AI Improvements: Suggestions

[Stonewall]

I've noticed the ai doing some things that help explain some of its shortcomings. Here are some observations and suggestions.

(1) I've noticed that the ai, even when in large stacks with tons of combat units, is continually suffering from low combat value. In an attempt to figure this out, I've seen that ai armies and stacks are almost always at 50% cohesion or less, thus creating large combat penalties. Trying to figure out why this was happening, I loaded up a few games as the ai and I noticed that the ai rarely ever uses rail transport to ferry troops between two locations. Thinking that maybe this was due to rail usage in other areas, I modified the April scenario giving the ai nation 10000 rail and river transport points. Despite this complete overabundance of abailable transport, the ai is still marching its troops from one location to another, even when rail is available.

Suggestion: Allow the ai to make more use of the available rail system to keep cohesion up.

(2) I've also noticed when loading up the ai saves, that its generals are not being moved efficiently to where they are needed. The Union western theater is virtually devoid of leaders, save the ones that are actually created out west. The ones in the east are sitting virtually useless in large stacks. Moreover, the ones that can be used are often times attached as embedded leaders in small brigades and militia formations, leaving large stacks of brigades leaderless. To rectify this, I deleted the leader embedding from all non-special brigade sized units. Despite this, the ai is still embedding leaders in small brigades and militias and not forming divisions. That said, the new divison model is allowing the ai to create a lot more divisions, but the makeup of those divisions is poor, with many being filed out by militia and infantry with no artillery.

Suggestion: Remove the ability of the ai to embed leaders in brigades (aside from the special ones) and encourage it to create more divisions. Also teach it about force balance. Can't say how many times I've seen 5 leaders in a stack of 100 elements and none of them are division leaders due to one embedded militia.

Suggestion: Teach the ai to form divisions (at full strength) as soon as possible to prevent excess leaders stacking up in locations with large numbers of brigades.

Suggestion: Split the leader events in 1861, 1862, 1863, and 1864 to grant leaders not just in the east, but to also put them in the west to encourage leaders in that theater.

[Jacek]

ad 1. That would explain why the AI seldom repairs destroyed railroads - it has no interest in it, rarely use it, maybe is unaware of its existence. That railroad destroyed in Baltimore riots - still defunct for months after I start a new game.

[Pocus]

I have noted your suggestions. I think I have will at last some time these days to work on the AI.

[McNaughton]

Re #2. This is an AI 'problem' or 'feature' (depending on your opinion), where it uses forces at the front closest to where they appear or are built. This problem was notable regarding Division and Army HQs, as they would all appear out east, and never are deployed in the west (this will be a problem with Army HQs). I think that all leaders should appear in their region. If a leader rose through the ranks in the West, they should appear in the west. If they rose through the ranks in the East, they should appear in the east. This will solve the problem with over-stacking leaders out East, but, won't fix the HQ problem (unless we get HQs built by regions instead of all appearing in the capitol).

[tevans6220]

Instead of having Army HQ arrive by regions, why not do the same thing with them that was done with Division HQ? If the AI had trouble forming divisions under the old system it seems to me it would also have the same difficulty forming armies. Since the new division system seems to be working the next logical step would be to take it to the army level.

[McNaughton]

Instead of having Army HQ arrive by regions, why not do the same thing with them that was done with Division HQ? If the AI had trouble forming divisions under the old system it seems to me it would also have the same difficulty forming armies. Since the new division system seems to be working the next logical step would be to take it to the army level.

This won't solve any of the problems, as who is to say that the AI won't just form all HQs in the East anyway? Also, this will totally mitigate the importance of the command and control system, requiring a set of events activating units (as now is the case for divisions), taking power from the player (i.e., you now have to wait for the pool to increase, rather than building).

Simply, change locations of armies to regions, and problem should be solved. It is a relatively simple change that should work, no sense to simplify the system further.

[Pocus]

You are forgetting the second part of the feature proposed: the relocate order.

[tevans6220]

This won't solve any of the problems, as who is to say that the AI won't just form all HQs in the East anyway? Also, this will totally mitigate the importance of the command and control system, requiring a set of events activating units (as now is the case for divisions), taking power from the player (i.e., you now have to wait for the pool to increase, rather than building).

Simply, change locations of armies to regions, and problem should be solved. It is a relatively simple change that should work, no sense to simplify the system further.

It's possible that it could be a problem but not likely. By reworking the arrival locations of the generals it should work. It takes a 3 star to form an army so it's very unlikely that all HQ's would form in the east. I believe it would go a long way in helping the AI. Command and control would be just as important then as it is now. Not sure what you're talking about with activations. It seems to me by allocating HQ by region that is where you run into an activation problem. Having Army HQ raised the same as Division HQ alleviates that problem and it's also a little more realistic.

Army designations may have been formed in Richmond or Washington but the staffs and general were already in place and really did not have to move HQ into a region. When the Union Army of the Tennessee was formed, Grant was already there. He didn't have to wait on HQ staff. I just don't see how using the same system used for divisions would be problematic for army formation.

[McNaughton]

Sure, it would help the AI, anything would, but it would help a human player just that much more. You get the ability to build a new HQ, you can immediately choose any 3 star leader anywhere, and instantly they are an Army HQ, and you can immediately create corps units for your divisions there. This is extremely powerful, and something that a player can really abuse. You can create a HQ in Tennessee, disband it, then create one immediately in Arkansas... Plus, it would just be a matter of waiting until the pool increases, then immediately getting the ability to make this HQ. Forethought and planning would be further reduced (do I build a HQ for out East, or out West? Where I choose has to be thought out, as it will take a month+ to relocate).

Personally, I don't think that the removal of Divisional HQs truely improved the AI, as I found that given the avalibilty of HQs, the AI would use them. We still see the AI using divisions improperly (i.e., having 1 brigade divisions), and all other difficulties that existed with the AI when there were HQ units for Divisions. Removing Army HQs would just be another solution to a problem that had other options that (in my opinion) are significantly less drastic.