Who else just plays single-player on here?

[stockwellpete]

I only play SP at the moment, basically because I just enjoy pottering about with the game for a couple of hours each day as we all try and get through this wretched lockdown (I am in the UK). I usually end up trying to research something about WW1 on the internet as a result.

It has been clear to me for some while that there is a great difference between how players experience the game in SP and MP. Things like buying the Ottomans an airship never even occur to me because after a while I know that the hostile amphibious landing will happen at Beirut if I leave it unoccupied. And to play MP effectively I think you really have to understand the rules very well, especially supply, whereas I am still finding out new things about the game every day.

There are lots of interesting comments posted every day, but my guess is that most of them are posted by players who do MP. It would be helpful to me to know if I am reading something from someone just playing SP like myself.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I only play SP at the moment, basically because I just enjoy pottering about with the game for a couple of hours each day as we all try and get through this wretched lockdown (I am in the UK). I usually end up trying to research something about WW1 on the internet as a result.

It has been clear to me for some while that there is a great difference between how players experience the game in SP and MP. Things like buying the Ottomans an airship never even occur to me because after a while I know that the hostile amphibious landing will happen at Beirut if I leave it unoccupied. And to play MP effectively I think you really have to understand the rules very well, especially supply, whereas I am still finding out new things about the game every day.

There are lots of interesting comments posted every day, but my guess is that most of them are posted by players who do MP. It would be helpful to me to know if I am reading something from someone just playing SP like myself.

I play both and yes very different!

[Espejo]

I like SP as preparation for MP. Unit destribution. Avaliable MP learn the basic rules. Alas, Strategic command is somewhat up to expert lvl a bit to easy in SP and very hard on expert. So there is than no much room for surprises and a normal progress in tech etc. as you fight. against AI elite shock troops all the time.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Espejo

I like SP as preparation for MP. Unit destribution. Avaliable MP learn the basic rules. Alas, Strategic command is somewhat up to expert lvl a bit to easy in SP and very hard on expert. So there is than no much room for surprises and a normal progress in tech etc. as you fight. against AI elite shock troops all the time.

I don't know if you do already, but you can play on the highest difficulty level but reduce the AI's unit experience bonus via the Options screen, so that their income and other things are higher, but their units aren't all powerful.

[Chernobyl]

I played a game against the ai on veteran difficulty (minus the experience bonus) where I declared war on the USA on turn 1 in 1914.

Unfortunately, other than sporting some impressive tech (infantry weapons level 2 way before anyone else), the USA did very little. I spotted a USA corps in France as early as 1915, but they made very little difference as France was already clogged with Entente units (+20% MPP and various AI bonuses). Some American DD eventually did attempt some ASW near Germany (I didn't do any atlantic sub raiding in this game). That was about it for the USA. Russia surrendered and the Entente lines are broken in France and Italy.

The AI is not bad for an AI, but it just can't compete with the human brain. It's especially bad once the front breaks down in either a major or minor way. For example if you obliterate one row of their line too quickly, they often rush or rail in replacements to "fill the line" in France, often neglecting to entrench. The AI doesn't seem to consider when falling back may be the best option (for example if I have four artillery pieces aiming at a certain area, it's probably better to not attempt to move units in even if they do entrench). And even worse is the Russia AI which has no concept of how to continue the war once one of their fronts gets busted open. They usually send 1-3 units to each town and just sit there, slowly getting encircled. Their HQ seem confused about where to be, often clustering uselessly in the Ukraine without an army, or sending too many rebuilt corps to the Caucasus where nothing is happening. The AI doesn't understand how to maximize artillery usage which is a big deal. Probably half a dozen times at least where the AI correctly fired many artillery shells at one of my units and then either didn't follow up with an attack or only followed up with a halfhearted attack that failed to destroy my unit.

Tech wise the AI makes some strange choices. It's not prioritizing Industrial Tech enough. That technology is overpowered (should be nerfed to +10% instead of +15) and a must have, but looking at the MPP graph I don't think the UK or Russia researched it. France seems to have researched Industry. The AI got Infantry Weapons EXTREMELY quickly. Russia was sporting them in mid 1915 when Germany was only 49% done! This was probably the result of a few lucky research breakthroughs (too random in my opinion, should be reduced in effect). They are also fairly quick to get artillery tech, but don't quite prioritize artillery and shell production enough, as they lagged slightly behind getting artillery weapons 2 and the highest shell production techs (both overpowered techs). In some ways the AI actually outpaced me in tech, as they were sporting high levels of ASW when I hadn't researched any ASW or sub tech yet.

The naval AI needs to understand that it's too dangerous to hang out near enemy ports. Especially once I get blimps and subs for spotting. It's attempting to do ASW missions near my ports that harbor BB and DN. Although I didn't consciously attempt this, I believe it's possible to bait the ai into sending a group of DD/CL near your ports/fleet by simply having subs near your ports.

Their NM was actually quite high throughout most of the game (UK is still sitting at 97% and the USA is at 114%). I think the AI gets some bonus where it gets free NM every turn. Also the USA joining in the beginning gave them all a boost. At one point I was rapidly destroying French corps and their NM was actually rising. However once you take Verdun and Warsaw I believe France and Russia start getting ticked in NM every turn. Eventually Russia collapsed, but only after I had conquered pretty much every NM objective available besides Petrograd and Moscow.

It's March 1917 and losses counts of all types except naval mines and partisans are
UK: 64
France: 87
Italy: 38
Serbia: 11
Russia: 127
USA: 14
Germany 6
Austria: 6
Ottomans: 0

NM:
UK 97%
France 43%
Italy 19%
USA: 114%
Germany: 113%
Austria: 150%
Ottomans: 91%

[Pocus]

I find too that enemy DDs are very suicidal and aggressive:

[Chernobyl]

Want to also list some major AI problems in single player. This is in the same game where I declared war on the USA in 1914 and the game ends in July 1917.

-The USA AI had most of its army sitting in America, including all four HQ units. Pershing and his fellow generals never crossed the Atlantic. Many US corps did reach France, but most land units stayed in the USA.
-The USA AI had a buildup of over 7000 MPP at the game end, with plenty of tech and naval units available for purchase.
-The AI did not use nearly all of its diplomacy chits. For example the USA never bought a single diplomacy chit. These could have really hurt me if they were invested in the Netherlands.
-The AI invested in Industrial Tech for France and the USA (level 4 and 5 at the end) but didn't for UK and Russia. They were both level 1 only at the end. This is a colossal mistake. Russia and UK are the ones who benefit the most for the Entente.
-Some of the AI tech choices were fine, but some are bizarre. For example France never invested in Command+Control. They are researching advanced subs and have 3 chits in airships but are still at level 1 C&C.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Want to also list some major AI problems in single player. This is in the same game where I declared war on the USA in 1914 and the game ends in July 1917.

-The USA AI had most of its army sitting in America, including all four HQ units. Pershing and his fellow generals never crossed the Atlantic. Many US corps did reach France, but most land units stayed in the USA.
-The USA AI had a buildup of over 7000 MPP at the game end, with plenty of tech and naval units available for purchase.
-The AI did not use nearly all of its diplomacy chits. For example the USA never bought a single diplomacy chit. These could have really hurt me if they were invested in the Netherlands.
-The AI invested in Industrial Tech for France and the USA (level 4 and 5 at the end) but didn't for UK and Russia. They were both level 1 only at the end. This is a colossal mistake. Russia and UK are the ones who benefit the most for the Entente.
-Some of the AI tech choices were fine, but some are bizarre. For example France never invested in Command+Control. They are researching advanced subs and have 3 chits in airships but are still at level 1 C&C.

Thanks for bringing these up! Agreed the AI needs much improvement here!

[Bavre]

In regard to research it might even be a good idea to give each countries AI something of a fixed queue to make it beeline for the powerfull/necessary stuff and only let the AI decide when to invest into the next step.

[Dazo]

On my side, SP/hotseat for practice or a faster pace than MP and also unexpected fails by AI when delegating countries to it on your side to spice up things ^^ .
AI usually manages ok on land but naval things and strategic deployment by sea are a bit harder.
In the case of USA, Chernobyl noted how weird it can be.

I believe SP would benefit from just having US units going directly to France by event (for a MPP cost of course) when they join Entente, a bit like the UK New Army event. Would solve most of those AI naval transportation issues.
Could even work for MP to reduce micromanagement.
I get you won't be able to interfere with german subs/navy but those will probably be busy trying to bring UK down (and I believe chasing US transport around wouldn't be efficient at all NM wise anyway).

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Dazo

I believe SP would benefit from just having US units going directly to France by event (for a MPP cost of course) when they join Entente, a bit like the UK New Army event. Would solve most of those AI naval transportation issues.
Could even work for MP to reduce micromanagement.

Yes, I think something like this would be interesting to investigate.

I have never "destroyed" a US Infantry unit in SP. If it is re-purchased for 135 MPP where can you place it? In France? Or all the way back in the USA?

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Want to also list some major AI problems in single player. This is in the same game where I declared war on the USA in 1914 and the game ends in July 1917.

-The USA AI had most of its army sitting in America, including all four HQ units. Pershing and his fellow generals never crossed the Atlantic. Many US corps did reach France, but most land units stayed in the USA.
-The USA AI had a buildup of over 7000 MPP at the game end, with plenty of tech and naval units available for purchase.
-The AI did not use nearly all of its diplomacy chits. For example the USA never bought a single diplomacy chit. These could have really hurt me if they were invested in the Netherlands.
-The AI invested in Industrial Tech for France and the USA (level 4 and 5 at the end) but didn't for UK and Russia. They were both level 1 only at the end. This is a colossal mistake. Russia and UK are the ones who benefit the most for the Entente.
-Some of the AI tech choices were fine, but some are bizarre. For example France never invested in Command+Control. They are researching advanced subs and have 3 chits in airships but are still at level 1 C&C.

Thanks Chernobyl, I've made some adjustments to the AI scripts that will ideally help. One of the problems holding the US back from transporting more units to mainland France was the low Logistics level the US typically has in game. I've adjusted this by having the US research this more, and ideally this will help by providing more Transports for them to use in game.

[Dazo]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I have never "destroyed" a US Infantry unit in SP. If it is re-purchased for 135 MPP where can you place it? In France? Or all the way back in the USA?

Back to the USA. As for other destroyed units you need a national supply source to deploy them.

[PanzerCro]

I usually play SP mostly...