Inactive AI

[mikeCK]

I'm into summer 1863 playing as the confederacy. The union has really done nothing but sit inside of DC all game. I played at sgt difficulty with AI extra time on, AI switched on, activation bonus and normal aggressiveness. I have built up a huge army, took St. Louis and all of Kentucky and the union hasn't done anything...anyone else getting this? Maybe the last patched neutered the AI a big too much?

[Montbrun]

Playing as the Confederacy, I've yet to see the Union AI launch any offensives in Kentucky/Tennessee, or along the Mississippi. I also haven't seen any amphibious operations by the AI.

[mikeCK]

Same. They have done nothing but build up huge armies. They don't even repair their railroads. They did launch a few half hearted attacks in Kentucky but with insignificant forces

[mikeCK]

137 views...is anyone else but the two of us on the thread seeing this behavior? If it's just is, fine...I'll chalk it up to a bad scenario and start over. If it's a lot, then it needs to be looked in to since the last patch reduced AI aggression

[Montbrun]

IMHO, the AI has ben optimized for an optimal Union player experience - and that's fine, but, the AI needs to be tweaked for a comparable Confederate experience.

Brad

[mikeCK]

I know in ROP, the AI had trouble playing as the smaller Prussian force which required a lot of strategy in terms of moving quick and striking when it's right. It was easier for the AI to steam roll as the Austrians. I had assumed it would be the same here. I know in ACW 1, the AI did fine as the union, usually blasting towards Richmond in 1861 and again multiple times in 62 and 63.

Shame, because although i traditionally play the union, I kinda liked playing as the confederacy. Buying factories and enough rail for was supplies and transports later made a good challenge

[Pocus]

The initial settings are with AI on low aggressivity. There is nothing wrong in cranking it up one or even two notches.

All settings are 'newcomers friendly', same for supply rule which is on easy. I suggest you harden your games by playing on a higher AI difficulty AND aggressivity.

[Montbrun]

Pocus,

I've tried just about every possible combination of settings, with the same results. IMO, there's a problem. If not, can you suggest the settings we should be using to get the Union AI to launch offensives in Kentucky/Tennesse and along the Mississippi?

[Boomer78]

As many have said on other threads, the best form of challenge is another human being. However, using normal aggression/difficulty and allowing the AI more time does make it more of a fight. In my current Southern game it's late in '62 and Mcdowell is threatening Richmond from the East and another army has landed and taken Norfolk. It's not strokes of genius, but it is putting up a fight.

Give the AI as much punch as you can in the options and you should notice an improvement. Hopefully, they'll keep tweaking the AI/scenario files in order to bring the heat, especially in late campaigns against the North when, like you say, it typically guards important cities and just builds huge armies.

[mikeCK]

Pocus, as stated in my Op (I think), I had the Ai set to "normal" aggression, activation and sighting bonus of +1 and had given the AI more time. I played a few more turns and the AI is simply moving small units from place to place while it's huge army in Baltimore does nothing. The army had been in DC until in attacked. Maybe when you toned down AI aggression, you went to far???

Boomer, yes, a person is better than the AI. But I don't have the time to play PBEM and don't want to. I am an AGEOD junky am own many of their games. I have a good idea when things are working right and know what the AI issues inherent in the engine are...I'm telling you, something g is wrong with the Union Ai

[Pocus]

@Brad Hunter: Are we talking about the AI doing absolutely nothing, in this case this is probably a setting which is disabled in an option ,or a too passive AI?

because for the later (@MikeCK too), then the 1.01 AI aggro on normal is approximatively the aggro of the 1.00 AI on low. Plus, on the Eastern Theater, things will be a bit more passive too. Aside that, I'm clueless because the players and betas seems to be ok now with AI aggro.

You can't force the AI to do a specific move like invading KY, she is like an herd of cats most of the time.

[Ace1_slith]

If I may hop into discussion. Most of the players would want AI to behave historically, even if that is not the best choice.

For example, the players would want AI to be passive in 61 on Eastern front, and active in the West. It is difficult to direct AI to do that. We would want to see Grant detach from supply lines and go to Vicksburg, while we would shun such behavior in Eastern theater. Indeed, if Lee commanded the West department, Grant move would end in disaster:), or more likely would not be tried at all (he was a smart general).

If AI sees valuable objectives at the grasp of her hand in the East, and only few valuable objectives in the West, she will concentrate its efforts there. If we tell the AI to be passive in the East, she will be more passive in the West as well. Current setting is ok with me, as it makes AI more cautious. With the previous settings, it was almost too easy to isolate and destroy forward AI stacks deep in enemy territory. There is always aggressive slider if someone wants more dynamic play. I think the sliders can even be changed mid game, so AI aggression can manually be altered as time goes by.

[veji1]

More than this Ace1, the AI as the Union should offer the player as the CSA the best gaming experience because of the mass of men at its disposal. Noone says the AI should be genius, but it should he able to do a few things : concentrate, and move aggressively to attack the next depot towards the next objective, or even better, concentrate and seek to hit the confederates when they are weaker. Sure that should be and will be used cleverly by players, they will exploit AI's weakness. But an inactive AI or an AI that just tries to "go around the players" is a nightmare.

Ideally one should be able to greatly enjoy the game playing as the CSA against an Union AI with activation bonuses on so that the Union is hampered by passive generals. I

[Ace1_slith]

I agree with most of what you said. But, the AI should only be careful while doing it. Previously, I would many times be stunned by the boldness of AI moves, only to find out she can be effectively cornered in hostile territory. The gain/risk ratio should be evaluated for each AI/move. For example, if AI sees road to Richmond open, it should go for it. If he sees some low value objective, he should not go after it with a small force just because he can. The risk of small unit being destroyed would be just too high.

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

I agree with most of what you said. But, the AI should only be careful while doing it. Previously, I would many times be stunned by the boldness of AI moves, only to find out she can be effectively cornered in hostile territory. The gain/risk ratio should be evaluated for each AI/move. For example, if AI sees road to Richmond open, it should go for it. If he sees some low value objective, he should not go after it with a small force just because he can. The risk of small unit being destroyed would be just too high.

The problem with the boldness is that the AI tends to try to be too "clever", ie go for the objective while circumventing the ennemy, this is the way you end up isolated. for the CSA AI, it is difficult, but a union AI, maybe not in the 61 scenario because it is more complicated with all the initial force buildup, but for sure in the other ones, should concentrate an go for the objectives over the CSA Army if need be.

[mikeCK]

ORIGINAL: Pocus

@Brad Hunter: Are we talking about the AI doing absolutely nothing, in this case this is probably a setting which is disabled in an option ,or a too passive AI?

because for the later (@MikeCK too), then the 1.01 AI aggro on normal is approximatively the aggro of the 1.00 AI on low. Plus, on the Eastern Theater, things will be a bit more passive too. Aside that, I'm clueless because the players and betas seems to be ok now with AI aggro.

You can't force the AI to do a specific move like invading KY, she is like an herd of cats most of the time.

Hi Pocus,
In my case, the AI is active. It builds and organizes armies and sends small forces to pick at small towns in Kentucky. The AI is set to "on"
Now I do have a powerful force in VA and Kentucky...but that is because I have had 2 years of unimpeded time to build it. I understand the argument that the AI should not attack if it's not beneficial, but in the end, the Union has to win! If they sit in DC and Ohio while I control all of Virginia and Kentucky, then I win. Heck, there are cities along the coast like New Orleans, charleston and mobile which are relatively undefended.

So basically, the lights are on, somebody is home...but he's just laying around watching TV

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

ORIGINAL: Pocus

@Brad Hunter: Are we talking about the AI doing absolutely nothing, in this case this is probably a setting which is disabled in an option ,or a too passive AI?

because for the later (@MikeCK too), then the 1.01 AI aggro on normal is approximatively the aggro of the 1.00 AI on low. Plus, on the Eastern Theater, things will be a bit more passive too. Aside that, I'm clueless because the players and betas seems to be ok now with AI aggro.

You can't force the AI to do a specific move like invading KY, she is like an herd of cats most of the time.

Hi Pocus,
In my case, the AI is active. It builds and organizes armies and sends small forces to pick at small towns in Kentucky. The AI is set to "on"
Now I do have a powerful force in VA and Kentucky...but that is because I have had 2 years of unimpeded time to build it. I understand the argument that the AI should not attack if it's not beneficial, but in the end, the Union has to win! If they sit in DC and Ohio while I control all of Virginia and Kentucky, then I win. Heck, there are cities along the coast like New Orleans, charleston and mobile which are relatively undefended.

So basically, the lights are on, somebody is home...but he's just laying around watching TV

Not only the Union has to win, but the best way to do it is to bleed the CSA. The worse that can happen for the Union is to let the CSA build sufficiently big armies.

One good way for the AI Union to force the player to divert some troops are coastal invasions. They shouldn't be ambitious affairs trying to go inland and conquer Atlanta, they should be invasion where the Union AI tries to take valuable cities and proceeds very carefully forward, always ready to go back to its trenches on the coast if the CSA overreacts. Rinse and repeat.

When the Union AI is passive than the CSA player can build massive armies in the 3 theaters. A Union AI should therefore, with limited troops, force the CSA to divert troops : cut the rail line to Tennessee, Invade near Wilmington to try and take the city, leave a force to build trenches and be ready to stay in those trenches and force the CSA to attack. Repeat in Georgia or South Carolina, or Florida, land in Louisiana or Texas, etc...

The main mistake the AI makes is letting the Player concentrate. Of course the AI isn't suicidal as in it isn't going to charge at a 40 000 well entrenched CSA army in Kentucky, but it should force the CSA player to divert troops so that the CSA army in Kentucky never becomes that big.

[mikeCK]

I should add this was with the 1.01 beta