The AI CSA in the West

[jscott991]

What follows will be 8 screenshots from 4 different games. The first screenshot will show the Richmond province's CSA army, the date, etc. The next screenshot will show the army group map from that same game.

I didn't want to flood my other thread, because I really would like something to be done about this, even if its just the most minor of tweaking.

Game #1 Richmond Army

[jscott991]

Game #1 Army Overview

[jscott991]

Game #2, Richmond army

[jscott991]

Game #2, Army overview

[jscott991]

Game #3, Richmond army

[jscott991]

Game #3, Army overview

[jscott991]

Game #4, Richmond army

[jscott991]

Game #4, Army overview

[jscott991]

These are all the savegame files I have at the moment.  Games 1, 2, and 4 show the problem very clearly.  Notice that the AI has moved one of the western army containers to Richmond in two of the games (in addition to division containers from the west). Notice also the 4 or 5 star AI general without an army in two games. Game #3 is less clear, but shows something. I quit game 3 (the game that Hard Sarge takes as my great defeat), when the two army containers moved toward Richmond on the next turn. That's the most competitive game I've played so far.

I'm willing to play as many times as necessary and take whatever screenshots are necessary, if people doubt this problem is occuring.

It is very repeatable.  I'm confident I can "make" it happen every time.  And by make, I don't mean much.  All you have to do is sit on the defensive in the east, take out the Fredericksburg fortresses when the AI abandons them, build your own fortress in Fredericksburg, and then just advance steadily in the west.  In fact, I'm pretty confident that if you do absolutely nothing in the east except sit, this problem will still occur (the ultimate vindication of McClellan's late 1861 plan to do nothing). It is a very simple strategy to always win.  The AI will pack Richmond in virtually every game.

[Randomizer]

I don't doubt what you are seeing but overall, I don't find the same problem.  A couple of caveats however:
 
- I do not use quick combat, only detailed and on rare occasions, instant combat.
 
- My Eastern forces for the Union are generally maxed out at about 100,000 plus the Washington garrisons, organized into two major field forces.
 
What seems to be happening is that the AI does indeed pack enough troops into the Richmond area to keep it secure but the numbers seem to reflect what the Union deploys in proximity.  I have lots of action out west and several Confederate field forces totalling 60,000+ or more.  The AI just threw me out of Chattanooga, but I fought off a counter attack against Memphis, taken in 2-July 1863.
 
Have found instant combat to be too much of a crap shoot particularly when choosing the Assault option for a siege but a detailed combat assault can bring great rewards even if the outcome is not a sure thing.  But for some reason I have an active and fairly effective AI in the West and the only variable based on what you have posted, is my relatively weaker Eastern armies.
 
Best Regards

[Graycompany]

I play on 1Sgt Lvl too, because I dont like giving the AI ahistorical advantages, that being said I am in Mid 1863, and the AI is attacking out west, in fact it is doing a great job of spreading me out, and has attacked along the Ohio river this turn forcing me once again to send a Strong Corp to repulse them again. I have landed in Texas, and taken the Capitol there, and have retaken missouri. The CSA western forces continue to try an disrupte my supply by moving behind the lines as I advance. In the East, Fredricksuburg has changed hands 6 times, and the last turn the CSA attacked Maryland DC area, the battle, the biggest battle of the war so far. I outnumbered the South 2.5 to 1 and it rained the whole battle, which cut loses down, the south lost 32,000 I lost 25,000 as the north. the outcome was never really in doubt but they did break a number of Union bgds. I have more troops and better weapons, which is as it should be, but the AI in my game continues to advance. I only do detailed battles, whith a few instant when the outcome wont really matter. I am at 17 Victory points, I do not control KY, even tho it came in on the side of the Union. I have taken parts of TN, and am just starting my push to take the Forts along the Mississippi. I find he AI to do what it should do, for the most part. I try an play with a historical flavor and try and not to overwhelm the AI, but play as the North did. I play with Govenors on for the simple reason it adds flavor and forces me to have to deal with a political side of the game as the North had to do. I also when requested by a Gov, put their friends in commands. I also try an promote Gen from states which I raise the troops (not always the best General). All that being said, I too wouldnt mind a few Ai tweaks that could perhaps be another Scen or so so that the AI takes a different path. I always play the game that starts in may/june?. I find this gives the south a little help in detailed battles, because the Northern armies break and run due to Morale loses, often dropping weapons that I just bought, and now have to spend money again. I also try and do what Govoners want, even if it does not makes sense to me, like putting in a Horse farm in a area that I use for Iron production. It will be a waste of Money, but I look at it as keeping the War effort happy. I Love this game, and playing the detailed battles are amazing, I name all my Bgd's, give them all their own flags, I try and keep gen from the same states in bgd's that were raised in that state. The AI is the AI, and the Human player will always have an advantage.

[jscott991]

The migration east begins in my latest game. The date is January 1863! He's abandoning the west already. As I get better at the game, the withdrawal date is pushed earlier and earlier.

The funny thing was that he was WINNING in the east this time. I haven't even taken Fredericksburg. But this isn't a problem. It's good AI strategy . . .

[Hard Sarge]

from what I see, the CSA has about 60,000 men (if that), out west and the side of Vig, you look to have at least 160,000, what do you want it to do ?

to be honest, I think you want the AI to pull out of the East, so you can defeat it in detail, away from it's defences, as you don't think you can break it, while it is defending

you got the game stacked in your favor, enjoy it, if that is how you want to play it (I like scoring 100 points a game in Madden football)

[jscott991]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

you got the game stacked in your favor, enjoy it, if that is how you want to play it

I have the game stacked in my favor when playing on a difficulty that includes an economic penalty to my side (First Sergeant reduces player resources slightly)? We come from very different worlds.

You're a strange guy.

You act like I want the AI to stop packing the East so I can win the game.

I can win the game either way! It's EASIER to win the game when he packs Richmond than if he followed almost any strategy other than outright disbanding his brigades.

Seriously, do you even read my posts? Do you even look at the screenshots? Or do you just find it amusing to imply (or just explicitly state) that I'm an idiot?

[jscott991]

And the migration is complete.
Date: May 1863

This is the worst I've seen, and the last time I'll post a screenshot. My head can only take banging into that wall so many times.

[terje439]

At this last screenshot.

Obviously the game is won by the Union long ago.
This is how I see it:
The AI is trying to hang on. What would it help to move the smallest army and Div from VA? Nothing! It could move into NC and be attacked by two Union armies and defeated. It seems you outnumber the AI 5:1 in total strength. And when you do not want to give the AI a boost (your call for sure) there is not much the AI CAN do tbh.

Had this been a pbem game, I as the CSA would have admitted defeat a long time ago, but if I was to fight it out, I would simply keep two armies in VA back to back and let the other player finish his game.

In my oppinion you are playing the game at too easy a difficulty level and you then seem upset that you are winning too easy. Sorry but I have to side with HS on this one, if you do not want to see these results, you need to up the difficulty.

Just my thought, and not in any way ment as an attack on you or anything.
Terje

[jscott991]

The AI can't win the game in the last screenshot. That's true.  But he started pulling out in late 1862 (look at the second army container in Richmond in the January 1863 screenshot), before I had even stepped on Virginian soil in the east. You can't just look at the last shot in microcosm and say I'm just mad the game is too easy without AI cheats. The story runs deeper that that. The strategy he is following is incorrect, no matter what difficulty is selected.  This is what I've been trying to convey.

The AI can prolong the game more effectively by contesting in the west.  In the game above, the AI abandoned the west before I had even taken Memphis.  In one or two of the other 4 games, he abandoned the west before I had taken Vicksburg.  If the AI simply leaves 10 brigades (20k to 30k men) in Memphis or Vicksburg, it would do far more damage to my chances to win (or at least my western armies) than he can possibly hope to accomplish sitting in Richmond.

You, Gil, and HS make excellent points IF Richmond were necessary to win the game.  It's not.  It's really not even close to necessary (I've yet to have to take any of the Carolinas or Alabama to win; in fact, you can usually win the game by simply taking Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, emancipating, and maintaining a full blockade -- the specifics depend on battle results of course).  

The three of you also proceed from the premise that this a game first and a historical simulation second (hence the love of an ahistorical balance of forces between the South and the North, dependent on which side the player chooses to play).  If that's the case, why doesn't the AI recognize that this is a game and defend VP objectives rather than focusing on defending a historical objective (Richmond)?

If the AI sits in Fredericksburg with the ANV (and limits it to just 80,000 men or so) and sits a smaller field army in Memphis, it will play a significantly better game than the current AI.  This deployment would also leave a large number of brigades for a third army that can harass and delay an invasion of Tennessee.  Right now, the AI creates only one army and sits it in Richmond.  Over time, it will eliminate all of its other field formations in favor of one army.  Honestly, I can't understand why I'm having such trouble convincing people that this is a flaw: It's 1) ahistorical; 2) incompetent; 3) repeatable; and 4) at odds with the rules and objectives of Forge of Freedom.  What more defines a flaw?

This strategy will NEVER work to win the game. It is NEVER a good idea.  Hence, it's an AI flaw.

But it's not going to be fixed.  So, I'm not going to bother to post more evidence of it.  What I do post is simply being ignored, discounted, or used as the grounds to argue I'm an inept player.

[terje439]

I am not arguing that you are an inept player in any way.

However, you state "You, Gil, and HS make excellent points IF Richmond were necessary to win the game. It's not. It's really not even close to necessary (I've yet to have to take any of the Carolinas or Alabama to win".

This is the thing, you need to see this from both sides, both the Union and the CSA.
Union side - does NOT need to capture VA to win
CSA - NEEDS VA to have any chance to stay in the game. VA (and to some extent GA) is the CSAs armory/barrack.

If VA falls, no matter what, the game is lost to the CSA. It can however easily lose the war yet keep VA, but the other way around is not going to happen.
I too, have not seen this (but that cannot be used as an argument as I never play the Northern agressor when I take on the AI), but what I have seen is that when I have had a few run ins with the Union Western Army, its situation deteriorates too fast. There is simply no way he can make good the losses I inflict, and as a result I have to agree with the AI that placing one brigade a turn into the West is a waste.

What I would like to see on the other side, is that the AI relocates his armies to make the best use of the winter months. Reform, rearm and resupply is what the AI should do at that time, this might help reset the balance.

I do however also agree with you that capturing brigades is too easy, and I do believe this is why you see what you are seing. You capture alot of brigades, the AI's forces get too weak to resist you, and there is no longer any sense in pushing brigades into the fray piecemeal.

Terje

[jscott991]

You've reversed the argument (just like HS and Gil have done) to be one of if the AI loses Virginia, it loses, so it should lose by losing the west. This implies the choice is no troops in the west or no troops in the east. This isn't the choice.

If the AI packs LESS men in Virginia, it is simply RISKING the loss of Virginia.  If it places all of its troops in Virginia (and right now, it moves western forces east; it doesn't just put new production there), it GUARANTEES a loss of the game.

The AI has a SMALL chance to win by limiting the size of the ANV.  It has NO chance to win by stripping the west. 

If it were stripping the west only at the end of the game, that's one thing.  It starts to strip the west before anything has been decided. 

And it does this for the same reason it doesn't defend Fredericksburg or Memphis: It incompetently values fortifications and it engages in a crude count of Union troops in the east and overestimates how many it needs to hold them off. 160,000 Confederates are NOT needed to defeat 200,000 Union troops in the east; I don't care what HS says about QC tricks, you aren't easily cracking the ANV in those fortresses with those odds, or straight 2-1 odds, as long as he has 27 brigades to meet the cap.

You are right, though, about where a lot of the CSA's manpower goes.  It is surrendering after quick combats.  But in the other thread, I've been told that isn't a problem either.  So it's all a rich tapestry of how nothing I've said has any value.

[terje439]

Ah, but you forget something.
"aren't easily cracking the ANV in those fortresses with those odds, or straight 2-1 odds, as long as he has 27 brigades to meet the cap. "
Sure, you might not win the battles. You will however wear him down. I am quite certain that you as a player recieve far more reinforcements than the South.

But tbh I've never seen this happen in my games, so I will fire one up now to see what happens.

Will post back in a while.

Terje