The Mighty Spanish A.I. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory



Message

Russian Guard -> The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/17/2005 9:45:55 PM)


Interesting...(v1.1)

I've been focusing on playing Russia (my favorite to play in EIA). Last night, while embroiled in a war with Turkey, A Spanish Army attacked mother Russia. 125,000 Spaniards - after successfully campaigning with the French in Austria (Austria surrendered to them) - marched through Galicia and into Russia, moving like the hounds of Hell were at their heels. In 3 months they were sieging Moscow as I plodded back with my Armies.

What I noticed was that the Spanish Army

a) moved like lightning - always 2 or more provices a turn, faster than my Russian Armies could consistently move

b) were foraging the entire time, spent one month in a snow storm, yet arrived in Moscow with 107,000 men still in good order

Now the end result was what you'd expect - I surrounded the Spanish Army in Moscow, attacked it, beat it, and they all surrendered.

But that sure seemed like an easy trip to Moscow for the Spanish to make...

The other "cute" thing about the A.I. Spanish, their Navy has consistently showed up in the Baltic within 6 months of game start (1805), attacking Russian merchant shipping and blockading the Russian fleet (Often the A.I. French use the controlled Danish fleet for the same purpose). Where the heck is the A.I. British navy? [;)]



Uncle_Joe -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/18/2005 12:18:43 AM)

Believe me, the opposite is also true too. I often play as Spain and find Austrian and Russian armies waltzing through France to come attack me. I know a couple of time, Russia has surrendered to France and then decided to just come after me with a HUGE army.

I still think that there is too much power projection in the game. It just seems too easy to send large forces campaigning at extreme distances with little trouble. I know Napoleon attacked Russia, but it was a major undertaking and not something that should occur at the drop of a hat.

I'm not sure what could be done within the system though. Its already fairly easy cut off their supplies, but that doesnt seem to be enough. A long time ago, I lobbied for a separate 'line of communication' that would cause an increasing and eventually steep morale hit on cut off units. That would require leaving troops behind to maintain the LoC like historically happened and would prevent armies from adventures all over the map. Unfortunately, I think anything like that would be the death of the AI.

So, FWIW, I've just become accustomed to seeing Turks in Denmark and Russians in Spain. It still makes for a fun game and allows for really open-ended play.




Russian Guard -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/18/2005 1:03:55 AM)


In general I agree with the idea that it may be better to have things more "open ended" in terms of what players can do. If I'm playing Spain, for example, and know I simply CANNOT reasonably attack Russia given historical limitations on Spanish abilities, I'd find that discouraging. I'd rather have a game system which allows me to develop the ability to make such an attack possible (improving troop morale, developing superior communications [Corps system], expanding a navy, building the proper alliances, for example), which this game allows for nicely.

The issue I had with this was how EASY it was for it to happen. I mean, whizz-bang, 3 months, 100,000 Spaniards in Moscow, and to heck with supply. Napoleon needed a Spanish advisor in 1812 [:D]

But again, I agree - so far, this game is a blast and I was, at the end of the day, able to effect a likely historical result had a Spanish Army actually marched to Moscow; nothing ever returned home.




Mr. Z -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/18/2005 4:57:34 AM)

quote:

I'm not sure what could be done within the system though. Its already fairly easy cut off their supplies, but that doesnt seem to be enough.


Well, we could always make foraging casualties even worse...



Ralegh -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/18/2005 7:32:10 AM)

WRT you comment about speed:

I certainly agree that a typical Spanish army early in the game can move further and faster than a Russian army - especially if the Spanish are foraging (which gives a bonus to initiative).

By default, most starting Russian armies have very poor initiative, and they have few leaders to help. The Spaniards on the other hand have a more mobile troop mix, a few generals who are very good at improving the initiative of the army they are travelling with, and only 2 armies to spread their generals across.

This difference in ground covered is a FEATURE, not a bug. As a Russian player, you might like to do a little research into the different initiates of your unit types, and check out your generals - you can put together one or two rapidly moving armies...

BTW - its not quite as obvious in COG perhaps, but the weather affects forage values significantly. I have made many drives into Russia as different countries, and if I get the weather wrong, it is all over. And even if I get the weather right, getting home again is a different problem!

When I play Russia (in v1.2, where garrisoned militia dont consume food) I fill the cities with Militia - if the enemy can take a city - and hence get a supply course - I am in trouble. As long as they can't, I kick em out eventually.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/18/2005 7:38:23 AM)

quote:

Well, we could always make foraging casualties even worse...


To an extent, yes, this could help. But IMO, its more than just local supply. An army cut off in enemy territory in a fertile province should be no happier than an army cut off in enemy territory in a non-fertile province...cut off is cut off.

As an example, Russia can move 80k men into attack Spain and as long as they stay in Madrid, they are fine even though they are completely cut off (Madrid has an 80k Forage Value). IMO, if they are cut off, they should deteriorate MORALE every turn until they surrender or disperse.

Lines of Supply and Lines of Communication are two completely different concepts. Archduke Charles often maneuvered conservatively to keep his LoCs to Austria open regardless of the local supply situation. The same concern almost cost the Allies at Waterloo when Wellington maneuvered AWAY from the Prussian army to preserve his LoC to the coast line. He also detached units that might have been critical to the battle to maintain his LoC. None of these concerns had much to do with supply per se.

The problem that I see is that armies have too much freedom of action on both the supply and communications front. The conditions that held the historical armies in check dont really exist in the game. Without them, ahistorical results are going to occur. Some of those conditions were political and some were simply paranoia/uncertainty. Charles always felt that his primary goal was to preserve the army, for without the army, he felt there would be no monarchy. Wellington never fully trusted his allies (although he had respect for Blucher)...he was happier making sure he kept his LoCs clear on his own rather than initially moving towards his ally (as had been planned).

Most of those type of condition cant really be simulated in the game very easily. Some suggestions would be:

1) The LoC is required or else army morale begins to drop.

2) If 'x' amount of troops are cut off from LoC to your homeland, NML begins to drop as well (the people/monarch/whomever arent happy that the army is threatened).

3) Losses of troops out of LoC count for more (double?) for NML losses. This simulate the army and the people's unhappiness at losing troops in faraway lands or even nearby, but carelessly cut off.

I'm not sure what could be implemented in the current system at this time, but without some sort of realistic restrictions on army maneuvering, the ahistorical (sometimes grossly) results will continue (both from player and the AI). But as I said above, this doesnt mean that the game isnt fun or isnt a 'good' game, it just means that you can expect to see things that simply would/could not have happened in reality.



Grand_Armee -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/18/2005 9:29:05 AM)

I reckon the AI cheats. It can subsidize a minor for 700+bucks and never have less than 2K in it's account. It's armies seem to fly across the map. I reckon there is some bloke named Gutierrez or Gonzalez at the programmers desk. Spain seems to eventually kick everyone's butt but mine.



ericbabe -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/18/2005 4:43:18 PM)

The AI does get additional resources according to the difficulty setting of the game, but there's no AI cheat for army movement.

Difficulty level also gives some bonus to the AI in detailed battle (damage bonus, morale check bonuses.)




Gresbeck -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/18/2005 5:18:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

WRT you comment about speed:

I certainly agree that a typical Spanish army early in the game can move further and faster than a Russian army - especially if the Spanish are foraging (which gives a bonus to initiative).

[...]

When I play Russia (in v1.2, where garrisoned militia dont consume food) I fill the cities with Militia - if the enemy can take a city - and hence get a supply course - I am in trouble. As long as they can't, I kick em out eventually.


I would like to understand better these points. First of all I probably miss the "rationale" of the rule that gives foraging units a bonus to initiative. I thought that in real life foraging units lose time and organization to forage, lowering their initiative.

On the other hand I don't understand if it's better to forage or to supply, assuming a unit is located in a province with high forage value and the nation has enough cash to settle a supply chain. The first part of Ralegh's post lets me think it's better to forage, cause of the initiative bonus. The second part of the post assumes you have (always? in low forage provinces?) trouble if you can't trace a supply path.

As far as it concerns my (very) limited experience (I've just completed my first 1805 scenario, playing as France and always resolving battles in quick mode), units seem to fight more effectivley when they draw supply, but maybe it's just a wrong impression.

Last but not least, all the posters seem to admit that units travelling long distances can be easily defeated. That's my experience too. In this case, the game system seems to work rather realistically, and probably the problem is with the AI tending to act too aggressively.



tristandracul -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/18/2005 11:26:16 PM)

quote:


Lines of Supply and Lines of Communication are two completely different concepts.

Excuse me if I try to correct your statement, but IMHO it's not that different but rather lines of supply is one part of the lines of communication. Supply in this case understood as a steady and reliable supply of arms, goods, fresh troops to calculate with, not the local supply situation (foraging possibility), which is a different case from a commanders viewpoint. I agree that there is and should be a strong influence on NML of having troops cut off on foreign soil. That doesnt mean that troop moral automatically has to go very low or that it should be of too much concern for a campaign at all, if there still is a goal that seems reachable by a deep strike into enemy territory. Otherwise many campaigns in history would have been impossible.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/19/2005 12:52:53 AM)

Let me rephrase a bit then. 'Lines of Communication' are different than 'being in Supply'. You can a have unit cut off in a city behind enemy lines and have all the supplies in the world available, but they will still not be too terribly happy in the long run. [;)]

The concept of an LoC is an abstract one and some armies were more susceptible to it than others. But no army likes to be cut off for any prolonged period of time and no nation likes to have its army encircled.

Thats why I suggested a gradually increasing penalty to army morale and NML. If its just a short duration, then it shouldn't be an issue, but these are month long turns. If month go by and your army is cut off, there should start to be some pretty serious hits on the army's will to continue to advance or to not begin to maneuver to re-establish that LoC.






Azog -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/19/2005 7:32:01 AM)

In reply to Gresbeck, if your army is out of suply they have a -2 in attack and deffence, no matter if you have forraged succesfully or not. AS FAR AS I KNOW. Maybe I am wrong, but that is what I think.
For the other point, a suply makes your army get slower. You need to organize it, to protect it, and to wait for it. If your army is "eating while running", you will have people gone lost, people being killed on ambushes, people deserting and so on, but you will move faster.
About the moral of an army that has benn cut off, I wouldnt touch anything. I think is making things to complicated, and I dont see more realism. A good general of a cut off army will hide this problem to his soldiers. And how cut off is a cut off army? I mean, playing this game you wont have for 6 months an army being surrounded by five other armys in the provinces around.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/19/2005 7:39:08 AM)

quote:

About the moral of an army that has benn cut off, I wouldnt touch anything. I think is making things to complicated, and I dont see more realism. A good general of a cut off army will hide this problem to his soldiers. And how cut off is a cut off army?


Well, as I said above, if their arent realistic constraints, players cant expect realistic results...its that simple. Without restrictions, players (and AIs) will continue to move their armies in a more 'Risk-like' fashion than what actually could (or would) have been accomplished in the early 1800s. Also as I said, this is not really a 'problem' per se, but it does lead to some bizarre situations (like Turkey and Sweden fighting it out in Denmark!) [;)]

So, if the game is intended to model the results and possible results of the real Napoleonic Period, then some changes might be in order somewhere down the road. If the game is intended to be a more open-ended 'fun' style of game, then where its at now is fine. Neither way is 'better' than the other, but it comes down to the intent of the system.



tristandracul -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/19/2005 11:47:25 AM)

I agree with you - mainly - in game balancing terms. Historically I still don't see troop moral as the main function of LoC, but the possibility to join up with other own troops , to keep enough freedom of movement to gain the initiative on the battlefield, last not least to choose the battlefield if possible.
Supply from this viewpoint sets in as realiable supply vs. local and therefore uncertain supply, regardless how much of anything might be there.
But the qualms of his men are of secondary concern for a general. They will complain about other things too.



Norden_slith -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/19/2005 12:37:01 PM)

I have to agree with Uncle_Joe.
Beeing interested in history and a longterm player of Empires in Arms, it hurts to see all this ... "chaos". Last game I played France in 1805 and, yes, I could beat my enemies, but there were enemycorps and armies all over the place. Several russian, swedish and british units roaming around in France. All they accomplish is to slow the french and beiing clobbered in time. Funny enough, thats not the way it worked historically. Most nations had 1 main army. This thing had to be preserved as a figthing force, not lead in several directions, beyond supply to try to put a siege on Paris at all cost.

In EiA the options of foraging and supplychains are the same, but this chaos is not. The explanation must be in the severe losses foraging can inflict, especially in infertile regions, in winter, away from home. Somehow the logic is different. In COG a region has a given number of units to forage. This number seems to guarantee supply. In EiA there is a chance of getting supply, modified by the number of corps in the area and the factors mentioned above. But the real difference is, that it helps a lot to spend movement (i.e. time) on foraging, to modify the result. An army racing at full speed in Russia in good weather will pay, in winter, it will die. So, foraging slows an army down. You can ignore this and race ahead, but you will suffer greatly (i.e. not forage).





ptan54 -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/19/2005 1:28:29 PM)

I agree with the concerns raised in this thread. As France I often seen enemies taking all sorts of weird and wonderful routes into Paris. It's a mad rush for the capital, as the AI only knows too well the -250 NML effect this would have on me. It would make more sense if the AI:-

1) Outran its supply less - commanders were typically not fond of foraging halfway across a continent (Russians in Spain...the war lasted 6 years until the Russians lost their supply chain and all died!). Maybe the casualties from foraging should be increased. Paris in particular can support 100K troops without a depot and is just absolutely superb for enemy troops outrunning their supply.

2) Did not just make the mad rush to the capital all the time. You see the message "capital is occupied" but technically speaking, the capital ISN'T OCCUPIED until the walls have actually FALLEN. It is simply under siege, and in many instances this raises the morale of people to "do or die". -250 NML per turn might be excessive in this regard.



Norden_slith -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/19/2005 2:07:39 PM)

Ah, good point.
This got me thinking on a possible solution. Lets say foragevalues are halved, if the city in the region is still enemy-occupied.

Depotsupply:
As it is now, you can basically ignore fortresses, as their job historically would be, to cut supply. suggestion: A depot must be guarded by more strengthfactors then the local garrison or risk overrunning.





Gresbeck -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/19/2005 5:09:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Azog

In reply to Gresbeck, if your army is out of suply they have a -2 in attack and deffence, no matter if you have forraged succesfully or not. AS FAR AS I KNOW. Maybe I am wrong, but that is what I think.


Thanks for your answer. That would explain why I've always defeated enemy unsupplied armies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle Joe

Without restrictions, players (and AIs) will continue to move their armies in a more 'Risk-like' fashion than what actually could (or would) have been accomplished in the early 1800s.

So, if the game is intended to model the results and possible results of the real Napoleonic Period, then some changes might be in order somewhere down the road.


But I'm not sure it's a problem with the game system, It could be a problem with the A.I. acting too aggressively and losing with a human player. I've tried to play more "realistically" forming a front line against enemy troops, and I won. Has anyone won a game moving his troops "unrealistically"? If the answer is yes, Uncle Joe is right. If the answer is no, the game sytem works fine and only the A.I. should be improved. I would like to hear about other players' experiences.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Azog

a suply makes your army get slower. You need to organize it, to protect it, and to wait for it. If your army is "eating while running", you will have people gone lost, people being killed on ambushes, people deserting and so on, but you will move faster.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Norden

But the real difference is, that it helps a lot to spend movement (i.e. time) on foraging, to modify the result. An army racing at full speed in Russia in good weather will pay, in winter, it will die. So, foraging slows an army down. You can ignore this and race ahead, but you will suffer greatly (i.e. not forage).


Azog and Norden seem to have rather different opinions about effects of foraging on movement in real life. I'm not a military or history expert, but I think this is the main point and I would like to read other opinions about it. If Norden is right, probably the game system is flawed giving an initiative bonus (or a too high bonus) to foraging units. In this case, probably it would be better to change the rule about this bonus (or the rules about the movement of foraging units), rather than changing the forage values.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ptan54

the AI only knows too well the -250 NML effect this would have on me.



Could someone please explain this rule? I don't remember I read it in the manual. Unit seizing enemy provinces (or only capital?) lower 250 morale per turn? I noticed a loss in morale when I was invaded, but I didn't notice it was so high.

Regards




tristandracul -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/19/2005 8:01:31 PM)

quote:


opinions about effects of foraging on movement in real life.


Foraging was never done by the whole army, but by detachments, preferably cavalry. Successful foraging shouldn't slow down an army very much, at least not more than its own supply train does. There are other problems when sending large contingents on foraging missions. As Gettysburg has shown, it can rob an army of its cavalry screen for recon. In game terms this should influence initiative more than movement.

But there's another overlooked aspect why it's easier to find Turkish armies in the Netherlands for example. Contrary to other games, in CoG you can move into foreign territory without a war. Regardless of the problems described I'm very happy about that. In lots of other games you automatically keep your LoC just because you have to hack yourself through every country on your way, which is not a very realistic solution, at least not for the 18th century.



Ralegh -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/20/2005 2:32:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ptan54
2) ... technically speaking, the capital ISN'T OCCUPIED until the walls have actually FALLEN. It is simply under siege, and in many instances this raises the morale of people to "do or die". -250 NML per turn might be excessive in this regard.


I agree: the penalty should apply after the capitcal is OCCUPIED, not just BESEIGED.



Ralegh -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/20/2005 2:37:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gresbeck
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
WRT you comment about speed:
I certainly agree that a typical Spanish army early in the game can move further and faster than a Russian army - especially if the Spanish are foraging (which gives a bonus to initiative).
[...]
When I play Russia (in v1.2, where garrisoned militia dont consume food) I fill the cities with Militia - if the enemy can take a city - and hence get a supply course - I am in trouble. As long as they can't, I kick em out eventually.

I would like to understand better these points. First of all I probably miss the "rationale" of the rule that gives foraging units a bonus to initiative. I thought that in real life foraging units lose time and organization to forage, lowering their initiative.

Historically, units pulling supply wagons and lining up for food, etc etc made it harder to move far/fast, b=particularly over difficult terrain, and this is what the initiaive effect is implementing. I suppose it would have made more sense to make the foraging the 'default' and apply a negative to those using supply, but it works out the same.

quote:


On the other hand I don't understand if it's better to forage or to supply, assuming a unit is located in a province with high forage value and the nation has enough cash to settle a supply chain. The first part of Ralegh's post lets me think it's better to forage, cause of the initiative bonus. The second part of the post assumes you have (always? in low forage provinces?) trouble if you can't trace a supply path.

The ideal situation is to have depots present, so you get caissons in battle (ie. 'are supplied' in quick combat), and to use supply so you receive reinforcements, and dont take any forage losses. If you need to save cash, have the depots present, but usually forage.

quote:


As far as it concerns my (very) limited experience (I've just completed my first 1805 scenario, playing as France and always resolving battles in quick mode), units seem to fight more effectivley when they draw supply, but maybe it's just a wrong impression.
Last but not least, all the posters seem to admit that units travelling long distances can be easily defeated. That's my experience too. In this case, the game system seems to work rather realistically, and probably the problem is with the AI tending to act too aggressively.




Ralegh -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/20/2005 2:42:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norden

Ah, good point.
This got me thinking on a possible solution. Lets say foragevalues are halved, if the city in the region is still enemy-occupied.

This is a great idea - ERIC!

quote:


Depotsupply:
As it is now, you can basically ignore fortresses, as their job historically would be, to cut supply. suggestion: A depot must be guarded by more strengthfactors then the local garrison or risk overrunning.

This is already a game feature in v1.2. Depots in a province you control (ie. where you control the city/forts) cannot be disrupted by the enemy. Depots in a province contolled by the enemy are much easier to disrupt. This also gives the person being invaded some advantages, which I think is very cool.



Norden_slith -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/20/2005 9:41:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norden

Ah, good point.
This got me thinking on a possible solution. Lets say foragevalues are halved, if the city in the region is still enemy-occupied.

This is a great idea - ERIC!

Eric [X(] ?

Well, the Idea is easily implemented at the very least.


quote:


Depotsupply:
As it is now, you can basically ignore fortresses, as their job historically would be, to cut supply. suggestion: A depot must be guarded by more strengthfactors then the local garrison or risk overrunning.

This is already a game feature in v1.2. Depots in a province you control (ie. where you control the city/forts) cannot be disrupted by the enemy. Depots in a province contolled by the enemy are much easier to disrupt. This also gives the person being invaded some advantages, which I think is very cool.


Oh, great!

Norden



Norden_slith -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/20/2005 12:03:11 PM)

Maybe what's really missing here is chance. When you forage you dont know, how much your troops will be able to gather. You cannot plan for it, certainly not across half of Europe! Foraging is taking a chance compared to regular supply. The french were very good at foraging historically (at least the revolutionary armies were, as they didnt have much choice), and so were cavalryunits and light troops. But this would imply a bonus to their abilities compared to other nations.

One comment on foraging giving initiative. When you give the order to forage in an area, your troops will disperse, send out details, things like that. Were talking about gathering food for tens of thousands of men (for a monthly turn!), from locals, who have a nasty habit of hiding their stuff. This will certainly deviate from regular marching time, how could it be any other way? Forcemarching should be totally impossible this way. These two things are contradictions.

I guess, the optimum marching conditions (A) should be in homeregions, supplied. No scouting, no searching for food, just marching. This could be simulated by using the regions full foragevalue (though they wouldnt really forage).

The next level would be marching into enemyregions (B). Here, you have to build depots along the way, limiting your advance speed greatly. Creating a chain of depots behind you will limit your advance speed. You have to reduce fortresses, to secure your lines, garrison depots along the way etc...

So the option is to forage (C). This will, especially the french revolutionary armies and cavalries/cossacks, get you forward a lot faster than B, but still slower then A. Also, you are taking a chance. All this might be easily simulated by halving uncontrolled enemyregions foragevalues and adding a chance element. Finally, Napoleons advance into Russia was countered by burning everything useable in front of them. This could be an option for fast units like light troops and cavalry: to hinder enemy advance while trying to avoid contact. If they send forageparties, these will be attacked, crops burned etc...

The historically easiest way to supply an advancing army is along rivers. Riverbarges are the optimal transports of their time. Wagons have a very limited range, as their own requirements are steadily reducing their effective load over distance. Look at the campaigns of Frederik the Great. He raced his army around northern Germany, having interior lines and lots of rivers. And he was a radical in his own way by seeking decisive battles, while the typical way those days was to march and countermarch, not risking your army and trying to cut the enemies supplylines. Frederik certainly didnt forage, as foraging was not an acceptable form of waging war in those days (especially not your own people!), the shadows of the worst war on german soil still looming... The revolutionary wars changed that, at least for the french, who didnt have the ressources to feed their army properly. This is why they seemed to be so fast, because everybody was so damned slow and dependent on their lines.




Gresbeck -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/20/2005 3:27:54 PM)

Thanks to Ralegh, Norden and tristandracul for the interesting posts. I have two other points.

1. Point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tristandracul

But there's another overlooked aspect why it's easier to find Turkish armies in the Netherlands for example. Contrary to other games, in CoG you can move into foreign territory without a war. Regardless of the problems described I'm very happy about that.


But I've seen some strange situations. Playing as France, I've an alliance with Turkey and Spain but ... Spain is in war with Turkey and .... they fight battles over my soil (or at least in Switzerland, that is a protectorate of mine and where I rallied Spanish troops fearing an invasion by Austria). Now: a war between my allies is rather strange (during a time when I was in war with Prussia and England, Austria could declare a war on me in any time, exploiting my undefended south front, and Turkey an Spain have no good relations with my actual or potential enemies), but maybe possible. It seems anyway weird that they fight on my soil and that I can't say anything about it (except declaring war on Spain and / or Turkey, that would mean suicide; I've tried also to propose a peace treaty between Spain and Turkey, but it doesn't seem to work).


2. Point

The problem with units travelling long distances had been raised in an old thread about naval units, where some posters complained about Tunisian privateer sailing along Frecnh and English coasts (or something like that). I think that is also a strange feature and that the devs should probably think about moral / initiative / strenghth losses for such units.



Naomi -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/20/2005 3:52:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

The AI does get additional resources according to the difficulty setting of the game, but there's no AI cheat for army movement.

Difficulty level also gives some bonus to the AI in detailed battle (damage bonus, morale check bonuses.)



I'd love to add the AI has even a higher ceiling of gold reserves - 3000-plus gold ducats at Bonaparte. And, in a battle in Batavia, Russo-Swedish combined forces amounted to nearly 40 divisions - of which the Russians served as reinforcements. Now, we may need more than the 27 spaces for a side's routed divisions, otherwise they will never be entirely defeated. Fortunately, it was an one-off incident. [:o]



Reg Pither -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/21/2005 1:35:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Norden

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norden

Ah, good point.
This got me thinking on a possible solution. Lets say foragevalues are halved, if the city in the region is still enemy-occupied.

This is a great idea - ERIC!

Eric [X(] ?



I think the ERIC! was to call the idea to Eric's attention, not attributing the idea to him. [:)]



carnifex -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/21/2005 4:20:22 PM)

quote:

I agree: the penalty should apply after the capitcal is OCCUPIED, not just BESEIGED.


I disagree [:D]

The penalty should remain as is. If changed, for one, wars would never end. Most capital cities are heavily fortified, and managing to actually get inside one that has a full garrison can take much longer than marching a relief army from Sevastapol back to Paris. Thus no morale hit and the war goes on (and on).

Two, the fact that you have a 150 thousand man army sitting in your capital province, regardless of how well fortified and garrisoned the city itself is, represents a monumental strategic failure and the owning player should be heavily penalized. What does it profit a man who sits in Versailles while the province is lost, and all the roads blocked, and the thunder of cannons rings the city?



ravinhood -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/22/2005 2:23:06 AM)

I agree with carnifex. ;)



Ralegh -> RE: The Mighty Spanish A.I. (10/22/2005 6:46:38 AM)

Carnifex makes a good argument, based on game play reasons.

As I recall, the reason it is as it is is because most of the cities were actually declared open cities if they got surrounded - armies of the period usually beseiged fortresses in the province, not cities, and didn't make war on the civilian population. [well, except for foraging and plundering].

In my recent game, the allies got into Paris, and held it for more than a year - but it was beseiged by the French only one month after it fell, so they only lost one lot of morale. Capital occupied for 12 months, and NML 687. That doesn't seem right either.

Maybe it should be more granular:
- beseiged - NML loss
- occupied - financial or economy impacts in addition to NML loss
- occupied but we have beseiged - financial or economy ipact with (or small) NML loss



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.859375