Kamikaze AI is not good

[Squadron HQ]

It's not good to have an AI that throws shattered Brigade at you again and again or who is willing to throw 1000s of men away in totally minor engagements. It makes the game stupidly unrealistic (60,000 union casualties at Antietam?????? 20,000 Confederate casualties at Stone River???) and boring, since this is the only trick the AI possesses. It has no reason to preserve its forces, so it constantly attacks and attacks. I would have thought they could produce a better AI than UGG but apparently not. 

In some engagements of course you have the choice not to fight kamikaze AI. You can always retreat (and simply not play the game...) But it would be better for the AI to have to fight under the same conditions you do (as it did, successfully, in UGG) rather than whatever it does now.

[ptg2000]

48 minutes ago, Squadron HQ said:

It's not good to have an AI that throws shattered Brigade at you again and again or who is willing to throw 1000s of men away in totally minor engagements. It makes the game stupidly unrealistic (60,000 union casualties at Antietam?????? 20,000 Confederate casualties at Stone River???) and boring, since this is the only trick the AI possesses. It has no reason to preserve its forces, so it constantly attacks and attacks. I would have thought they could produce a better AI than UGG but apparently not. 

In some engagements of course you have the choice not to fight kamikaze AI. You can always retreat (and simply not play the game...) But it would be better for the AI to have to fight under the same conditions you do (as it did, successfully, in UGG) rather than whatever it does now.

I never had the pleasure of playing UGG unfortunately so I can't comment on the AI from that game. I do, however, agree with the boggling strategy the AI employs in this game at times. I wonder if the AI could be made to combine units like we can when brigades reach a certain number. Not sure if that would be realistic but it would make a little more sense to me than charging with a 500->400->300 man units.

[Jamesk2]

No I completely disagree with the sentiment. Having an AI that is aggressive and completely disregard casualties make the game harder and made a much heavier emotional impact on a player (at many points during the Battle of Antietam as Confederate I actually felt my heart racing fast and having short breath because of the pressure that the AI can exert). Playing an AI that's conservative and refuse to engage will make the battle dull and uneventful. And don't even think for one second that a passive AI is a good AI. I crushed Determined Union AI in UGG as Confederate with a casualty ratio of 1900 to 7900 in the first engage and 800 to 12000 in the second.

[Wright29]

I think the solution is to have an aggressive- cautious scale like they did in UGG. It's always bothered me that the Union is so aggressive at Antietam where in reality McClellan didn't commit one and a half of his corps at all. If the player WANTS to make the AI suicidal, let them choose it to make it harder for themselves. Or if they want an easier more realistic experience for the historically cautious opponents, then let the player make that choice. 

Another solution is to have the AI aggressiveness change by who was the historical commander at each respective battle. McClellan could be very cautious at Antietam, but quite competant in defense at Malvern Hill. Jackson could be very daring (Chancellorsville), but also mediocre at defense (Fredericksburg, Antietam). Longstreet could be an ardent defender and counter-puncher (2nd Bull Run), but slow in aggressive action (Gettysburg, kind of). 

Regardless, I do find it annoying to have to sacrifice realism for playability. Like the Union can be very very aggressive at Fredericksburg, but to think that a brigade of 700 men out of an original 2,800 is going to charge the stone wall is just ridiculous. 

[Bill the Bold]

16 hours ago, Squadron HQ said:

In some engagements of course you have the choice not to fight kamikaze AI. You can always retreat (and simply not play the game...) 

Do you actually do that?  

 

[Squadron HQ]

3 hours ago, Bill the Bold said:

Do you actually do that?  

 

Sure, but not very often. I've found some of the "smaller" battles are not worth playing.

There were a few occasions for instance where I took more casualties on Cross Keys than on Malvern Hill (!) 

Edited January 28, 2017 by Squadron HQ

[jamieva]

Agree i just fought Fredericksburg today as the CSA.  I inflicted over 60,000 casualties.  Probably need the attacking side's morale to drop faster so they are not willing to keep attacking while taking mass casulaties.  Units taking losses at that rate would have broke and ran 

[Buster65]

I agree that Cross Keys is, at best, a push with the money and men you are given after the battle versus what you lose. Oddly enough, in order to keep my casualties down, I make a flanking attack on my left, sweeping down on the Union from the top of the map, rather than fighting defensively at the VPs. Unfortunately, this further tips the Confederates toward more offensive battles than they fought in reality. Course, it's more fun, so there is that. In that vein, I would like to see the Chickamauga (Chattanooga?) Campaign included, as long as we are going more offensive. Historically, only 1 corps was sent from the ANV, which might allow us some opportunity to gain money and recruits without risking our whole army. The missions where we use someone else's army are pure gold.

[Hitorishizuka]

FWIW sometimes the AI just isn't aggressive enough. In the middle of 2nd Bull Run right now as CSA and the Union just isn't really attacking. They love lining up brigades outside of each other's rifle range so artillery can pelt them but they're only infrequently committing brigades to the attack and mostly piecemeal, so I just sit there and insta-rout them in a volley and the AI never can manage to assemble the critical mass they have when they have me outnumbered 2:1.

Of course, it's equally annoying seeing that because I usually like to try and wipe them out but going on the offense to chew through the 40k remaining guys when I only have 28k or so is a little silly and wasteful, so I might well just lame out the rest of the map on the 3rd day if they don't do anything. I'm actually still having a cash issue anyway so taking less casualties would work out just fine.

[Ohen]

On 2017-01-28 at 5:43 PM, Squadron HQ said:

Sure, but not very often. I've found some of the "smaller" battles are not worth playing.

There were a few occasions for instance where I took more casualties on Cross Keys than on Malvern Hill (!) 

But they really are! Reputation points and career points is essential for a successful campaign!