Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:51 pm

After Campaign Thoughts

Mon May 02, 2016 4:21 am

I finished my second campaign, both as the CP. Just like I did after my CW2 campaign, I checked out the other sides to see how the AI did.

1. I give kudos to the AI for not going crazy on replacement chits but still having a good supply in reserve for key elements of infantry and artillery.

2. I think the AI did reasonably very well with supply and artillery by their lonesome. My preference is to rail small reinforcements, especially supply rather than have them march and possibly get intercepted, but I did see just a few on all fronts so this is much improved and appreciated.

3. Now for what I'm not happy with. FORCE COMPOSITION. OMG, it was awful.

3a. The British GHQ had a full 8 armies attached to it; half were French. The French GHQ had no armies attached to it. That would make sense in a way because MTSG requires the armies to be in the same GHQ (although I am not convinced this works because I sent an army that was subordinate to the Ober Ost to the western front and I'm pretty sure he MTSG). In fact, I thought only armies were supposed to MTSG, but it seems that corps do the same.

3b. The AI makes no consideration for different nationalities being in the same stack. Isn't there supposed to be a combat malus applied if this occurs unless the leader has a multi-national or ethnic ability? French units were in British armies & corps and vice-versa. I can understand in a pinch this could happen, but this occurred wherever there were forces even when there was a French and British stack in the same region! Can't the AI prioritize keeping nationalities in the same unit?

3c. I understand the megastacks with low CP penalties is something the AI seems to need to put up a fight, but it is still ridiculous and a better solution should be found. Once again, even with multiple stacks in the same region, one will be way over-commanded and the other(s) will have nothing or one militia unit in it. Can't the AI prioritize filling up a stack with proper CP and then move to the next stack in the region and do that until there are not enough units? And if there are more units than leaders, shouldn't the AI move the excess units to another region that is short on units? Shouldn't the AI act like a human and fill up their armies first to maximum CP, then corps to maximum CP? The AI does give priority to areas where they see a threat, but these are the exact areas that should have proper CP usage.

3d. I noticed many 3-star leaders were not given army command (especially acute on the Eastern Front). Why? Shouldn't this be a priority for the AI? Get your armies mobilized, filled-out, then do the same for corps and garrisons? I saw too many 3-star generals with no force or one militia attached to it while there were corps in the same region. This doesn't make sense to me.

There's probably more, but this will do for now.

User avatar
Posts: 536
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Montreal
Contact: Website

Thu Jun 09, 2016 6:18 pm

That is why I don't think of it as AI (Artificial Intelligence) but as a PO (Programmed Opponent).
Really in a game with this scope the PO is more a way to test out how the system works and get familiar with all the variables.
Then go play a human.

User avatar
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:57 am
Location: INDIA

Sat Jun 11, 2016 7:46 am

AGEOD games do have terrific attention to detail and historical accuracy but one thing they lack is a strong AI opponent, that is why the PBEM route is appreciated by most AGEOD veterans. Play the game against the AI to test your theories and then go PBEM.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.

Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:03 pm
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:43 pm

As someone who prefer single player... this isn't good :(

Return to “To End All Wars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests