AI 1.06d suggestions and observations
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:14 am
1 - inflation is not impacting division creation costs which remain $10,1,5WS despite high levels of inflation
2 - AI raiders are leaving indian villages intact rather than destroying them (eg in KS if AI is CSA) so they are promptly recaptured; AI would clearly benefit if they did this(same with depot destruction previously mentioned in another thread)
3 - AI depots are not being garrisoned and thus are easily captured; as a result, supply is not being pushed forward as required making the AI easy to destroy; I consistently take Pulaski TN for this reason and Chatanooga (AI did not bother to counterattack either location so my raiding cav regt retired in Chatanooga as did a weak unsupplied division in Pulaski in my current game - both Nashville and Ft Henry were easily won as the AI CSA troops ran out of supply and eventually staggered off southwards in disorderly retreat).
- AI depot garrison suggestions: a) if not part of scenario setup then locked depot garrisons should be allocated to a state or region when raiding begins - this is far more important a response than creating a cav regt or cav +arty+2 inf.
4 - AI cannot cope with a player maxing income and recruitment to produce a huge army asap in 1861 as the players high inflation and modest vp superiority are irrelevant when facing overwhelming numbers of troops. As reported in other threads, both sides knew the spending, production and recruitment policies of the other. The AI needs to mimic the players actions in this regard in order to survive.
5 - AI was building an ironclad in Memphis, 2 in Nashville and another in Norfolk(or monitor,cannot recall) in late 61/early 62 when I captured those cities in my current game. The CSA needs inf,cav,arty and brigs to suck up some ws from trade so why is the AI wasting resources it can ill afford, particularly early in the war with major Union incursions east and west?
6 - Observation: Once a player starts rolling up cities around a major AI stack it is virtually pinned by the threat to the objective/ strategic city it is defending though it could easily counter attack and take all the cities defended by small garrisons and if quick could destroy the major force exhausted by its initially movements and attack(s).
The AI has only been prompt in counterattacking when its flanks were secure and there is a player stack not inside a city which it is possible to defeat. The AI is also too slow to reinforce frontline cities (and thus is prone to losing Manassas and Fredericksburg to the Union in 61 if it is the CSA etc). If Manassas is more of an objective perhaps the CSA will place its army there rather than in Winchester and exert pressure on Alexandria.
2 - AI raiders are leaving indian villages intact rather than destroying them (eg in KS if AI is CSA) so they are promptly recaptured; AI would clearly benefit if they did this(same with depot destruction previously mentioned in another thread)
3 - AI depots are not being garrisoned and thus are easily captured; as a result, supply is not being pushed forward as required making the AI easy to destroy; I consistently take Pulaski TN for this reason and Chatanooga (AI did not bother to counterattack either location so my raiding cav regt retired in Chatanooga as did a weak unsupplied division in Pulaski in my current game - both Nashville and Ft Henry were easily won as the AI CSA troops ran out of supply and eventually staggered off southwards in disorderly retreat).
- AI depot garrison suggestions: a) if not part of scenario setup then locked depot garrisons should be allocated to a state or region when raiding begins - this is far more important a response than creating a cav regt or cav +arty+2 inf.
4 - AI cannot cope with a player maxing income and recruitment to produce a huge army asap in 1861 as the players high inflation and modest vp superiority are irrelevant when facing overwhelming numbers of troops. As reported in other threads, both sides knew the spending, production and recruitment policies of the other. The AI needs to mimic the players actions in this regard in order to survive.
5 - AI was building an ironclad in Memphis, 2 in Nashville and another in Norfolk(or monitor,cannot recall) in late 61/early 62 when I captured those cities in my current game. The CSA needs inf,cav,arty and brigs to suck up some ws from trade so why is the AI wasting resources it can ill afford, particularly early in the war with major Union incursions east and west?
6 - Observation: Once a player starts rolling up cities around a major AI stack it is virtually pinned by the threat to the objective/ strategic city it is defending though it could easily counter attack and take all the cities defended by small garrisons and if quick could destroy the major force exhausted by its initially movements and attack(s).
The AI has only been prompt in counterattacking when its flanks were secure and there is a player stack not inside a city which it is possible to defeat. The AI is also too slow to reinforce frontline cities (and thus is prone to losing Manassas and Fredericksburg to the Union in 61 if it is the CSA etc). If Manassas is more of an objective perhaps the CSA will place its army there rather than in Winchester and exert pressure on Alexandria.
