All is quiet on the Western Front (AI remark)

[Pocus]

Playing as Central Power, I have switched most of the war effort against Russia to knock them asap.

The issue here is that the French and English are not doing anything on the Western Front. If they put some pressure on me, I would need to spend MPP to refill corps and probably bring some from the East so a rotation of units could be done, but I spend almost nothing on the West currently.

What I would suggest is that if Russia is not in good shape (moral level probably, loss of some cities), then the Anglo-French should activate some scripts so they try to relieve some pressure on the Russians by attacking more, forcing the German to commit more resources to the West.

A more minor remark, a tactical one, but at regular interval the French artillery fires 5 time in a row against one of my corps, and that's not followed by an attack. I guess this is to not waste accumulated shells. Still, firing 5 time should mean an obligatory follow up attack just afterward ... seems a waste otherwise.

TL;DR
AI should not be as passive on a front if the other front is in bad shape (and if they are in good shape).

[Hubert Cater]

Typically in this case the Entente AI should look to invade Belgium to open up the front a bit. We had it happen much earlier on but there was some push back on this as some players wanted to play out this exact "what if" without this type of reaction from the AI, so it happens a bit later now but should still happen by at the latest early 1915 I believe. Then it might also invade the Netherlands.

I guess my question here is how far in are you and if this part has happened yet or not on your end?

[Pocus]

An update. I invaded Belgium as Germany, because I did not want the game to go too ahistorical with Entente invading Belgium, thus delaying US entry. So I did a mock invasion with a token force of 4 German corps and I did not even capture Bruxelles.
I have enough troop to cover the front from Bruxelles down the Switzerland with 2 extra corps in reserve. But I don't go to the offensive here, because my main point of focus is taking down Russia, where 60% of the German army is (and I'm well in the process of putting them down).

The issue here is that the Anglo-French are not putting pressure on me, even with their Russian allies in bad shape (moral fell around 45% and I have shattered the front now). This is October 1915, they do nothing, except the occasional artillery fire, followed 35% of the time by an assault and the rest by nothing. On average I have 3 steps losses (one third of a corps) on the west. I pour all my resources elsewhere.

I also read that players spotted that there was a 6-lines deep of troops when the game ends, with tons of French, English and US troops in France waiting.

Somehow I feel that the game AI is too reasonable [:D] Or said differently, the operational AI takes precedence over the strategic AI. The strategic AI should force assaults, to relief Russia (or another major country), if there are troops in reserve (I'm not asking for stupid suicide). Admittedly, the 2-3 first turns might see a high amount of losses for not much gain (Nivelles offensive style?) but the aim is not to take ground, it is to force spending on Germany and force them to switch part of their muscle from where they are (NOT on the Western front) to the Western front. As long as you have 10+ corps in reserve behind the main lines, send human waves !


Edit: Same thing on the Italian front, where I have also a covering force (8 corps, 4 being mountain corps). I understand Italy don't have the strength of France though, so perhaps an offensive can be coordinated with France attacks (and I understand that for the AI it might be tough to pull out...).

In conclusion, I feel that the player has too much free reign on the course of the war. Choose one focus front, put your resources there. For all other fronts, just do the minimum, and the AI will not attack much in any case, because operationally speaking, the first attacks against the player seems costly. But that's only a curtain. Once you start doing losses, it might crumble and force the player to react. But the AI will never see that.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Pocus

An update. I invaded Belgium as Germany, because I did not want the game to go too ahistorical with Entente invading Belgium, thus delaying US entry. So I did a mock invasion with a token force of 4 German corps and I did not even capture Bruxelles.
I have enough troop to cover the front from Bruxelles down the Switzerland with 2 extra corps in reserve. But I don't go to the offensive here, because my main point of focus is taking down Russia, where 60% of the German army is (and I'm well in the process of putting them down).

The issue here is that the Anglo-French are not putting pressure on me, even with their Russian allies in bad shape (moral fell around 45% and I have shattered the front now). This is October 1915, they do nothing, except the occasional artillery fire, followed 35% of the time by an assault and the rest by nothing. On average I have 3 steps losses (one third of a corps) on the west. I pour all my resources elsewhere.

I also read that players spotted that there was a 6-lines deep of troops when the game ends, with tons of French, English and US troops in France waiting.

Somehow I feel that the game AI is too reasonable [:D] Or said differently, the operational AI takes precedence over the strategic AI. The strategic AI should force assaults, to relief Russia (or another major country), if there are troops in reserve (I'm not asking for stupid suicide). Admittedly, the 2-3 first turns might see a high amount of losses for not much gain (Nivelles offensive style?) but the aim is not to take ground, it is to force spending on Germany and force them to switch part of their muscle from where they are (NOT on the Western front) to the Western front. As long as you have 10+ corps in reserve behind the main lines, send human waves !


Edit: Same thing on the Italian front, where I have also a covering force (8 corps, 4 being mountain corps). I understand Italy don't have the strength of France though, so perhaps an offensive can be coordinated with France attacks (and I understand that for the AI it might be tough to pull out...).

In conclusion, I feel that the player has too much free reign on the course of the war. Choose one focus front, put your resources there. For all other fronts, just do the minimum, and the AI will not attack much in any case, because operationally speaking, the first attacks against the player seems costly. But that's only a curtain. Once you start doing losses, it might crumble and force the player to react. But the AI will never see that.

The thing is that until the Chantilly Conference in December 1915, the Entente did not really co-ordinate their actions. It was only in 1916 that they started to do this properly. So I think this is quite a difficult thing to model accurately.

[Chernobyl]

The ai is bad and doesn't really know how to position their troops well or (ab)use artillery. The ai tends to lash out violently in surprising/questionable attacks.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

The ai is bad and doesn't really know how to position their troops well or (ab)use artillery. The ai tends to lash out violently in surprising/questionable attacks.

If the AI is "bad" then I don't know what that makes me![:)] Of course, there is always a big gap between SP and MP, but the best I can do as the Central Powers is get a Stalemate. I have never won a game with them. Entente is much easier.

[Chernobyl]

Well also note the AI does get additional units which spawn that humans don't get. In addition to +20% money and +20% experience that can contribute

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

If the AI is "bad" then I don't know what that makes me![:)] Of course, there is always a big gap between SP and MP, but the best I can do as the Central Powers is get a Stalemate. I have never won a game with them. Entente is much easier.

Hmmm..against a good Central Powers player, the Entente is definitely harder. I should know, I play mostly Entente. [8|]

[Pocus]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

The ai is bad and doesn't really know how to position their troops well or (ab)use artillery. The ai tends to lash out violently in surprising/questionable attacks.

Actually I think this is one of the best AI on the market. But that's not the issue, we know players are better than AIs. It is more a suggestion for improvement thread.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

If the AI is "bad" then I don't know what that makes me![:)] Of course, there is always a big gap between SP and MP, but the best I can do as the Central Powers is get a Stalemate. I have never won a game with them. Entente is much easier.

Hmmm..against a good Central Powers player, the Entente is definitely harder. I should know, I play mostly Entente. [8|]

Yes, I am only referring to games against the AI.