AI allies are so STUPID

[PeterCorless]

1. Declares Holy Wars without caring who it will pull in.
2. Cannot stick together effectively. Wander off just when stupidest.
3. Waits until enemy is fully massed before attacking. Then suicides.

 

[HechiceraWG]

Something as simple as a rally point for any specific war would be so useful. It wouldn't give fine control, but it would at least prevent the scenario where you split your own army, one part stays away on offense and the other part goes back to defend the home base. Then the ally ping pongs between them so long that one of them gets wiped out.

 

[makaramus]

for me everytime my allies stick close to me and help me

 

[PeterCorless]

Yes. Even just setting an army to "follow me!" would help.

Here's the stupidest: army too small to siege a castle goes to sit on it, when if it stayed away just two months, it would have reinforced sufficiently to be able to perform the siege. Refuses to leave the spot.

Also stupid: there is a simultaneous war on the same territory where some of the enemies are hostile. Walks into stacks 5x their numbers not seeing them at all.

 

[Zhetone]

I also have wars where my ally comes to help, then some idiot count in the middle of nowhere they're allied with starts a war so they leave me to fend for myself. Extremely obnoxious

 

[makaramus]

I also have wars where my ally comes to help, then some idiot count in the middle of nowhere they're allied with starts a war so they leave me to fend for myself. Extremely obnoxious

yea but thats more understandable they picking their side at that point I cant blame AI for doing it because I tend to do same thing

 

[Secret Master]

for me everytime my allies stick close to me and help me

It's really hit or miss for me.

Sometimes, I've got allies all near me, willing to consolidate for a big battle, then going to separate counties to reduce supply consumption.

Then there was the last freaking crusade I fought where I ended up generating 50000% more war contribution than anyone else because every crusader army wandered around the desert like a moron while I repeatedly fought the damn Abbasids doomstack..... and lost every time.

We had the numbers and troop quality to win those battles, too.

(Of course, crusader armies wandering around doing their own thing while not fighting together is, in some cases, historically accurate, so I wonder if that's a nod to history.)

 

[gekj]

AI armies are not perfect, but definitly better than CK2

 

[Olden Weiss]

There are three general tricks to working with the AI:

1. The AI often acts around what it thinks you want to do. If you're advancing for a pitched battle, it will often join (unless it thinks it's suicide). If it thinks you'll join a pitched battle, it will often push for one. If you want to avoid the AI charging blindly, pull back and they'll often do the same.

2. The AI likes to split stacks to prevent attrition. It will generally try to stick to your rough location, but will rarely stand "on you" if doing so would cause you both to take attrition.

3. The AI likes to claim good defensive ground, especially if it's small. Sometimes it's reluctant to give that ground up, especially if the enemy has men-at-arms that do poorly on that terrain.

Some of this isn't necessarily true during crusades, though. Seems to me that in crusades, the AI lords are all competing to be the ones who get the highest warscore, and that can lead them to make foolish mistakes. Somewhat historical, that!

 

[JJxvi]

AI is not perfect but when I had finally fought enough wars in my area to understand the defensive terrain bonuses and how the AI was avoiding making stacks to avoid attrition, I realized that that I understood more of what the AI was doing.

 

[ColorsFade]

Allied AI is atrocious. The player needs the ability to control forces. At least if they are the main attacker or defender. Otherwise it's just garbage.

 

[Drakken]

Allies are so stupid.

I'm fighing this huge, HUGE battle against this enemy civil war faction but one of my allies is remaining over some mountain barony nearby, doing nothing.

I decided to fire my onagers at them and, finally, they decided them to move and join my battle.

PLZ Paradox fix this!!!!!!

 

[Phi-]

I am not too bothered about the Ally AI in general. I just don't assume they will help me or don't invite them to my wars in the first place. But that's not so much an issue since I sometimes don't participate in wars I'm called to either.

The Crusade AI seems to be a different beast though:
It effectively feels like it's actively trying to sabotage the player. It gets caught by enemy stacks constantly and then commits to losing battles with every possible reinforcement, boosting enemy warscore. At the same time, if I manage to bait the enemy into attacking it and a huge ally stack is in the neighboring (!) province it choses to wander around in the desert or steppe for a week instead of fighting the enemy.

 

[Zhetone]

I am not too bothered about the Ally AI in general. I just don't assume they will help me or don't invite them to my wars in the first place. But that's not so much an issue since I sometimes don't participate in wars I'm called to either.

The Crusade AI seems to be a different beast though:
It effectively feels like it's actively trying to sabotage the player. It gets caught by enemy stacks constantly and then commits to losing battles with every possible reinforcement, boosting enemy warscore. At the same time, if I manage to bait the enemy into attacking it and a huge ally stack is in the neighboring (!) province it choses to wander around in the desert or steppe for a week instead of fighting the enemy.

also you'll have a 30k stack of enemy units, and 60k allied ones, and they all run away from the big stack, leaving you sieging alone. they actively avoid decisive battles, the only alternative is that the Pope himself has a deathstack (another stupid aspect of this game right now) and takes them on alone

 

[ac566]

I'd like to see a feature like "War Correspondence" where you can give orders to allies but they decide whether or not to follow them. If they accept they tell you, either with a pop up or some event log. This could be expanded so that they will give you orders as well, like "Siege down X" or "Join me in this battle", or "Move to attack this enemy (with me)". If you decline it could give an opinion malus.

It would also be nice just to see what the A.I. is "thinking". A big problem with A.I. across all applications, is that it is generally opaque and thus harder to predict. I think just giving us insight into what the A.I. is planning would go a long way to helping us predict it. This is especially essential if things like personality traits affect how A.I. behaves in war. It would be cool to see brave commanders marching into risky fights

 

[PeterCorless]

The basic EUIV mechanic here are sorely missed:

"You, siege this."

"You, follow me."

It's not hard. But managing wars without this *VERY HARD*.

The only thing I would change about this would be to split "Follow me" into "Follow closely" (logistics be damned, we have to stick tight) vs. "Forage follow" (more spread out; try at best to stay below supply limit).

 

[Stein0]

I really do wonder what the developers thinks about players more directly guiding/controlling allied AI forces. In EU4 you can "suggest" allies to attach by clicking a simple checkbox, but in Stellaris there's nothing despite players begging for it for years...

In my opinion there should be a guidance system for the simple fact that when allied AI acts badly it is often something the player really cares about. Many aspects of the game can and should be improved upon, but not many of these will have the same emotional impact as that of an ally not reinforcing a crucial battle you would otherwise have won.

I'd like to see a feature like "War Correspondence" where you can give orders to allies but they decide whether or not to follow them. If they accept they tell you, either with a pop up or some event log. This could be expanded so that they will give you orders as well, like "Siege down X" or "Join me in this battle", or "Move to attack this enemy (with me)". If you decline it could give an opinion malus.

Good ideas, but maybe too clunky/too many clicks involved? I'd suggest banners similar to the rally banner we already have - A "Siege This" banner, a "Group Up" banner etc. And bring back the "Attach" mechanic from EU4. As for the AI giving you orders I'm a bit skeptical... I've seen this sort of mechanic in Endless Space 2 and it was rarely of any use. I think the main priority in all of this should the player being able to influence the AI.

 

[JJxvi]

I often find in this game that if I really thought about it, that I am the *******. In most of my wars where I call allies, they are extremely helpful, because they seem to be mostly intent on moving their armies into the area where mine is, or where the war target is. I, on the other hand, am probably infuriating, because while I do usually win their war for them, I am just going to whats closest and seiging down anything and everything for loot and ransoms

 

[Draniels]

Sometimes I wonder if there is a ruler or commanding general element to the Ai because honestly some AI armies are so amazing and helpful, they will stick to you so hard and fight every battle, and others are absolute fucking cowards who march away even when we will have the advantage. I've seen all sorts. I do wonder if the AI armies change their behavior depending on ruler traits, that would be pretty cool actually. If that was the case then I don't mind some of them being cowardly or just plain old stupid since it gives the game an element of realism.

 

[klinkvon13]

yea but thats more understandable they picking their side at that point I cant blame AI for doing it because I tend to do same thing

Except if there is one war that mean they'll loose their duchy while another is about an random distant topic of no consequences to them.
I've seen them disregarding an holy war on their own counties. Not sure it is in their best interest.