AGEOD Forums

Sorry I don't have a screenshot, but I have had spanish units (early 1808, still my ally) doing tourism in France since the beginning of the game, mainly in Toulon and Paris. Yesterday before closing the game and going to bed I had a look at how many spanish units were in Paris, my eye attracted by the symbol of a spanish fort battery in Paris : Lo and Behold, 19 spanish units there, cavalry and artillery of all kind (regular, horse and Fort!).

I just found it hilariously absurd, figured I should share the news...

Working on that, they are trying to defend you as they have nothing much to do...

Pocus wrote:Working on that, they are trying to defend you as they have nothing much to do...

I am sure they mean no harm !

In itself it's more funny than catastrophic, but it is part of a wide pattern of overall "hyper activity" of forces. Really I am not saying the AI should be completely idle when not fighting the against the player, but I think this game "thinks" too much.

In terms of forces (I have detailed my thoughts on diplomacy in other posts) I would encourage the devs to focus on the following things :
1/ Make the AI keep big stacks. The AI tends to disperse its forces way too much after a while, whereas in the time period armies (except the french) tended to be bunched together. End if the AI is encourage to bundle up, less hiking arty/cav units.
2/ Make the AI stay within its borders ! Sure some countries give free passage and supply to one another, but except when actively going towards a country they are at war with (say Russia crossing middle germany to attack France), forces should really stay in their country : Right now in 1808 there Russians all over the place, Badians (sp?) in France, Austrians in the Kingdom of Italy, Spaniards all over the place, etc... Beyond the wandering small units there is a general issue of wandering troops. It looks to me like the AI is looking for activity and so travels. Well no! the AI should stay put and static if not at war : faster turn processing, everybody happy.
3/ I am waiting for the army reforms of Austria or Prussia or Russia, but in my game in 1808 I have trashed them all and am seating peacefully in 1808... I am probably going to invade Portugal for game's sake and to imitate history, but I sure hope army reforms will allow those countries to have big well structured forces : right now in the F9 ledger Prussia has 1% of my forces, Austria 12% and Russia 25%.... The game is going to have a hard time being challenging !

Yeah, I'm seeing the AI sending it forces to very odd places. I'm playing Spain and there is a tiny Russian "army" sitting on top of Gibraltar. I guess the Russians are trying to aid their British allies, but a single leader with one unit isn't much help. My French allies also have sent some tiny armies to the Rock. Berthier and Augereau seemingly have nothing better to do than sitting with a couple of thousand men in southern Spain turn after turn.

Penny packet armies are all over the place. Every turn, I get to witness my French ally battling numerous 1k and 2k enemy armies.

Ageod's AI has never been a decent opponent in any of its games' "monster" campaign scenarios even going back to the original BoA. It's much better in smaller scenarios with limited forces, turns, and map size. In the massive "campaign" scenarios, the AI gets overwhelmed by the myriad of options spread-out over large maps and many turns. Of course, it has no ability to plan ahead which is a must for those type of scenarios and thus it really struggles. And WON's even more complex grand campaign seems to be way too much for it to handle in any reasonable manner.

I'm usually a solo player, but I do think when Ageod gets WON's major kinks worked-out then it will probably be awesome multiplayer if one can get seven players for all the majors and the let AI bumble around with the minors. I do see immense potential for this title and I'd like to see it really shine in a multiplayer setting.

bkosar19 wrote:Yeah, I'm seeing the AI sending it forces to very odd places. I'm playing Spain and there is a tiny Russian "army" sitting on top of Gibraltar. I guess the Russians are trying to aid their British allies, but a single leader with one unit isn't much help. My French allies also have sent some tiny armies to the Rock. Berthier and Augereau seemingly have nothing better to do than sitting with a couple of thousand men in southern Spain turn after turn.

Penny packet armies are all over the place. Every turn, I get to witness my French ally battling numerous 1k and 2k enemy armies.

Ageod's AI has never been a decent opponent in any of its games' "monster" campaign scenarios even going back to the original BoA. It's much better in smaller scenarios with limited forces, turns, and map size. In the massive "campaign" scenarios, the AI gets overwhelmed by the myriad of options spread-out over large maps and many turns. Of course, it has no ability to plan ahead which is a must for those type of scenarios and thus it really struggles. And WON's even more complex grand campaign seems to be way too much for it to handle in any reasonable manner.

I'm usually a solo player, but I do think when Ageod gets WON's major kinks worked-out then it will probably be awesome multiplayer if one can get seven players for all the majors and the let AI bumble around with the minors. I do see immense potential for this title and I'd like to see it really shine in a multiplayer setting.

I agree. Force structure has always been the problem. in AACW, when the force structure was there and set (say the 1862 campaign) the AI could do a competent enough job. Really the Devs need to make the AI a lot less subtle : it gets lost in all the variables it calculates. AI should concentrate their forces in stacks up to the max of their command abilities and go for the stack of doom strategy or stay home and defend. Russians all over Europe makes no sense whatsoever.

I agree and am seeing the same Russian units all over Europe. I'm in March 1806 and made peace with the Russians in November 1805 yet they are still in Gibraltar, on the Franco-Prussian border, Wien, etc. Is it because they still have defensive treaties with the central European states that they feel they must stay there even though they are at peace with me? They just got involved in a war with the Ottomans, so I'm hoping they move their troops back home. I thought peace treaties meant that the losing side will return their forces to their homeland, not move them to their allies? It seems the AI peace treaties work with bad faith on the part of the AI!

seathom wrote:I agree and am seeing the same Russian units all over Europe. I'm in March 1806 and made peace with the Russians in November 1805 yet they are still in Gibraltar, on the Franco-Prussian border, Wien, etc. Is it because they still have defensive treaties with the central European states that they feel they must stay there even though they are at peace with me? They just got involved in a war with the Ottomans, so I'm hoping they move their troops back home. I thought peace treaties meant that the losing side will return their forces to their homeland, not move them to their allies? It seems the AI peace treaties work with bad faith on the part of the AI!

The bulk Russian forces should Station in 3/4 cities on their western border (I don't have the map in mind but say Vilno, Lublin, Kiev and Odessa and 1 city near the caucasus. The rest should be garrisons spread around. They shouldn't travel to Europe except when actively at war with someone (ie France).

Maybe the Russian forces will move eastwards towards their border now that Spring is arriving. Their only war is with the Ottoman's and their allies/satellites.

seathom wrote:Maybe the Russian forces will move eastwards towards their border now that Spring is arriving. Their only war is with the Ottoman's and their allies/satellites.

Not without a change in a patch : russian troops and generals just scatter throughout Europe.

I've been reporting these issues for some time now:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?41824-A-Few-Questions

In the thread you cite, the last reply of PhilThib is from 23 hours ago, so I would say the man is on it