AGEOD Forums

Gents,

I've been playing this game for a few months and have been trying to get the AI setting right. I've had all the problems listed here with the FOW and and aggressiveness. I 'd be interested in reading the settings used by other players for a good balance.

I generally play the Union and get frustrated with the AI piecemeal invades the north, or on the hard setting, when Grant gets routed by smaller confederate armies.
I'm looking at this setting for my next game:
AI Detection: No bonus or low
Aggressiveness: Low
Difficulty: hard
Activation: normal

My only concern is the confederates get so many more replacements under hard. Thoughts?

You won't ever get the 'right' AI. She always makes fundamental mistakes no matter which setting you use. If you want rational play you will need to pbem with someone.

I use generally a medium or major detection bonus for the AI and an activation bonus. This helps her and doesn't lead to unrealistic battle outcomes.

Primasprit wrote:I use generally a medium or major detection bonus for the AI and an activation bonus. This helps her and doesn't lead to unrealistic battle outcomes.

I have to say I somewhat disagree with this Remove the Fog of War for AI yes, but do *not* give the AI an activation bonus. More active AI with no FoW = more stupid moves by AI to spaces it "sees" to be empty.

Also, I think lowering the Aggression for the AI is a good move, as it too means the AI is not so eager to do idiotical attacks. With those settings I have had the best AI behaviour (the AI does not do so many foolish attacks with two small forces, but when it attacks it really is capable of doing something, and if it encounters too heavy resistance it pulls back at reasonable times).

Jarkko wrote: but when it attacks it really is capable of doing something, and if it encounters too heavy resistance it pulls back at reasonable times).

Jarkko, I have thought about lowering AI aggresiveness but was afraid it might just make it passive and just sit there.
Have you had good results?

vonRocko wrote:Jarkko, I have thought about lowering AI aggresiveness but was afraid it might just make it passive and just sit there.
Have you had good results?

Yes, personally I think the AI behaves better then. When it attacks, it really is capable of carrying on with the attack then, much fewer "wild-goose chases" the AI seems to be fond of attempting. Also, the AI seems to be better at pulling back when needed. I get much more of the stop-go-stop-go feeling I have always believed to be what ACW campaigns were like.

Thank you, I'll give it a try.

Barksdale

Agree that all AIs are dumb (I find the AI's perchant of sending unsupported corps on death rides deep into enemy territory particularly stupid and nonesensical -- also the AI hang up on Harpers Ferry is amazing -- it is usually much better defended then Washington, DC) but I try play for at least a modicum of historical accuracy.

From what I hear the ACW PBEMs are all about winning and have no trace of historical accuracy - both sides launch multiple continious raids deep into enemy territory, blow away fortifications as if they do not exist and occupy entire states with a amphib invasions that run small units all over a region in a two-week time span. (I guess you need a pre-game agreement to stick a reasonable level of historicity?)

Does anyone have any luck with trying to hot seat both sides? Can you do it and is it satisfactory?


As to AI settings I vary them during the game (with low aggressiveness in the winter -- to help Athena save manpower -- and higher aggressiveness in the campaigning season -- Mid April to late Nov.)

deleted

Grey Lensman,

Not complaining -- just observing -- still a great game.

By the way how are you doing in your efforts to defeat the BEMs from evil Boskone -- hope you succeed in making the world safer for players of AACW.

deleted

I have not read the novels, but Triplanetary is available for free at the Gutenberg Project.