Consolidating Game/AI Improvement Questions and Issues

[tony luke]

Greetings,

I have now played three CSA games and just started a Union one. Have used all sorts of settings and at this stage find that the AI Union is best on; no FOW advantage and a mix (season dependant) of Low and normal agression. I acknowledge that there are many experienced gamers here and would like to start a thread where the Dev team (Pocus and company) can find a number of the current issues for looking into. I have not yet played this game in PBEM so comments are strongly focused on AI issues (noting the limits of any AI). I play with my own restrictive house rules to get a better game; such as not surrounding the AI forces, not taking Washington, and playing only to defend my sovereignty. So, my initial thoughts/problems are:

1. Weather - As noted elsewhere the AI moves around far to much in winter and suffers massive losses. A lot of the movement it does seems very random, un-necessary and un-cordinated, without focus on objective or force.
2. Very concerned that the AI is not using replacements for it's attrited/depleted units, or alternately does not place/rest them so that it can utilise the replacements that it has. It is also very poor at resting units to recover cohesion. I know nothing about coding etc, but surely it can read that if stack cohesion is below 'x' then defend/rest in size 2 town until units are at 'x' % strength and cohesion. It may already do this, if so it does not do it well.
3. Very concerned that the AI is not buying enough new units and or replacements (checked the 'other side' a few times and noted massive amounts of unspent cash, hordes of available conscript companies, and lots of war supplies).
4. Still seeing some issues with poor co-ord of the AI Command and control. Many Army and Corps stacks with so many attachments that they are always at the 35% penalty.
5. Agree strongly with the need to change the weightings on some of the towns, cities, and objectives so as to encourage better AI centre of gravity and focus.
6. AI focus on unimportant obcectives such as Confed AI focus on Fort Pickens, If it is going to do this then at least it should be able to calculate the odds and send the necessary force rather than committing in 'dribs and drabs'.

Just some initial ramblings, please feel free to add or comment. This is a superb game that can only get better (hopefully these improvements will flow into the Napoleonic game, can't wait!).

Regards,

Tony

[Jacek]

ad 3. I did the same in my games - checked the other side. The AI, both Conf and Union, DOESN'T recruit or build. I don't mind a passive AI in terms of moving/attacking - I just like to turtle and build armies/industry and not being attacked is OK with me. What I can't accept is an AI that doesn't beef up its forces in the meantime. Especially if its Union with its unlimited materiel! In AACW the AI could be totally passive in terms of moving/attacking provided it just BUILDS enough for a static defense.

PS. Just checked once the Confeds in January 1861. 772(sic!) conscript companies but not enough soldiers recruited to block my advance on Fredericksburg.

[Clovis]

ad 3. I did the same in may games - checked the other side. The AI, both Conf and Union, DOESN'T recruit or build. I don't mind a passive AI in terms of moving/attacking - I just like to turtle and build armies/industry and not being attacked is OK with me. What I can't accept is an AI that doesn't beef up its forces in the meantime. Especially if its Union with its unlimited materiel! In AACW the AI could be totally passive in terms of moving/attacking provided it just BUILDS enough for a static defense.

PS. Just checked once the Confeds in January 1861. 772(sic!) conscript companies but not enough soldiers recruited to block my advance on Fredericksburg.

Very curious. In my 1861 april campaigns ( low aggressiveness, small help for FOW), CSA AI is building like crazy.

What are your settings?

[Rafiki]

ad 3. I did the same in may games - checked the other side. The AI, both Conf and Union, DOESN'T recruit or build. I don't mind a passive AI in terms of moving/attacking - I just like to turtle and build armies/industry and not being attacked is OK with me. What I can't accept is an AI that doesn't beef up its forces in the meantime. Especially if its Union with its unlimited materiel! In AACW the AI could be totally passive in terms of moving/attacking provided it just BUILDS enough for a static defense.

PS. Just checked once the Confeds in January 1861. 772(sic!) conscript companies but not enough soldiers recruited to block my advance on Fredericksburg.

Jacek, I really wish that you had bought the game (and thereby used the 1.06 patch). Until proven otherwise, I consider it unfair to AGEod to criticize the AI based on pre-1.06 experiences, given that 1.06 was a patch focusing on AI improvements.

I want to emphasize that this isn't meant as criticizing you; your care for the game is unquestionable, and your feedback is, as far as I can tell, always constructive. It's just that it would be of a lot more value to AGEod (and by extension, to the game and the gamers) if it was based on the latest patch

[Jacek]

Yeah, Rafiki you are right. Don't mind my grumbling. I am using 1.05b demo, normal settings. Will get the full game soon as I buy a new laptop, cause for now turn processing is a real killer. On the other hand, wish the demo was patched to 1.06 since it seems the changes improve the game a lot. Some people may form their opinion about the game based on the demo experience.

[Rafiki]

Indeed; I'm guessing it's on Pocus' todo-list when he gets back

[Clovis]

Confirming 1.06 patch has solved at least partially building, command and control, attrition problems which plagued AI. In my current game, AI is yet suffering from Winter but at a very reduced rate , is building both units and replacement, is organizing divisions and armies, relocating leaders.