XAI 3.4 For KGCM coming soon !

**pdp** · January 24, 2009, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by MiiKLL

Another thing that I have tried too....is to change all the factions in the "descr_sm_factions" to prefer navel invasions....these minor changes can make for an interesting albeit non-historical campaign....lol....imagine the surprise of having a boatload of Mongols showing up on your French Riviera when you thought they were way back east terrorizing the vast Russian Steppes....

Very, very interesting scenario: a Mongol D-Day

I like naval invasions and hope your research could improve them.

**Glabro** · January 24, 2009, 06:14 PM

MiiKLL, that sounds like a great idea to get the even more AI aggressive. I'll have to test it out! What other nuggets of wisdom have you got hidden within that cranium of yours, I wonder?

**RandomAttack** · January 24, 2009, 06:59 PM

MiKLL, that IS wild--I'd never considered going that extreme...going to have to give it a try!

**Hxr030771** · January 25, 2009, 12:07 AM

40 Rounds on M/M with HRR. Portugal and Spain get's destroyed by the Moors (and France?). France has a Alliance with HRR. So they have no action from East. Mailand at war with HRR. So they can't attack France.

**pdp** · January 25, 2009, 09:10 AM

Started new game with latest Beta5 + Fixed_campaign_AI; 70 rounds; H/H as France; allied with Pope and HR. Nobody ever attacked me. I attacked and easily destroyed UK. At turn 60, Danes (good relations) landed near London but are still there; neither sieging nor retreating. Later, I retreated all my troops from London to invite to attack, but nothing. Relations with my ally HR are always poor or very poor (?); good with others. The AI passiveness is boring... however I won't attack to look at others'. Perhaps now is H/H too soft for AI?

**g4m3m4st3r** · January 25, 2009, 06:04 PM

hey MiiKLL i think i will give a new try with ur tricks with the win conditions, imo the AI picks the short one? what were the results after u changed it? did Ireland invade england or france? well i think the AI is too passive after i can get a good foundation with some full stacks, no1 dares to atk me lol. I would love to play a campaign where all keeps expanding and killing each other to see whos the last standing.

**xeryx** · January 25, 2009, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by pdp

Started new game with latest Beta5 + Fixed_campaign_AI; 70 rounds; H/H as France; allied with Pope and HR. Nobody ever attacked me. I attacked and easily destroyed UK. At turn 60, Danes (good relations) landed near London but are still there; neither sieging nor retreating. Later, I retreated all my troops from London to invite to attack, but nothing. Relations with my ally HR are always poor or very poor (?); good with others. The AI passiveness is boring... however I won't attack to look at others'. Perhaps now is H/H too soft for AI?

WHY would you ally with the POPE? Nobody is just going to attack you and start a war, if you have the Pope as a powerful ally.

House rule "never ally with the POPE" because it cannot be fixed within the game, to keep you from doing it. I bet you were the only one Allied with him too.

You guys need to relax with the comments, of saying it is passive. If it is, we need to figure out why? it is being "passive" Then we will make much more progress on this. Don't just make a generic statement without some proof and explanation of the circumstances. I cannot troubleshoot the code with generic statements. This is why, I "preach" Detail!!

**budget_security** · January 25, 2009, 06:49 PM

About the passive AI thing, I'm also having that problem. I run a game on vh/vh beta5 and very few new wars are declared in 100 turns, particularly among the Catholics (except when excommunicated). It would seem to have everything to do with what religion each faction has (my attempt at an answer to xeryx's passive AI question). The Catholics start virtually no new wars amongst themselves but are quite happy to go to war with any other religion. Also, when the Mongols had exterminated the Kievan Rus and were crushing Poland and the Teutonic Order, they did not go to war with the Lithuanians even though it would have made sense to, could the fact they are both pagan be the reason? I’m new here so sorry if this sounds stupid, but is it possible to make religion a bit less important to the AI when considering war? Don't get me wrong, I like the way the AI takes religion into consideration, but...

edit: after some more testing, it would seem the above problem is not always serious (I dont know if it has something to do with the CAI fix or not?)

**xeryx** · January 25, 2009, 07:07 PM

Thank you for clarifying that up, budget_security. Yes there is always going to be some favor for the religions, I will however check some to the religious rules, the attack priority between them may need adjusted. However there can be other issues like goals and such that can interfere with this stuff..So we are working out he best way to accomplish that.

We may need to do some minor adjustments, maybe not giving them the diplomatic bonus would help.

**g4m3m4st3r** · January 26, 2009, 06:29 AM

@MiiKLL the win_conditions text file doesnt have anything to do with the AI, it just describes objectives of factions for human players.
i think to make the game a bit more harder we should play with lots of self made rules like no ally,no invasion in the first 20 turns, no quick save-load, no money gain through diplomacy, etc
well anyway i always lose my interest after max 100 turns coz the AI isnt smart enough to build up a good high-late armies or expand logically, most factions stick to their own goals and never try to put up a good war against me.

**Hxr030771** · January 26, 2009, 06:41 AM

I don't think the AI is too passive. Look for example at the French...

**PaterNoster** · January 26, 2009, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by xeryx

...But salvation of factions, will most likely not happen with this CAI. Large factions will emerge. I like this myself, because it creates way more fun later in the game.

NEVER change this opinion! BTW: Is there a way to edit the moneyscripts to increase the money-gains every x turns? I have no time to play these days but in unmodded KGCM the game went too easy after the initial expansion-phase...

(Had some probs with my no-script utility. Embarrassing... So, I had to add my reply in this way...)

For all those with similar probs:

You have to allow yahooapis.com...

**pwf224** · January 26, 2009, 11:03 AM

One little thing to point out: Is there any way to lessen the amount of excommunications per game, or at least at a single time. If anything, I just want them lowered in frequency. For example, within the first 5 turns, there will be at least 3-5 factions already excommunicated (the majority in the British Isles, but that has nothing to do with it really). It then becomes an issue when the entire "possible crusades" list is all excommunicated catholic cities, and not Pagan or Islamic ones, like they would be. I do not mind having 1 or 2 factions on the naughty list, and their capitals up for grabs, but I do not like how so many can be excommunicated at once, taking up the whole list or crusade targets. Is there a way to lower the frequency?

**xeryx** · January 26, 2009, 11:17 AM

You guys really need to think about things. I am going to explain how this all works, because people do not seem to be able to be satisfied with the game.
I didn't make the game, and I am limited as to what I can do.

If you do not like lots of war, lower the difficulty of the Campaign. When the CAI is aggressive, there is going to be lots of excommunications and lots of wars. The majority of the factions in the game are Catholics. So, what is going to happen when Catholics are at war? They get excommunicated, period there is no maybe. These rules are in place for reasons.

The English Isles have had issues in every single mod I have ever played! This problem is not unique to XAI. People you have played this game for years now, you know how it has played with Vanilla's and Lusted's CAI. So let's get realistic in your comments..otherwise they will get ignored or deleted.

You all want an aggressive AI, You have that. You have difficulty levels to use if it is either too "passive" or too "aggressive"

Now with that said, I am 100% positive that there some things we can do to improve the performance, maybe check all the British isles for can naval invade, and other things.

Yes, I am sure that it can get adjusted to some degree, those are in the Faction Standings file. If you have any ideas I will listen. I just don't like when some people post, just so they can complain (not saying you). Especially considering the CAI is working better than it ever has.

**pwf224** · January 26, 2009, 11:39 AM

Yes I know it has been a problem in past AI's, but I was wondering if there were specific rules that could be tweaked in the AI to make excommunications less frequent, regardless of wars. For example, if there were a line in the AI that said something like for every war between Catholic factions, each turn they each lose .3 "pope points", instead this could be changed to .2 "pope points". IDK if this file or line in a file existed that is why I was asking.

**xeryx** · January 27, 2009, 08:58 AM

Ok so areas we need to improve, if possible.

If you guys can run the AI logging that would be awesome. This way when you run int an issue, you could look at it.

1) British Isles..more naval invasion.
2) Look at the Faction Goals.

**Dave Scarface** · January 27, 2009, 11:11 AM

One little thing to point out: Is there any way to lessen the amount of excommunications per game, or at least at a single time. If anything, I just want them lowered in frequency.

I did try changing this in the descr faction standing text before. But my changes seemed to have little or no effect. Like xeryx said though with the number of Catholic factions in this campaign and plus the number of wars. You are never going to keep excommunications down to a minimum unless you have world peace. And I'm sure this is not what any of you want?

Ireland or Norway are fixed in their islands and it makes playing france or TO too boring coz no enemies from the sea.
Btw i tried to do sth with the descr_sm_factions and i found there 'prefers_naval_invasion' option.

Okay guys, you need to understand why every faction should not have "prefers naval invasions". For instance England is currently set to prefer not to like naval invasions. Why? because England was sending boats off to places like Hamburg and Antwerp before while it was losing settlements back in England to Wales, Ireland, Scotland. Prefer naval invasions works best for smaller factions not big factions with many enemies. Ireland, Wales, and Norway are already on prefer naval invasions. Do you want England and Scotland sending boats abroad? why? I understand that people want better naval invasions. But lets keep the feedback specifically on how the CAI is expanding, alliances etc.

Lastly I would like to say thanks to every KGCM fan in this thread who has helped to give xeryx great feedback so far. I myself have been unable to test this much due to working on my own final update. Please keep the great feedback coming guys.

Good luck,
Dave

**g4m3m4st3r** · January 27, 2009, 12:13 PM

my vh/vh france campaign about turn 100 with no garrison script:
scotland kiked norway out of british isles and then got destroyed by england, only england and ireland left there and they in war with each other but they did no invasion coz they didnt know how to transport armies with boats? i converted caen into city and i garrisoned my coastline cities with the minimum force coz there was no threat from britain.
and what did hre and venice do after they conquered milan, florence and genoa? they let milan stay there on the tiny island rite next to em.And Sicily with like 10 full stacks of norman knights and didnt even declare war with moors? ( maybe the italian love peace)
Did some changes in the sm_factions and descr_strat ( turn naval invasion on for england, make em at war with france and ireland from the beginning and in abysal relation) => england did move alot of armies to reinforce caen and rennes and did atk em, but after i got control of those 2 settlements, they didnt do anything else except from blockading my ports while their boats were filled with some units?? same happened with jerusalem and venice, a stack of units in boats and stood by byzantines islands, well jerusalem did unload once but no attack and then loaded back and sailed back ( here i made jerusalem at war with byzantines not with egypt )
=> i think the ai knows they can expand across the sea but just doesnt know how to do it corrtectly ( remember playing greek and being cornered by all of 3 roman factions? i whether gave my cities to macedon or left em with no garrison and move asia minor, they just kept chasing me and took all of my islands within the 1st 10 turns -> what i want to say here maybe u can take a look in the files of rtw and find out how they could make the ai so agressive with naval invasion ? i tried but i couldnt find exactly which files , my guess is the campaign_ai)

**MiiKLL** · January 27, 2009, 12:27 PM

Hello...another thing with "prefers naval invasions"....with the improved peformance of naval invasions by way of XCAI....it seems that even factons that have that preference set to "no"...are recruiting more ships. There is already a problem with trying to coax the High/hardcoded AI to spend more of its money on city/castle upgrades instead of always blowingit all on troops. The last thing the AI needs is to do is spend money spamming more ships.

@ Dave ...I mentioned in a thread on the RetroFit conversion about maybe adjusting the replenishment rates to slow down the AI troops/ships per turn recruiting...but still keep the 1 turn recruitment. Though I do believe at the minimum....it would help to do it with ships...to slow the AI ship spam.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...49#post4340749

@ g4m3m4st3r ....problem is that modders dont have access to the AI files like they do in MedievelII/Kingdoms.

**xeryx** · January 28, 2009, 09:11 AM

I think Ships should be 2 and 3 turns because they take along time to build. Highly trained units like knights should be 2 turns, any good to elite unit. In a perfect world of course. Changing the # of turns should reduce spamming. I would change the recruitment pools on them as well.

Maintenance of units, should be relatively low. I think 1/4 works well. Which may infact promote city growth. If the AI sees keeping older units as cost effective (yes, I know I'm reaching here) then maybe it will build building vs. building new units.