanding and trying out different things since I don't feel threatened. I do have an aside question though: when you are in a DoF, is the "Demand" action treated as a "demand" or a "friendly request"? How do I do what they are doing to me, asking "friends" for help?

[1] Yes, yes. I know I can stir up trouble and make it not boring, but I'm wanting to see what the AI does on its own with the AI changes w/ WWGD.

 

[Txurce]

This is for 4.05 combined with WWGDv3.

The only major war has been an ongoing one between Rome and Russia. Yup, the only war...

I do have an aside question though: when you are in a DoF, is the "Demand" action treated as a "demand" or a "friendly request"? How do I do what they are doing to me, asking "friends" for help?

Largely peaceful games are more the norm with WWGDv3. Sneaks intends to raise the hostility factor.

I have never had a Friend do anything hostile in WWGD after I rejected a request... which I uniformly do.

 

[Gamewizard]

I too found WWGD a little TOO sedated. I certainly like the idea of the mod, but it needs a little more work.

I've been using AI Equalizer in its place lately. It does make the game a bit easier IMO, but I've been playing on Emperor so perhaps its time I stepped it up a notch.

I don't believe diplomacy without WWGD to be as broken as many have claimed. I recall from my last game France being angry at me for expanding rapidly and toward them, they DOW'd me for it (rightfully IMO), and then had peace for the rest of the game. Even got some text like "Went to war in the past but they do not hold a grudge against you" when hovering over the Friendly tag of France. I think if you DOW them, though, they take it personal for a LONG time. This type of feeling should dissipate after so many turns, maybe boosted by gifts or tribute.

Also, if someone has an answer, when the AI asks you about troops near their border, and you reply with "Just passing by", how many turns does it take for them to feel like you didn't betray your word if you eventually do DOW them? I feel this has a large diplo penalty with ALL civs.

 

[Txurce]

Also, if someone has an answer, when the AI asks you about troops near their border, and you reply with "Just passing by", how many turns does it take for them to feel like you didn't betray your word if you eventually do DOW them? I feel this has a large diplo penalty with ALL civs.

Yes, this has an unusually large, game-lasting diplomatic penalty with all other civs. I just paid the price even though I did move away from the city, and took several turns making my way to another city (which I attacked). That leads me to believe that 10 turns is the magic number.

 

[Thalassicus]

The main thing WWGD is trying to deal with is the fact that if you get denounced by a friend, it carries a huge global diplomatic penalty, causing others to denounce, creating a nuclear chain reaction. One moment you're friends with the world and the next turn everyone's hostile and at war with you. It's a little extreme since the decision to denounce is partially random.

As Txurce mentioned, right now the AI is pacified a bit much in WWGD, and Sneaks is working on getting that hot / cold balance just right.

I've noticed it's crazy hard to get Genghis Khan to attack citystates and get some use out of his trait. Even with his 'conquer citystates' at huge values he still sits on his hands. It appears this is not controlled in the personality files... I've been searching for what else might control their willingness to DoW a citystate.

 

[Gamewizard]

From my observations it seems the AI attacks based on proximity to their own borders and/or if the city-state is allied with someone that AI is hostile to. I have no idea if desired resources fuel any aggression or not.

 

[Ahriman]

I think it's part of the "the AI should feel like a human" doctrine.

I agree, with the caveat that I'd say its "the AI should feel like a human playing a game" as opposed to "the AI should play like a human leader of a nation.
I just think that is a stupid design principle for a single-player game.

That leads me to believe that 10 turns is the magic number.

This would be very useful to confirm!
The fact that you can't observe this kind of thing is absurd, and makes you feel like you're fighting against the diplomacy UI.

 

[Txurce]

This would be very useful to confirm!
The fact that you can't observe this kind of thing is absurd, and makes you feel like you're fighting against the diplomacy UI.

Although I try to avoid this situation coming up, I will do my best to crack it. Like I said, it seems to apply even when you disengage and then re-engage somewhere else... so the system is definitely funky.

 

[Ahriman]

Thanks, much appreciated.

 

[Baleur]

I always use Random Personalities O_o
Does that mess up your balance regarding individual civs?