Scripting AI Diplomatic Events

[J P Wagner]

I am coming to the end stages of my Russian Civil War mod, and so I thought I would ask for some advise regarding scripting AI Diplomatic events in order to expidite this very important aspect of the game.

First an overview: In the RCW game, Diplomacy will have a vital strategic value. In fact, failing to do well in the "Diplomatic War" will assuredly see your downfall, whether playing as the Bolsheviks or the Whites. Here is why:

Due to the inflated value of the ruble and lack of committed manpower, both sides will find it difficult to replenish lost strength points or create new units because all purchases will be extremely expensive. For the Reds or Whites to acheive victory, they must gain possession of the resources and armies that are within the 14 neutral provinces scattered about the map. Besides these 14, Poland and the Western Intervention forces start the game as neutral, though pro White, so Diplomatic actions might also be used towards them. Of course a player or AI could invade these provinces to gain the resources, but they must be certain that they can handle the new front when still dealing with your main opponent who will benefit with additional income from his new ally. Diplomacy will be a good tactic in order to avoid these issues.

So based on the above sketch, I have a few questions and presumptions.

TRIGGER - There is a priority in my mind of which neutrals the AI should concentrate on while never completely ignoring the others. So if I set a Red trigger of 100% on neutrals A B & C, does that mean that every turn, the Red AI will spend chits in these three neutrals? And therefore if I set the trigger at 75% for neutrals D E & F, will this in turn mean that there is a 3 out of 4 chance that a chit will be spent during the same turn on these? (Providing of course that there are chits available)

ACTIVATE POSITION: I have to be honest here, I'm not sure how, or if I need to, use this script. Based on my overview, if anyone knows how I can apply this one please let me know.

FRIENDLY POSITION and TACTICAL POSITION:

I'm wondering what the difference is between these two. Using the pic example below, when devising a RED Diplo script for the Mahkno Anarchists at Guilai Pole, I would set ROSTOV as a friendly position. Therefore if ROSTOV falls to the Whites, I presume that the RED AI will no longer spend chits for the Anarchists unless Rostov is retaken. Would I need to have Rostov as a Tactical Position as well to reactivate this script? And for the Whites, would I set ROSTOV as the TACTICAL POSITION that they would need to gain in order to start spending chits? Would the same thing be achieved if I set ROSTOV as a freindly position for the WHITES too, or would that be a mistake.

I have a couple of concerns however regarding whether or not this can really work. One problem I forsee is that a Diplomatic tug-of-war occurs which results in a stalemate for many of these neutrals. As the AI spends chits on the Volga Cossacks for example, so does the player resulting in neither ever gaining the advantage and hence the ally. I'm also concerned that the player, after a few turns will realize that there will be a certain number of chits needed to spend on a neutral in order to surpass the AI threshhold.

Is there a script command that will have the AI increase its' allocation of chits to a neutral if the activation percentage increases too much the other way?

My last question, for now, is the at start amount of chits that can be bought by the AI and players. Should I have many of them available to counter the stalemate issue, or will it work better having a limited amount? I was planning to make them affordable as well so that the Diplomacy aspect of the game could be managed by both sides.

Anyway, as you can see I want the Diplomacy scripting to work well in this game, and since there are a number of neutrals to gain control of (the army of the Czech Legion will be a boon for the winner of that "war") I hope to make it as interesting to play as the military side of things.

Any advise would be appreciated...

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/7789/image002zc0.th.jpg' alt='image002zc0.th.jpg'>

[ December 15, 2007, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: J P Wagner ]

[Philippe]

Really looking forward to seeing this one. But how do you handle victory conditions? There's no way this thing can be balanced, since the White's position is probably hopeless.

[J P Wagner]

Philippe...Historically the Whites were indeed at a disadvantage but that was primarily due to; 1. Non-cooperation between Denikin in the South, and Kolchak in the east. 2. The lack of resolve of the US, UK, and French to commit the necessary numbers, and have an offensive doctrine to create an effective secondary front. 3. The failure of the Whites to recognize the importance of the nationalities who wanted independence, such as the Finns, in return for military cooperation. 4. The failure to recognize Poland as an essential ally until it was too late...And,despite all this, it should be noted that the Whites did manage, on more than one occassion, to put the fear in Lenin that he could be defeated.

In the game, these clash of egos and blunders are not as prevelent so it is possible for the White player do to well. Saying that however, it still will not be easy for the Whites to acheive a major victory because I must adhere to Denikin's obsession with taking Moscow. Had he backed off from that position, and did not stretch his front lines thin, while trying to take the Bolshevik city, he could have had victory without it. For the White player, a Minor Victory will still be possible without Moscow.

[ December 15, 2007, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: J P Wagner ]

[Bill101]

It's hard to advise what diplomacy scripts you should use as it is a very difficult question. How does it play out without any?

The Makhnovists are an interesting phenomenon. They did fight the Ukrainian Nationalists without any prompting from the Red Army, so I would be more inclined to have them triggered by events around them, i.e. if White forces move to point X then they will be more likely to take up arms. A place like Ekaterinberg (have I spelt that right?) could be a trigger point as they did capture that at one point.

I'm looking forward to seeing this!

[J P Wagner]

You make a good point Bill but I have to balance historical recreation v. gameplay. I already have the Makhnovists leaning towards the Bolsheviks but still neutral which reflects your observations. I also had to make some consessions for gameplay reasons for the initial at start territories, so the city you are refering to, Ekaterindar is initially controlled by the Whites. As far as how the game plays without Diplomacy is something I would like to avoid if I can, but I do recognize the need to move on if it becomes a bear to deal with. I already am looking at alternatives should the Diplomacy model not work, (such as the event triggers you mentioned, to suppliment or replace Diplomacy) but hopefully they will not be needed.

[ December 15, 2007, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: J P Wagner ]