Athena, or whatever AI, sometimes bewilders me...

[rsa359581]

I have just about every AGEOD game in existence, except for some of the DLCs. I love WIA, played AACW, ROP, AJE, and have worked on getting into PON and RUS. I just purchased EAW and am looking forward to that. I've had ACW2 for some time now, but have been reluctant to give it a try for one reason only: the crazy choices the AI sometimes makes, running all over the map pursuing objectives in the rear and ignoring my field armies. This was something that happened to me in AACW, and I found it annoying.

I just played the Shiloh scenario as the Union, and the CSA left Corinth and Memphis almost completely devoid of troops to cross the river near and head for Nashville, where Buell was, ignoring Grant coming for them. Needless to say, I found this a stupid move. They blasted Buell our of Nashville, but he severed the rail lines in their rear, and Grant took Corinth and moved on Memphis. I used Foote to sever the rive communications. In effect, CSA would wither on the vine eventually. I don't think any real life commander would ever do this. I know one solution would be to play against a live opponent, but I would like to gain more familiarity with the game first.

Is this type of behavior normal? Why is it that I usually end up chasing the field armies all over the map while they run around pursuing "deep battle" in the rear?

[Captain_Orso]

My simple answer is that this type of behavior is historical, but you as the player don't really react historically. Think of Lee's invasions of the North. To the greatest extent they were like waving a stick in front of a dog; he sees nothing else and you know he's going to chase in which ever direction you throw. Or more fitting, Smith's invasion of North-Eastern Kentucky. Buell couldn't get into the Blue Grass fast enough to react to it. So why didn't you?

Basically, what does the player care if Athena takes Nashville back, or pushes on to take Bowling Green? In general the player will take Corinth and Memphis --especially in the campaign scenarios-- leaving a small garrison in each and then turn around to take back Nashville and Bowling Green and deal with the army in his Hinterland. With A.S.Johnston in Kentucky and no other large force to retake Corinth and/or Memphis the Union can afford to take his time.

By then it's probably Autumn or Winter and the CS army will be hard pressed to find supplies while the North now has Memphis as his new supply base in the South. When the Union is ready, he can about-face and take on A.S.Johnston in Nashville or Kentucky.

One thing I've learned through my many playings of the Union is that even with Wheeling and Pittsburgh in Southern hands, I can take my time, build up a substantial force and then drop in on the invading army like a hammer. What little resources I lose to not having the production of Wheeling and Pittsburgh I can shrug off and there are practically no other consequences.

So once the Union has Memphis as it's new supply base, Nashville is strategically inconsequential.

I've pondered over the situation many times. A per-turn per-city-size NM and/or VP penalty might be implemented for every city in the North held by the CS. But I think this would just incentivize the CS player to constantly try to invade the North, which would also be ahistorical. But what other way to get the Union player to react realistically to a Southern invasion?

I can well imagine how the public and politicians would have gone mad if Lee had actually taken Harrisburg, or --god forbid-- Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, but that's not why Lee invaded, nor did it ever happen.

So what could be the solution?

[pgr]

I've pondered over the situation many times. A per-turn per-city-size NM and/or VP penalty might be implemented for every city in the North held by the CS. But I think this would just incentivize the CS player to constantly try to invade the North, which would also be ahistorical. But what other way to get the Union player to react realistically to a Southern invasion?

I can well imagine how the public and politicians would have gone mad if Lee had actually taken Harrisburg, or --god forbid-- Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, but that's not why Lee invaded, nor did it ever happen.

So what could be the solution?

Oh I think having significant NM drops for loosing big Northern cities would be a good idea. I mean, the NM loss can be greater for passing over Ben Butler for command than loosing Louisville or Cincinnati. I would implement bigger NM penalties, and have it significantly impact foreign intervention.

But as to the general observation of the tread, I do find the AI to be overly invasion happy as the CSA.

[Captain_Orso]

It might make for a more interesting game were the Union to lose NM for cities of a certain size to be in enemy hands, maybe even 1 NM per turn they are in Southern hands; but I don't know how historical it would be.

Both times Lee invaded the North there were many who questioned whether it was alined with the South's morale objectives. To paraphrase, --how can the South claim to only want her freedom yet then invade the North as a conqueror--. But I've read too little about how politicians and the public in general viewed Lee's invasions to really feel confident about any conjecture I might make.

I also feel that it should not be so cut-n-dry that the North should have an absolute certain lose of a fixed number of NM and the South absolutely no chance of political and morale repercussions.

One solution might be to not only have a Northern lose if NM for captured cities, but also have a possible variable-lose of NM on the side of the CS for invading the North. Even if there were only a chance, it might prevent the CS player from playing a game of conquest to attack Union NM.

--

The two things I dislike about Athena's invasions, are:
1. Aside from the production loses, they have little to no other affects on the North --barring actual strategic and objective cities being captured--; no NM lose, no VP lose.
2. Once supplies start running short for the Southern invader and/or the North has built up a force portent enough to drive the Southern invader from a captured city, instead of them retreating to the safety of her own territory, most times she simply abandons her captured city and goes on to attack another even further way from the safety of Southern territory, often only after having been weakened in battle and with the general outcome that the invading force ends up in an ever more precarious situation. In many games the invading force is eventually destroyed and for what gain.

[rsa359581]

Let me first say that I LOVE AGEOD games. I love the subject matter and the execution, the maps, generally everything about them. That's why I keep buying them.

I understand about Lee invading the North. But he cleared Harper's Ferry both times before doing so to be sure he had a clear supply line to the rear. In the cases I've seen, the AI never does this. Previously, it went around HF and attacked Harrisburg without having a clear supply line. This despite the fact that these games model logistics well and punish you severely if you ignore them, as they should. So, that's why I get bewildered. I don't think a real life commander would venture off into the unknown with a sizable force and completely ignore his supply chain. Almost all the major commanders of the war were West Point trained. Logistics were second nature.

And I DID wait the AI out. That's not the point. The point I'm making is the AI shouldn't be making these moves in the first place. I have read many threads where players complained of these types of moves. I just thought the behavior would have been corrected by now. And, if it has not, do players have a way around it, other than just ignoring it, waiting it out, and starving our the AI. I figured that out on my own.

[Captain_Orso]

I didn't mean that you were not paying attention to your supply, but as you stated, that Athena often doesn't.

I'm not really complaining about Athena trying to lure her opponent off of his plan, just that it generally doesn't work, because the player is snubbing his nose at her and doing what he wants anyway; mainly because he has no incentive to play Athena's game.

McClellan left thousands in the Shenandoah because Lee dangled Jackson behind the Blue Ridge. Then he went skedaddling after Lee after Pope bloodied the army at Manassas. And Meade trudged after Lee after Hooker got thoroughly kicked in the butt.

Currently in this game the player could have easily ignored --and often does-- these threats to locations other than Washington, because "screw you Athena, my threat to Richmond say more than your threat to Harrisburg". That's my point.

I'm just wondering what a solution would be that is both historical and workable.