More Battle Tips? Generals...

[Dayvit781]

Hi all!
I just want to congratulate you for a great game. I ordered the digital download a few days ago and I've been pretty addicted.
But despite having read the manual, I still don't feel like I know all the hints and tricks... So I'm wondering if you could share some more battle tips with us?

Is it good to divide up the generals right away, so that each has only its command limit? (Or keep them all grouped in one stack) I heard that all the troops in a region count to the command limit even if they're not in the same stack. Is this true?

Can you get rid of bad generals by not giving them any troops?

And lastly, sometimes I notice how when troops go home for the winter, my generals are left alone. In one instance, he was left all alone guarding a fort in the middle of nowhere... and it was being beseiged ! This seems pretty dangerous... can he really hold out all by his lonesome? Do troops only leave during the winter? What's the best strategy to prevent generals from losing their troops?

(That's enough questions for now! Thanks for your help and congratulations again on this game!)

[jhdeerslayer]

My two cents worth... The FAQ above is great help also.

Is it good to divide up the generals right away, so that each has only its command limit?

Better to have a bad general commanding than no general.


(Or keep them all grouped in one stack) I heard that all the troops in a region count to the command limit even if they're not in the same stack. Is this true?

Not that I have seen. Units not stacked with a leader in an area are just not under command of any leader

Can you get rid of bad generals by not giving them any troops?

Hide them somewhere but often you can be forced to use them in some fashion. Especially the two and three star ones for their higher CP value.

And lastly, sometimes I notice how when troops go home for the winter, my generals are left alone. In one instance, he was left all alone guarding a fort in the middle of nowhere... and it was being beseiged ! This seems pretty dangerous... can he really hold out all by his lonesome? Do troops only leave during the winter? What's the best strategy to prevent generals from losing their troops?

Must be militia going home? Check the FAQ but a leader with high Charisma (spelling??) can help keep them around. Other then that, not sure what can be done here so far.

[Son of Achilles]

I've only played as the Americans in the 76 Campaign so things might be different with the Brittish.

What worked for me with the Continental Army was to keep the bulk of my army together in one 'Death Star' stack but break off 2 - 3 smaller forces to use as scouts led by leaders with a high readiness rating. They would act as a screen to warn me of a Brittish Death Star in the early years allowing me to get a head start with my main army.

Now that France has arrived I am using them to grab ligthly defended cities while my Continental Army engages and destroys medium sized Brittish ones. When I see a Brittish Mega Stack I'll attack it with both my French and American main armies.

The important thing I think is to keep an eye on the calender and when it gets close to winter, get your main army into a big city so it will have supply and move your screeners into the same city so that everyone is under Washington's Charisma influence, well supplied and if they do have to fight, it will be on the best possible terms all stacked together. Dug in and with a fort of course (if possible). When spring comes, I send out the recon units and start again.

Its almost like putting your army into hibernation.

I noticed the AI seemed to split up the Brittish forces and fan out. Or at least that's from what I could see it doing, FOW and all...

[Gargoyle]

I've only played as the Americans in the 76 Campaign so things might be different with the Brittish.

What worked for me with the Continental Army was to keep the bulk of my army together in one 'Death Star' stack but break off 2 - 3 smaller forces to use as scouts led by leaders with a high readiness rating. They would act as a screen to warn me of a Brittish Death Star in the early years allowing me to get a head start with my main army.

Now that France has arrived I am using them to grab ligthly defended cities while my Continental Army engages and destroys medium sized Brittish ones. When I see a Brittish Mega Stack I'll attack it with both my French and American main armies.

The important thing I think is to keep an eye on the calender and when it gets close to winter, get your main army into a big city so it will have supply and move your screeners into the same city so that everyone is under Washington's Charisma influence, well supplied and if they do have to fight, it will be on the best possible terms all stacked together. Dug in and with a fort of course (if possible). When spring comes, I send out the recon units and start again.

Its almost like putting your army into hibernation.

I noticed the AI seemed to split up the Brittish forces and fan out. Or at least that's from what I could see it doing, FOW and all...

There's more than one way to skin a Brit, ah... cat. I keep 2-3 large armies, garrisons of 2 regiments each, and single unit scouts. The trick is to make each large army a little bit better than what they will be up against in their area of operation. If there is an area that you cannot have an army that is somewhat better than your opponent, better to just leave that area entirely and return when you know you'll have the advantage.

[Son of Achilles]

There's more than one way to skin a Brit, ah... cat. I keep 2-3 large armies, garrisons of 2 regiments each, and single unit scouts. The trick is to make each large army a little bit better than what they will be up against in their area of operation. If there is an area that you cannot have an army that is somewhat better than your opponent, better to just leave that area entirely and return when you know you'll have the advantage.

Interesting, I'll try that next time. It seems I should be getting more use out of someone like Arnold (before he changes teams). He's got pretty high numbers and could possibly dominate a region on his own.

I guess I did fail to mention garrisons. I didn't mean to imply that I stuck ALL of my units with Washington and the scouts. Just all the regular units. I tend to only use regular infantry and up for offensive operations and militia for garrison duty in most historic wargames. But I still run as many of them as I can to Washington when the weather turns frisky so they don't head home for the winter. This is supposed to keep more of them around over the winter according to a tip in the manual.

[Gargoyle]

I tend to only use regular infantry and up for offensive operations and militia for garrison duty in most historic wargames. But I still run as many of them as I can to Washington when the weather turns frisky so they don't head home for the winter. This is supposed to keep more of them around over the winter according to a tip in the manual.

I tend to include Militia in my large armies and I try to have one of the two regiments in a garrison be a regular. Each army needs one charismatic leader. Less militia goes home and the if a garrison one goes, at least a regular will be there still.

[Dayvit781]

Thanks for the observations,
but I'm still a little unclear.
For the two of you who like big stacks, does that mean you put all your unites in the same single stack (several generals and all infantry) or does it mean you just have them in the same province/fortress together but separate stacks?

[Levis]

If you want to have a large army, its important to put all your forces in the same region into one stack, even if you pay a command penalty. Separate stacks will be treated as different armies, and they will invariably have co-ordination problems and risk being defeated in detail (which is historcally correct--battlefield co-ordination before radio was awful). When it comes time to move, you may find it useful to break a big stack down into smaller groups so that none exceeds its command level and thus moves faster, but be sure to rejoin your forces before encountering the enemy, or once again you risk defeat in detail.

[Dayvit781]

If you want to have a large army, its important to put all your forces in the same region into one stack, even if you pay a command penalty. Separate stacks will be treated as different armies, and they will invariably have co-ordination problems and risk being defeated in detail (which is historcally correct--battlefield co-ordination before radio was awful). When it comes time to move, you may find it useful to break a big stack down into smaller groups so that none exceeds its command level and thus moves faster, but be sure to rejoin your forces before encountering the enemy, or once again you risk defeat in detail.

Ahh thank you Levis... that sounds like very good advice.
I started a new game as Britain (1775 scenario) and it's definitely going much easier than when I tried as the Americans. I'm just making sure I don't lose my armies and with these reinforcements, I'm totally able to steamroll the Americans.

I wish I had a screenshot... but I have one further question about Generals (hopefully the last one). The Hessians just arrived and I broke down the army into smaller detachments in order to take various undefended towns.

With command limit, a one star should be able to command two units.
1) But I put a British general in charge of 2 Hessians, and the tooltip says command limit exceeded (it's saying I have 8 units there, but it only has 2).
2) I noticed some Hessians are generals in and of themselves, I simply joined one Hessian to the Hessian General... does that fulfill the command limit.. or does it count as only one (again I wish I had a screenshot, but I believe I have conflicting tooltips with two detachments).

Thanks for any support and let me just say again , this game is a blast!

[Pocus]

1. the Hessian are flagged as germans, you need a german leader with them, or a dual english/german one.
2. the imbeded general give 2 commands, but his own regiment eat one (if I recall well).

[MarkShot]

Okay, I'll add two tips:

The region to set up defensive blocking positions is where you have control. The enemy automatically when moving into such a region goes on the offensive which will cause a battle and give you defensive bonuses. If you set up your defense in an enemy controlled region, it is possible for the enemy to bypass your position if he is moving with a defensive posture.

I like to turn on the region filter periodically mainly because it eliminates a lot of the map's visual noise and helps you easily spot stacks/units.

[Gargoyle]

The region to set up defensive blocking positions is where you have control. The enemy automatically when moving into such a region goes on the offensive which will cause a battle and give you defensive bonuses. If you set up your defense in an enemy controlled region, it is possible for the enemy to bypass your position if he is moving with a defensive posture.

There's a thinking man's tip. Let me add this:

Since defensive blocking positions can be easily bypassed if not in an area you have Military Control, you should actively try to gain control in advance of areas that are obviously going to be used by your opponent in the near future.

I point this out because I find my own game can degenerate into a "Take Objectives and Strategic Towns" game, not recognizing the "Military Value" of other areas.

Edit: PS: This is where BoA shows that it is "state-of-the-art" in area type strategy games. Areas must have some internal "space". There must be some representation of manueaver within an area. Because opposing units can co-exist in areas, inside and outside of structures and because actual military control waxes and wanes dependent on actively campaigning WITHIN an area, areas are dynamic, not static.

[blackbellamy]

I noticed the AI seemed to split up the Brittish forces and fan out. Or at least that's from what I could see it doing, FOW and all...

Yes, that was my observation too. For example, I started the 1775 game as the Americans, and moved the Continental Army two spaces to the west, away from Boston and the British Army. I then spent a couple of months marching every available American unit to join the main stack.

Meanwhile the British, unencumbered by my forces, started sending out small stacks to capture coastal regions and such. After a while there wasn't a main British army that I could see, just many detachments of 3-6 regiments operating throughout New England.

After my reinforcements arrived, I switched the posture of the Continental Army to Assault and marched up and down the coast, stomping on every British stack I could find. Boston fell as soon as I arrived, as did every other city. I took very little casualties, and utterly destroyed the British in every battle, mostly due to the disparate army sizes.

If the British held together at Boston, I would have lost that battle. The numbers would have been slightly on my side, but half my army was militia, and wouldn't stand up in a large battle. However, because the British dispersed their forces, I had easy pickings.

Mind you, I didn't hide my army in the hinterland. They sat in Springfield, 2 turns march from Boston the entire time, fully observed by the British. If a human was playing the British, he would never have traded the opportunity to smash the rebel army for the temporary occupation of some coastal cities (which could be easily captured once the rebels were destroyed).

IMO the British AI should focus more on the hunter-killer mission rather than grabbing territory.

[Pocus]

this is exactly what it is supposed to do, except that it wont do that if the army is not seen. So perhaps the recon level was not sufficient in fact to see your stack.

[Gargoyle]

this is exactly what it is supposed to do, except that it wont do that if the army is not seen. So perhaps the recon level was not sufficient in fact to see your stack.

Ahhh, now we really see the difference between even a good AI and a competent human. If I don't know where the enemy main force is, I'm going to find out. I'll send some very small forces (as british, most likely a couple of indian units) to do the job.

[Pocus]

the AI is not good, according to my milleage. She is acceptable. Give me some time, and she will improve. Sending recon force is something she don't do well, but it can be improved for example.

The difference is that you are playing for 20+ years strategy game, where as she has only 2 months of coding behind her. But wait, she has not yet begun to fight

[MarkShot]

Making an AI that truly impresses a human strategist is no easy task. And making such an AI run within acceptable PC performance constraints makes it all that much harder.

---

I like how Pocus refers to the AI as "she". Commonly, in English, the AI is "it". My wife will become worried if I tell her I was playing games and "she" beat me. My wife will want to know "she"-who? am I playing games with.

[blackbellamy]

So perhaps the recon level was not sufficient in fact to see your stack.

This could be correct - I assumed that since I could see the British they could see me - however that ignores the fact that all the territories except for Boston were under my control, and therefore easier to recon.

However, during the months that I was gathering strength in Springfield, I did fight a couple of very minor skirmishes there versus some wandering British forces, so in my mind at least I would assume that the survivors would have ran back to Boston and reported the location of my giant army.

I'm looking forward to any improvements you can make to the AI - keep up the good work


Edit:

Sending recon force is something she don't do well, but it can be improved for example.

I wouldn't mind giving the AI a built-in recon advantage, perhaps as an optional rule, from giving it a slight advantage to letting it see all my pieces all the time. As you said, it's hard to beat someone who has been moving little chits around a hex grid for the past twenty years when you're just 2 months old.

[Son of Achilles]

In my first game as the Americans it seemed like the AI did try to hunt me down and I ended up stepping into a trap in New York and had to sneak away badly beaten.

But in my second game, I've been much more carefull about hiding my main army in American controlled territory and it does seem to fool the AI into more passive play. I just hide west of the Hudson and when Albany or NY are threatened, I storm in, relieve them and then dissapear back accross the river. Seems to be working quite well for now.

Again, trying to emulate human behaviour in a game this complex is quite difficult. Its not chess for God's sake when you have maybe 40 options total on every ply and perfect information.

It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to allow for a limited FOW advantage option on the AI. Maybe a setable bonus detect level from 0 to 3 for example. In the same way that you now allow variance of aggressiveness.

That way, the AI would be a tougher oponent without completely getting rid of the advantages of stealth and manouver which would happen if you just removed the FOW for the AI altogether.

[pasternakski]

I hate to disagree because it is so disagreeable, but I disagree with the two immediately preceding posts. Please do not start building in "AI cheats" as a substitute for intelligent AI design (even if they are "optional" or "selectable" in some way).

As Pocus so charmingly puts it, "She is acceptable." An excellent start by comparison to the laughable efforts so many designers have come up with for AI in recent years. I fully believe that "she" can be made to perform better (and how many girlfriends can you say that about?) without resorting to cheats. As one who put his wargaming faith in computer games well over 20 years ago, I have come to hate that. One of the worst, in my estimation, is when the AI has access to intelligence I am not allowed to have. That has ruined many an otherwise promising game for me.

I know, the first response is, "Well, if you don't like it, don't use it." The problem is that so much design time and effort are used up in creating these seemingly simple "options." I would much rather see the AI in BoA continue to evolve as a player due to improvements in mechanics rather than through shortcuts that, in the final analysis, would only be admissions of failure and a retreat into the past. Also, shortcuts like this become, for many designers, self-fulfilling prophecies: "Well, we all know it's impossible to make a computer play competitively against a human." The people who sing that sad, sad tale of woe are usually those who have not made the effort.

Let's move ahead, not continue losing customer base because the games can't play you straight up. If the BoA AI improves, that bodes well for the AI in future releases from AGEOD. That's what I want to see.

[IronBrigadeYankee]

I hate to disagree because it is so disagreeable, but I disagree with the two immediately preceding posts. Please do not start building in "AI cheats" as a substitute for intelligent AI design (even if they are "optional" or "selectable" in some way).

I couldn't agree more. The existing AI is worlds beyond any i have seen in other games and should be developed as a better AI, not by taking a shortcut like that.

[MarkShot]

Hot dog! I just won (on objectives & points) my very first campaign, 1778 Northern Campaign (British), despite quite a bit of bumbling on my part. All options were normal, but for giving the AI more time.

Pocus, tweak that AI! I want her to slap me around a bit!

When I beta test for PG, they always figure if I win a scenario there is something wrong and look to rebalance it. So, clearly if I won here, there is room for improvement.

[blackbellamy]

Actually I just finished a nice game with the AI FOW off. I had to be a lot more careful with my weaker stacks, just like I would have to be versus a human. So that worked out ok - I think I'll leave it off.

Wish there was a graduated scale though, not just a on/off switch.

[Pocus]

Hi all,

You can take for granted that the AI will improve other time, and there is still a big margin in improvement rest assured. It comes from 2 reasons mainly:

1. I like to code the AI. I see it (her) as a pet animal to educate properly
2. AI code from project N can be used for project N+1, and the reverse is true to a great extent. it just means that the amount of time that I will get to design the AI in project N+1 will be added in BoA retroactively (we have designed the game engine like that from the start).

So there is great hopes for the near future.

[blackbellamy]

pasternakski wrote:

Please do not start building in "AI cheats" as a substitute for intelligent AI design (even if they are "optional" or "selectable" in some way).

The problem is that so much design time and effort are used up in creating these seemingly simple "options."

Not to start a giant argument, but what you are proposing seems completely divergent from reality. In 20+ years of computer wargaming, I have never ever ever came up against an AI that couldn't be beat consistently after 2 or 3 play sessions .

Where's the fun in that? I spend the money to be challenged, not to provide a sandbox for future AI development. And the only time I've been challenged is when the AI has more production, combat and movement bonuses, etc.

You would think that after twenty years game designers would have come up with a totally awesome AI that rules. But this is not the case. The AI in Gary Grigsby's World at War is not 20 times better that his Panzer Strike, even though it came almost 20 years later. It's more like a 25% improvement if that. It took me an almost exact amount plays to spank the AI in both games on a consistant basis. Again, where's the fun in that?

As the developer himself stated, we are playing against a child. It's nice to think that the AI will be improved to the point where it will present a challenge to your average experienced wargamer, but it's a pipe dream in the short term, that being defined as the next twenty years. I don't have that long to wait for HAL9000 (whose ass I could still probably beat silly).

I play these games so the AI can provide me with the same level of challenge I would get playing a human. I don't care how the AI arrives at that level. It's immaterial. The AI needs production bonuses because the best freaking AI in the world will still squander resources that a wily experienced human player will not. The AI needs some FOW removed because a human player will intuitively guess where the enemy army stack is and act accordingly. The AI is incapable of human intuition - it can't get inside my head like a human player can - it can only follow a rigid set of rules based of past experience.

This is why there's already a graduated difficulty setting in BoA. You can give the AI combat, movement and reinforcement bonuses. All I'm asking for is a similar graduated setting for the AI FOW. Instead of letting it see everything, I would like it so it gets a bonus to it's detection rating.

Of course developing such an option would take away time from AI optimization. So what? If I have an option between a very slightly improved AI versus more challenging play, I'll have to go with the second option. I'm not immortal - I don't have time for the AI to mature into a process that can rival a human mind.

[jhdeerslayer]

Don't mess with Pasternakski!

Maybe you all should start a new thread! AI Opinions

[pasternakski]

You would think that after twenty years game designers would have come up with a totally awesome AI that rules.

I agree, you would. The reason is not that it can't be. The reason is that designers have been either too lazy or unconcerned in the past to address the problem seriously. Wargamers have not demanded excellence in this area, but they are beginning to do so. Why give up hope now? BoA is an example of how designers are beginning to respond.

Give GalCiv2 a whirl. Read the reports from the 2005 Conference on Artificial Intelligence Design. It's getting better. There is no reason to wring one's hands in anguish and declare the child dead when in fact "she" is alive and well.

Building AI "cheats" into a game cheats no one but you, the player. It skews and degrades the design. It ruins the "fun." Like you, I have looked the other way over the years while Grigsby's War in the South Pacific gave the computer more aircraft than I got when playing that side ... when Sid Meier's AI civilizations saw everything I had and was doing while I sat there working my way out of the dark areas of the map. I'm tired of excuses for AI design. I want the real stuff. When all you had was Basic, 40k and a 5.25" floppy, it was one thing. Now, you design in a far freer and more sophisticated environment with vastly improved tools. Why not put them to work?

I think it's time to move forward, not dwell in the past.

[Pocus]

lets try to have both... Adding variable fow level should not ask me more than hour roughly. And after that, I will continue the real work of improving the AI (without too much promise, how would I dare think that a bunch of lines of code can beat an experienced wargamer?)

[Son of Achilles]

Adding variable fow level should not ask me more than hour roughly.

I love to hear that as a programmer. When trivial changes require little work, it tells me the design is sound.

[MarkShot]

I will continue the real work of improving the AI

Maybe you should build the AI a voice. Then, we can see for ourselves if the AI is a seductive and cunning "she" or a hollow and metallic "it".