After playing the 1775 campaign a couple of times from both sides I observed that the AI seems too timid in its siegeing.
The AI will rarely assault a garrisoned town. I will frequently leave objective towns garrisoned with 1 or 2 units, and when the AI arrives it will siege the town instead of assaulting it, allowing me several turns where I can march a large relief army and do away with the besiegers.
I, on the other hand, rarely siege small garrisons, preferring the assault instead. I know from experience that any 1 or 2 unit garrison can be taken out by a leader, 3 or 4 units and a supply wagon, fort or no fort. Sure I will take some casualties, but the payoff is worth it every time. So far I had never failed to take a town via assault.
As a matter of fact my American strategy for the first 3 years or so revolves around creating as many hunter-killer stacks as possible (leader, 4-5 inf, art if possible, and 1 or 2 supply) and just waiting for the Brits to leave a small garrison somewhere that I could rush in, assault and destroy, and leave the next turn, all the while avoiding any real battles. I realize that this is close to the actual strategy employed, but the AI will neither squash my continental garrisons, nor will the AI, while playing the Americans, utilize my tactics (preferring siegeing instead).
It seems like there is either one of two problems:
1) The siegeing mechanism is modelled correctly, but the AI isn't aware of the benefits of assaulting or...
2) The AI is behaving correctly and it is I who is exploiting an incorrectly modelled siegeing mechanism.
-
blackbellamy
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:18 pm
I would tend to agree, to a point. With the unit density so low, I would rather spend additional time sieging, than risk losing a regiment in an assault. There's almost no area worth losing a unit which cannot be replaced.
However, there are occasions where it's necessary and cheaper to assault rather than siege, and IMHO, the AI needs to be tweaked up a little in it's aggression when
1) Winter approaches. or
2) A prolonged siege with small garrison.
However, there are occasions where it's necessary and cheaper to assault rather than siege, and IMHO, the AI needs to be tweaked up a little in it's aggression when
1) Winter approaches. or
2) A prolonged siege with small garrison.
this is the kind of thread that I find very interesting. You survey the behavior of the AI on one particular topic, and it helps me tweak things. For example the AI will now assault more when she senses that winter is approaching (there is a special algorithm just for that now) and should be a bit braver when it comes to assault too.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Possible reasons to assault (besides Winter) {pour aider Mademoiselle IA}:
(1) You fear an imminent relief force and would prefer to face it on the defensive, entrenched, and inside the fort yourself.
(2) The fort is blocking your path of march. From that region, you will be unable to march into regions you do not have control.
(3) Your global strategy is a war of attrition - you significantly out number the enemy. Thus, although losses to take the fort will be greater than 1:1, they are losses you can afford and he cannot.
(4) To mess with the enemy commander's head and not be predictable. This sends a message that he cannot simply assume that small garrison forces will be sufficient to halt your progress. If he really feels that a region is valuable, then he'll have to commit significantly more troops to its defense. Thus, he has lost freedom to fight a war of maneuver, his main body force may be weakened, and his reserves may end up getting committed early.
(1) You fear an imminent relief force and would prefer to face it on the defensive, entrenched, and inside the fort yourself.
(2) The fort is blocking your path of march. From that region, you will be unable to march into regions you do not have control.
(3) Your global strategy is a war of attrition - you significantly out number the enemy. Thus, although losses to take the fort will be greater than 1:1, they are losses you can afford and he cannot.
(4) To mess with the enemy commander's head and not be predictable. This sends a message that he cannot simply assume that small garrison forces will be sufficient to halt your progress. If he really feels that a region is valuable, then he'll have to commit significantly more troops to its defense. Thus, he has lost freedom to fight a war of maneuver, his main body force may be weakened, and his reserves may end up getting committed early.
[the AI]should be a bit braver when it comes to assault too.
Absolutly.
In the game a play right now the Brits have been besieging Boston for at least 15 months. They have greatly outnumbered me all the time but now the situation is absurd.
They have made 12 breaches. The British army is 40+ units strong (and 7 supply).
My brave defenders consist of...1st Maine!(+3supply). Yes thats right: one miltia regiment for the last three turns. Makes one wonder if our Lady the AI is just timid or have some sort of bug
A question: if the AI assaulted Boston I would not have any troops north of Philadelphia. George Washington and his army is fighting around Richmond. If the British unit outside Boston weren't ocupied by the siege any longer would that mean they would come straight for me at Richmond or would they be marching around more or less without a clue untill they happend to come close enough.
Hope the question make sense. I ask because it feels like that crazy siege is what make it possible for my rebels to still have a small chance of victory.
-
blackbellamy
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:18 pm
Hidde wrote:Absolutly.
In the game a play right now the Brits have been besieging Boston for at least 15 months. They have greatly outnumbered me all the time but now the situation is absurd.
They have made 12 breaches. The British army is 40+ units strong (and 7 supply).
My brave defenders consist of...1st Maine!(+3supply). Yes thats right: one miltia regiment for the last three turns. Makes one wonder if our Lady the AI is just timid or have some sort of bug
A question: if the AI assaulted Boston I would not have any troops north of Philadelphia. George Washington and his army is fighting around Richmond. If the British unit outside Boston weren't ocupied by the siege any longer would that mean they would come straight for me at Richmond or would they be marching around more or less without a clue untill they happend to come close enough.
Hope the question make sense. I ask because it feels like that crazy siege is what make it possible for my rebels to still have a small chance of victory.
wow, now that's a bug! The assault should have been ordered, unless the British commander was not activated during 15 months
do you have the save?
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
It came up in another thread, that perhaps forts were falling too easily. Did a bit of reading of some of the better known sieges in the era. I understand that these are from Europe and a little later, but one constant appears to be: if you don't mind taking hideous losses in the lead regiments, and you have the right equipment, you can quickly take the city, otherwise it might be futile.
I was surprised at both the speed, and success rates. I know it's a very limited sample, but it seems that the game models fort/city assault very well, with the exception of being a little light on the offensive casualties:
Most of these would be considered level 3 or 4 forts compared with the fortifications in the colonies. I doubt there was a single fortress in the Americas of the calibre of Hamburg or Badajoz.
Toulon 7 Sept -19 Dec 1793 (103 days)
Defense (?)
Attack (9000)
Result confusing Counterattacks, negotiations, attacks, but in summary, siege was over very quickly after Bonarpate took virtual command.
Danzig 18 March-27 May, 1807 (55 days)
Defense (16,000 -->24,000)
Attack (18,000 -->35,000 ) (Both sides added men)
Result Surrender
Almeida August 15-28 1810 (13 days)
Defense: Large garrison (4500)
Attack: siege guns, quick entrenchment and commencement
Result: lucky shell hits armoury on the first day and blows the fort to pieces. Bit of a one-off, almost no offensive casualties
Badajoz 17 March-6 April 1812 (20 days)
Defense: Small 1500)
Attack: 25,000
Result: horrendous casualties 5000)
Ciudad Rodriguo 8-19 January 1812 (11 days)
Defense: Small 2000)
Attack: 25,000
Result heavy casualties (1000 which was made worse by them being the elite light troops, and the death of General Crauford)
San Sebastian June 28-August 31 (64 days)
Defense Moderate (3000)
Attack 10,000
Result heavy casualties 2000)
Hamburg May 1813 - May 1814
Defense Huge (30,000)
Attack, variable, up to 120,000 at times
Result: multiple failed assaults, city held.
I was surprised at both the speed, and success rates. I know it's a very limited sample, but it seems that the game models fort/city assault very well, with the exception of being a little light on the offensive casualties:
Most of these would be considered level 3 or 4 forts compared with the fortifications in the colonies. I doubt there was a single fortress in the Americas of the calibre of Hamburg or Badajoz.
Toulon 7 Sept -19 Dec 1793 (103 days)
Defense (?)
Attack (9000)
Result confusing
Counterattacks, negotiations, attacks, but in summary, siege was over very quickly after Bonarpate took virtual command.
Danzig 18 March-27 May, 1807 (55 days)
Defense (16,000 -->24,000)
Attack (18,000 -->35,000 ) (Both sides added men)
Result Surrender
Almeida August 15-28 1810 (13 days)
Defense: Large garrison (4500)
Attack: siege guns, quick entrenchment and commencement
Result: lucky shell hits armoury on the first day and blows the fort to pieces. Bit of a one-off, almost no offensive casualties
Badajoz 17 March-6 April 1812 (20 days)
Defense: Small 1500)
Attack: 25,000
Result: horrendous casualties 5000)
Ciudad Rodriguo 8-19 January 1812 (11 days)
Defense: Small 2000)
Attack: 25,000
Result heavy casualties (1000 which was made worse by them being the elite light troops, and the death of General Crauford)
San Sebastian June 28-August 31 (64 days)
Defense Moderate (3000)
Attack 10,000
Result heavy casualties 2000)
Hamburg May 1813 - May 1814
Defense Huge (30,000)
Attack, variable, up to 120,000 at times
Result: multiple failed assaults, city held.
just a note, I already put it in another thread but there is a bug in the fort matrix that can prevents at time the terrain constraint of the fort to be used. When fixed, it should renders the losses heavier.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
I've restarted my Rebel campaign of 75 since I installed 1.06.1 and The Brits and yanks both take towns in a logical way ie get a breach first then assault if they have the numbers. Forts have been holding much longer which is pretty normal I think so things are good IMO.
Btw. Wasn't Hamburg commanded by Nappys' best marshal? Davout?
Btw. Wasn't Hamburg commanded by Nappys' best marshal? Davout?
PhilThib wrote:To your opinion, what is the main reason an assault failed in those times ?
Could you list the important factors by order of decreasing impact....
The only one which held out was Hamburg. It had several bands of fortifications, then the main town. It also had a very capable commander with a large force who worked to improve the defences. But, the real reason Hamburg didn't fall IMHO, is that it was unnecessary. Germany was lost and the campaign moved to Northern France. Napoleon garrisoned Germany because he expected to win the campaign and retake Saxony, the Austro-Prussian-Russians could safely ignore them.
Toulon lasted a long time for the most part because of inactivity and incompetence. It took relatively no time after Napoleon influenced command decisions to fall. Danzig was reinforced and required a set piece battle then a siege.
So on the whole, it seems that if one wants to take a fort, they will fall, and it seems well modeled in the game. The reason I started looking over these things was because it seemed surprising that sieges were so effective in the game.
Ardie
Yes, he assigned Davout to it's defence.
Pocus
Will fixing the bug change the effectiveness of assault?
I think it will results in something like +20/+25% losses for the attackers, if the defender has 3+ regiments, has roughly 3 regiments can fight at a time according to the matrix. The advantage of the attacker will be that he will rotates the troops.
Against a poorly manned fort, it won't changes much I think.
Against a poorly manned fort, it won't changes much I think.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
Adam the VIth
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:30 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania Indian Country
Sieges became a question of mathmatics....you dig X trenches per day until you can bring in the heavy guns and crush the defences -- or starve them out -- no ned to assault in many cases, except to pressure the weary defenders.
In the Americas, well, specifically the colonies, there were no "defences" like those in Europe -- Mostly wooden palisades, or earthworks thrown up by the armies.
I will start a new game and watch the AI -- it was a needed fix and if more aggressive, it should be more historical and interesting.
In the Americas, well, specifically the colonies, there were no "defences" like those in Europe -- Mostly wooden palisades, or earthworks thrown up by the armies.
I will start a new game and watch the AI -- it was a needed fix and if more aggressive, it should be more historical and interesting.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests