Invasions and AI
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:12 pm
To me it seems as the AI overreacts to a threat of invasion. I have several times moved a transport next to the enemy coast and the AI promptly moves units to the shore to defend versus an invasion. But when I left the transport in that coastal hex I noticed that the AI kept moving units to defend against the possible invasion. The AI apparently decided to defend in depth versus the invasion threat. This is a problem since the AI removes units from the front line to do this.
A couple of examples.
1) I had trouble advancing down Italy when I decided to try and invade Taranto with AH. The AI guarded Taranto versus this threat. But as I stayed with the transport there the AI shipped so many units to the Taranto area that the northern front was almost abandoned. I could just march south. When I reached Rome Italy had a unit defending there but it was also sent to the Taranto area so I could just march into Rome. This caused Italy to surrender with an entire army in the Taranto area. To me it would seem a better priority to use it to defend Rome than Taranto versus 1 lousy exhausted garrison.
2) Late war I launched an Turkish attack versus the Suez canal but I got no where at all. Even though I had artillery and air support. The Turkish units were just to weak. I moved a transport next to Alexandria and the AI moved a lot of units to Alexandria and into the desert south west of Alexandria. This weakened the Suez front so much that Great Britain had no units to replace the weakened front line units. After about ten turns I had advanced far enough to capture Cairo. During all these 10 turns I had that transport move along the Egypt coast west of Alexandria. I was surprised to find that the AI had about ten units in the desert defending it against my invasion threat that was a garrison with a zero in efficiency.
I've gotten the same over reaction from the AI when it controls the CP.
I also wonder if a unit should be allowed to stay at sea indefinitely without losing any strength?
A couple of examples.
1) I had trouble advancing down Italy when I decided to try and invade Taranto with AH. The AI guarded Taranto versus this threat. But as I stayed with the transport there the AI shipped so many units to the Taranto area that the northern front was almost abandoned. I could just march south. When I reached Rome Italy had a unit defending there but it was also sent to the Taranto area so I could just march into Rome. This caused Italy to surrender with an entire army in the Taranto area. To me it would seem a better priority to use it to defend Rome than Taranto versus 1 lousy exhausted garrison.
2) Late war I launched an Turkish attack versus the Suez canal but I got no where at all. Even though I had artillery and air support. The Turkish units were just to weak. I moved a transport next to Alexandria and the AI moved a lot of units to Alexandria and into the desert south west of Alexandria. This weakened the Suez front so much that Great Britain had no units to replace the weakened front line units. After about ten turns I had advanced far enough to capture Cairo. During all these 10 turns I had that transport move along the Egypt coast west of Alexandria. I was surprised to find that the AI had about ten units in the desert defending it against my invasion threat that was a garrison with a zero in efficiency.
I've gotten the same over reaction from the AI when it controls the CP.
I also wonder if a unit should be allowed to stay at sea indefinitely without losing any strength?
