Absolutely love this game... absolutely hate AI allies.

[klopkr]

Once you're big enough it's not the biggest deal but early on I usually need to rely on my allies in a war or two.

But constantly they aren't just neutral allies, they're actively losing me the war, I swear.

Only got 2k levis to start? Good luck sieging, your allies are allergic to standing in the same spot as you. Need them to siege? Better hope they feel like even wandering towards the enemy. Big stack coming that you could beat together? Best to split up in every other direction so each ally can individually be picked off.

Seriously what is it in their AI that make them actively unhelpful?


Basic ways to fix this:

1. Make tier 1 forts require 1.5k troops to siege. That way one single tick of attrition doesn't pause your siege.
2. Supply should be minimum 4-6k. Now that the minimum levy is 2k then there needs to be room for at least two stacks to be in one place at once.
3. The AI should want to stick as close to the nearest ally armies as possible unless they're much stronger than the enemy.
4. The AI should gun for existing sieges that are paused unless an enemy is within a tile.
5. The AI should prefer to attach to another stack when an enemy is within 2-3 tiles so they move together as a unit instead of splitting off.
6. Give us any of the abilities to direct the AI that exist in eu4. Sack anyone that suggests it's not necessary to have in these implemented in ALL PDOX GAMES.

 

[IsaacCAT]

There is an option on your armies to allow other armies to attach/follow, didn’t work?

 

[Vlad3fr]

There is an option on your armies to allow other armies to attach/follow, didn’t work?

This options work sometimes, but most of the times the allies just wander in every direction possible or stand next to the fort but don't come help to siege or fight.

 

[ThePirateMan]

AI allies seem reluctant to attach, which at times seems like a somewhat intelligent choice, but other times they end up completely confused sitting in one tile, moving to leave it and then stopping over and over again as well other confused behaviours.

 

[Bovrick]

They need to swap the attach logic with the carpet seige logic but on a more serious note, yeah, it does need help. I agree with lowering the minimum seige size, though adding back the increase as a Keystone Innovation in the seige section would be a good idea too.

 

[lemonsquid]

This is standard across many Pdox titles. Allied AI are incompentent. Enemy AI are wizards who call in mercenaries from across the continent to smash you to bits

 

[Martocticvs]

I was trying to seige a fort but only had an army that was slightly too small to make the timer progress. My ally had a similarly sized army sat in the neighbouring territory - which I owned - but refused to come and help with the seige (yes, I tried the attach options). If they had come to help, it would have been enough men to get the timer to progress. Eventually, I abandoned it and sent my army elsewhere - then the AI was happy to go and stand on that same fort, but on their own they also did not have enough men!

This aspect of the AI definitely needs some improvement

Has the AI been properly updated to understand the new, smaller unit sizes? Maybe it thinks the seige was progressing fine because it would have been in the previous patch.

 

[Nostalgium]

This is standard across many Pdox titles. Allied AI are incompentent. Enemy AI are wizards who call in mercenaries from across the continent to smash you to bits

100%. Never declare a war where you depend on your AI allies being competent to win. Or even decent. Do not count on them to be anything but fodder and distractions - that way lies madness.

 

[Daft]

I was trying to seige a fort but only had an army that was slightly too small to make the timer progress. My ally had a similarly sized army sat in the neighbouring territory - which I owned - but refused to come and help with the seige (yes, I tried the attach options). If they had come to help, it would have been enough men to get the timer to progress. Eventually, I abandoned it and sent my army elsewhere - then the AI was happy to go and stand on that same fort, but on their own they also did not have enough men!

This aspect of the AI definitely needs some improvement

Has the AI been properly updated to understand the new, smaller unit sizes? Maybe it thinks the seige was progressing fine because it would have been in the previous patch.

I've seen that as well. I think my allies want me to fail.

 

[Will Steel]

I wish we had those EU4/CK2 style ally order buttons that we could use to tell our allies where to attack or defend, and order our vassals on how to conduct military campaigns.

 

[klopkr]

There is an option on your armies to allow other armies to attach/follow, didn’t work?

There's some weight somewhere causing the AI to spread into a million little stacks around you.

I think it's related to attrition avoidance but i'm not sure.

They HATE standing on a siege with any other armies and they love any chance to run away from a fight in 6 different directions even if your combined stacks are stronger.

100%. Never declare a war where you depend on your AI allies being competent to win. Or even decent. Do not count on them to be anything but fodder and distractions - that way lies madness.

But 99% of small start's are completely reliant on you having an ally save your butt in the first war you declare across every pdox game.

Guess it's not problem when most players only play the titular nations of the game.

 

[Ruck]

Once you're big enough it's not the biggest deal but early on I usually need to rely on my allies in a war or two.

But constantly they aren't just neutral allies, they're actively losing me the war, I swear.

Only got 2k levis to start? Good luck sieging, your allies are allergic to standing in the same spot as you. Need them to siege? Better hope they feel like even wandering towards the enemy. Big stack coming that you could beat together? Best to split up in every other direction so each ally can individually be picked off.

Seriously what is it in their AI that make them actively unhelpful?


Basic ways to fix this:

1. Make tier 1 forts require 1.5k troops to siege. That way one single tick of attrition doesn't pause your siege.
2. Supply should be minimum 4-6k. Now that the minimum levy is 2k then there needs to be room for at least two stacks to be in one place at once.
3. The AI should want to stick as close to the nearest ally armies as possible unless they're much stronger than the enemy.
4. The AI should gun for existing sieges that are paused unless an enemy is within a tile.
5. The AI should prefer to attach to another stack when an enemy is within 2-3 tiles so they move together as a unit instead of splitting off.
6. Give us any of the abilities to direct the AI that exist in eu4. Sack anyone that suggests it's not necessary to have in these implemented in ALL PDOX GAMES.

And then "when you are big enough" its raining forum threads how easy the game is....

1.) You can develope your integrated pops before you go to your war, no one is forcing you to go to war, when you are as that small, when the AI declares war on you, you can stay defensive.
2.) I agree with that
3.) No. Its your ally in a time where radio and smartfones were not a thing and similiar unfortunate things happened all the time in real history. How do they exactly know how strong is the enemy in that provinces ? How do they know how strong are your forces ? How do they know where your forces are ? Yes, we know it because we have a magically map, showing us everything what happens from Britannia to India in 280 bc.
4.) Hmm maybe, I would say that depends on how close they are to that siege.
5.) How do your allies know that the enemy is only 2-3 tiles away ? And even if, isn´t it faster to go straight after them if you do so as well and then meet together at the battlefield ? (Hello Waterloo, If only the prussians would finally would arrivem heh ?!)
6.) I would say rather no, maybe for puppet states but not for allied forces. Thats not how it worked in history even in modern times like in world war I or II. You can not tell your friends what and how exactly they should do, they will and should decide by themselve, otherwise they would be not your "friends" but rather slaves, puppets or something like that.

I know that my answer here will lead to a raign in red disapproves, but cmon, you expect the AI to exactly know what you want to do in the future, they should even hear on your commands ? How good did that worked for Germany in WW2 when it comes to Italy or Romania ? Or WW1 Germany and Austria-Hungary ? How did that worked for England and France in the 1940 campaign ? And those all are modern time situations, unfortunately my knowledge of similiar "combined international forces" for antiquity times is limited, but I doubt that they could be in any way that good what you demand.

I personally would even like it, if we couldn´t see our allied forces on the map, as long they are not 1 tile away or we have a good "intel" or some mechanics like that f.e. on them. Let it be a surprise for us on how and when they will support us, the same way it was a suprise for the English gentlemen on when the Prussians will arive on waterloo.

Also, you dont have to win every war, it´s not a big a problem too loose some territories, you can get back on your foots after that and by the way your enemy is an AI also and plays by the exact same rules as your AI allies play and in absolute worst case you can just accept that you lost, learn of it and restart the game.

Of course i´ll agree that the AI can improve on some decisions they do, but cmon, its antiquity time, dont expect things from your allies which where impossible even in the 1900´s.

 

[Kadanz]

The AI is like a toddler in a room full of knives most of the time. But I've been running into the exact opposite in my games tbh. Somehow the AI doesn't believe in building forts and even tears most of them down.

I swear I could hear alexander protest in his tomb when I conquered phrygia faster than him. "Hey that's cheating! lemme out!"

 

[klopkr]

And then "when you are big enough" its raining forum threads how easy the game is....

1.) You can develope your integrated pops before you go to your war, no one is forcing you to go to war, when you are as that small, when the AI declares war on you, you can stay defensive.
2.) I agree with that
3.) No. Its your ally in a time where radio and smartfones were not a thing and similiar unfortunate things happened all the time in real history. How do they exactly know how strong is the enemy in that provinces ? How do they know how strong are your forces ? How do they know where your forces are ? Yes, we know it because we have a magically map, showing us everything what happens from Britannia to India in 280 bc.
4.) Hmm maybe, I would say that depends on how close they are to that siege.
5.) How do your allies know that the enemy is only 2-3 tiles away ? And even if, isn´t it faster to go straight after them if you do so as well and then meet together at the battlefield ? (Hello Waterloo, If only the prussians would finally would arrivem heh ?!)
6.) I would say rather no, maybe for puppet states but not for allied forces. Thats not how it worked in history even in modern times like in world war I or II. You can not tell your friends what and how exactly they should do, they will and should decide by themselve, otherwise they would be not your "friends" but rather slaves, puppets or something like that.

I know that my answer here will lead to a raign in red disapproves, but cmon, you expect the AI to exactly know what you want to do in the future, they should even hear on your commands ? How good did that worked for Germany in WW2 when it comes to Italy or Romania ? Or WW1 Germany and Austria-Hungary ? How did that worked for England and France in the 1940 campaign ? And those all are modern time situations, unfortunately my knowledge of similiar "combined international forces" for antiquity times is limited, but I doubt that they could be in any way that good what you demand.

I personally would even like it, if we couldn´t see our allied forces on the map, as long they are not 1 tile away or we have a good "intel" or some mechanics like that f.e. on them. Let it be a surprise for us on how and when they will support us, the same way it was a suprise for the English gentlemen on when the Prussians will arive on waterloo.

Also, you dont have to win every war, it´s not a big a problem too loose some territories, you can get back on your foots after that and by the way your enemy is an AI also and plays by the exact same rules as your AI allies play and in absolute worst case you can just accept that you lost, learn of it and restart the game.

Of course i´ll agree that the AI can improve on some decisions they do, but cmon, its antiquity time, dont expect things from your allies which where impossible even in the 1900´s.

You're looking at this from a laimen historical perspective and not an AI game perspective.

I'm not suggesting giving the AI information outside of it's current ingame fog of war. I'm instead suggesting that when it has multiple choices it should play in such a way that wont mechanically give up all it's ability to contend anyone else in a multi ally war.

1. Unless you play with a specific mod (that is good btw) the base unit for levies is always exactly 2k. It's just bad game design to have sieges, which are fundamental to any warfare, require exactly 2k as the bare minimum and implement an attrition system that will lower your troops from 2k each tick. Making the minimum 1.5k would make it so that a single levy nation can actually face a lowest level fort. This isn't just for offensive or player purposes. This is for the AI too. If they have 2 forts and only 2k levy and lose one to an enemy then it's impossible for them to retake their own fort on their own. The AI on average will have only 2k levies much much more often than players. It's ok for troops not to be able to siege down a fort after losing a portion of the army but that portion shouldn't be equivalent to 1 single man for the vast majority of nations from the start (and onward for the AI).
3. I'm specifically talking about when they're in the same county as you or within 1 or 3. Literally within scouting range even for an army in this period. If both of you are within your own land or an allies land they should always know where you are as even then there would be basic logistical communications over time and the game literally currently functions this way with fog of war. I'm suggesting this specifically because the AI will weigh attrition avoidance so high that they'll stand next to your army and wait until a battle has started before joining in even if your two stacks combined would outnumber the enemy. If an enemy is within in game visibility and has more troops than either one of you or your allies stacks and combined you would have a higher number than the AI should want to stand on the same tile as you out of self preservation, instead he will stand next to you to avoid attrition then slowly march into your tile after the battle has started. In history these contingents would be standing on the same tile going everywhere together after meeting up or far apart doing completely separate operations. They would also be aware of each other as they're literally allies in a war with the same goals.
4. If they're not doing their own siege or battle or anything else and your siege is visible in range. Again I bring this up because the AI will stand next to a siege doing nothing even if it's paused because of attrition worries.
5. 2-3 tiles is within in game visibility. Not talking about changing any visibility here. The battlefield is much smaller than one tile and again in history these armies would be fundamentally marching together at these distances. The ingame movement between tiles and distances isn't realistic at all. In reality all the armies would be marching significantly faster and most battles would be finished within one in game tick (one day).
6. You're absolutely naive if you think political leaders didn't constantly communicate and plan together with their allies from the dawn of history.

Hell read literally any of Caesar's military campaigns. In gaul he worked with and commanded gaulish allies constantly, giving them targets and roles. The knowledge he had and the range his scouts reached and the constant communications he had throughout the region and with his allies are practically fundamental to the whole campaign.

 

[Iosue Yu]

100%. Never declare a war where you depend on your AI allies being competent to win. Or even decent. Do not count on them to be anything but fodder and distractions - that way lies madness.

So this paradox I keep getting.

• I: Half my levies begin with no food, and fighting once down my man count to 1.4k
• Forum members: You should use Mercs
• I: Mercs cost $100 to hire and it takes 10 months to regenerate morale.
• Forum members: You should use allies.
• I: Allies are useless because they love moving away
• Forum members: Tribes are weak so you should play in Rome.
• I: Ok... I'll try Allies.
• Forum members: You shouldn't declare war if you must rely on allies
• I: What about suggesting the game to lower the bar for man count?
• Forum members: You are spreading negativity of the game. The game is fine as it is.
• I: I can't play in this state.
• Forum members: You have no standing to make complaints because you haven't played enough.

Ok...

 

[lemonsquid]

The AI is like a toddler in a room full of knives most of the time. But I've been running into the exact opposite in my games tbh. Somehow the AI doesn't believe in building forts and even tears most of them down.

I swear I could hear alexander protest in his tomb when I conquered phrygia faster than him. "Hey that's cheating! lemme out!"

yea forts get expensive so they must hate that. its probably why they have huge sums of cash laying around to buy up all the mercenaries

 

[Nostalgium]

So this paradox I keep getting.

• I: Half my levies begin with no food, and fighting once down my man count to 1.4k
• Forum members: You should use Mercs
• I: Mercs cost $100 to hire and it takes 10 months to regenerate morale.
• Forum members: You should use allies.
• I: Allies are useless because they love moving away
• Forum members: Tribes are weak so you should play in Rome.
• I: Ok... I'll try Allies.
• Forum members: You shouldn't declare war if you must rely on allies
• I: What about suggesting the game to lower the bar for man count?
• Forum members: You are spreading negativity of the game. The game is fine as it is.
• I: I can't play in this state.
• Forum members: You have no standing to make complaints because you haven't played enough.

Ok...

I said you shouldn't count on allies, not not take them. They're very useful in that the enemy will often work on sieging them rather than you, distracting them from defending fronts which don't matter, or opening themselves up to attacks in the back if you do. But if you strategy relies on your AI allies actually coordinating with you, you're in for a bad time. This is true for every Paradox game.

As an aside, I've now played with 2k levy tribes in Germania and Gaul, and started with a 2k levy in Crete - I unfortunately wasn't able to replicate the totally unplayable state you claim small states are. It's perfectly possible to fight once, have your men reduced, and then - since they can't instantly raise their levies again - go back to your home turf and resupply the army, then start a siege. The one case where I did hire mercs - Crete, to give myself an edge - I hired them on the wrong island and couldn't ship them to the province, so I even spat 230 gold down the drain for extra spice. The game really isn't unplayable as a small nation like you keep claiming - you just can't build two extra units and run a defecit for a year to win your first wars, like you could in 1.5.x

 

[Iosue Yu]

I said you shouldn't count on allies, not not take them. They're very useful in that the enemy will often work on sieging them rather than you, distracting them from defending fronts which don't matter, or opening themselves up to attacks in the back if you do. But if you strategy relies on your AI allies actually coordinating with you, you're in for a bad time. This is true for every Paradox game.

As an aside, I've now played with 2k levy tribes in Germania and Gaul, and started with a 2k levy in Crete - I unfortunately wasn't able to replicate the totally unplayable state you claim small states are. It's perfectly possible to fight once, have your men reduced, and then - since they can't instantly raise their levies again - go back to your home turf and resupply the army, then start a siege. The one case where I did hire mercs - Crete, to give myself an edge - I hired them on the wrong island and couldn't ship them to the province, so I even spat 230 gold down the drain for extra spice. The game really isn't unplayable as a small nation like you keep claiming - you just can't build two extra units and run a defecit for a year to win your first wars, like you could in 1.5.x

Building 2 extra units didn't run you into deficit though.

My condolences on your Cretan experience. But Crete is such a good soil with 4 cities and isolated by the sea. You'd just get rich and $230 is nothing.

 

[trjacobin]

Shouldn't there be an option to just be able to control the AI feudatory, client state, tributaries armies? It'd make sense as you're the war leader and they're your lickspittles...
I'd really like this option tbh. Allies could perhaps get broad (try to defend, try to attack) from you, but not direct control.

 

[Nostalgium]

Building 2 extra units didn't run you into deficit though.

My condolences on your Cretan experience. But Crete is such a good soil with 4 cities and isolated by the sea. You'd just get rich and $230 is nothing.

Oh sure, I'm flush with cash NOW, but when your income is 1.23 gold per tick and you're fighting Gortyna and Knossos at once, 230 is quite a bit of money to spend for fun. It was a further example that I didn't need mercs to win that war, AND that I accidentally handicapped myself by wasting over 10 years of my current income at that point.

Shouldn't there be an option to just be able to control the AI feudatory, client state, tributaries armies? It'd make sense as you're the war leader and they're your lickspittles...
I'd really like this option tbh. Allies could perhaps get broad (try to defend, try to attack) from you, but not direct control.

I don't like the idea of controlling them, but being able to set goals for them like in EU4 would be quite nice.