安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
1 
举报此帖
I can't do much unfortunately, all these suggestions are perfectly reasonable, trust me, if I could I would write a much more exhaustive diplomatic decisionmaking than the default one.
Unfortunately most AI decisions are a black box with just a few sliders that can be changed in the defines file.
Every decision is done exclusively based on 1)opinion 2)rival system.
This leaves no room for subtlety, I am afraid. I have 0 control over what wars are declared, I have 0 control over who gets rivalled.
I guess I can be convinced to add more opinion modifiers that will cause AI to hate the sole leader of the galaxy and love each other in the case of existance of one, but it may be too much railroading.
In the confines of what little that could be done:
1) How about restrict the number of Rivals to 1, and increase the amount of influence you get from it to compensate. That will make less neighbours have very bad opinion at the same time to each AI, reducing the chance of 2-front wars. And also make it harder for a human player to abuse it. It won't fix the problem entirely, but might alleviate it. Probably also best to delay being able to declare rivals until you meet at least 2 empires or after a certain amount of time, otherwise the first empire an AI meets will always be their rival. This does change a game function rather than pure AI changes though.
2) I agree it does sound like railroading if the AI just hates the leader automatically. But if you could find out who is the leader, would you be able to determine the ranking of empires by power, and the power differential? Perhaps something could be done there, depends how much information you could get to use as conditions.
3) While I was playing, I observed Mutual Threat and Threat seems to decay quite quickly. I wonder if having it last longer may help the weaker AIs ally more. Perhaps this could be tweaked.
I think whatever that could be done will have to be more indirect, which means they have to be tested in actual games to see if they have the intended effect. Thanks for sharing your insight on what is possible.
There is a problem with the pacifists though, I've seen 2 pacifist empires rivalling and attacking each other, whereas it's much more to their benefit to cooperate and ally. Since they can't wage unrestricted wars to conquer, and liberation wars are of limited benefit due to them sharing the pacifist ethic already. And the AIs aren't smart enough to use liberation to divide up their neighbours.
And fanatic pacifists also often have poor opinion of other pacifists as well, even though they can't declare any wars. They should have their opinion modifiers tweaked, and probably should use a different economy profile.
I've tried out a game allowing only 1 rival at a time for 1 influence gain, and I think it makes for a better game. It makes the decision on who to rival much more meaningful, and it's much harder to abuse rivalling to manipulate AIs to like you.
I've tried out a few opinion modifiers as well, for example an opinion buff for AIs for specific neighbours to make potential allies if they have a strong enemy threat close by. I'm still tweaking it and testing it, but it has a lot of potential. It works better than Mutual Threat, which comes too late after the AIs already have a lot of systems conquered, and is often useless because other AIs can't join wars, so defense pacts and independence guarantees does nothing. I'll report back if anyone is interested, or if @salvor has any interest in integrating such changes into Starnet.