AGEOD Forums

Cheers, all --

I'm playing the French and Indian War scenario, as the French, and about halfway through I switched to realistic attrition because I liked the idea of trying to defeat invasions using a scorched earth strategy.

Well, it's taken a pretty heavy toll on my troops, but the British seem to have absolutely disintegrated. It's 1762 and I'm now fighting in New England, and they don't seem to be able to produce any stacks which can compete with mine.

So -- is this a result of the AI being unusually prone to logistical mistakes? Is using the realistic rules really stacking the game in my favor? A word from the devs would be particularly helpful, but I'd also be interested in other players' experiences.

Attrition should probably be set for "player only", as the AI really should get some help.

At that setting, the AI should 'see' no difference in handling supply and replacements.

[Detection bonus is another 'good' thing for AI play]

I'd second Lodilefty's points about detection and bonus - it's only AI after all, it needs the help.

But apart from game settings, it sounds like maybe you're running into something I've noticed with WIA and other AGEOD AIs - it seems to have trouble assembling a significant field army and instead often divides its forces into penny-packet groups, which then often attempt to raid your rear areas.

There was quite a bit of discussion about "long-range raiding" behavior in the AACW forum some time ago, which seems to relate to this issue. I've posted observations about the WIA '75-83 AI failing to concentrate its forces. And playing ROP lately, I seem to be seeing approximately the same: little battlegroups striking off in various directions, but few/any efforts with a concentration of force capable of meeting my main armies head-on.

Maybe, if the development time is ever available, Pocus & cie. might take a look at the AI parameters which govern concentration/dispersal of force and do some fine-tuning.

We hear you, this is also reported by betas in ROP.