AI blatantly cheating with naval maneuvers.

[Mztr44]

Got any tips on a trap?

Split your fleet and corner them for inland seas. For open seas split off a group of light ships only, since fleet speed is restricted to the slowest ship type, you can chase down enemy fleets consisting of heavies and then catch up later with your own heavies.

 

[Junuxx]

I spent about 9 months of a war chasing down a French fleet around the British Isles

Hehe I have done that too.

 

[drayath]

Too many times I have lost fleets because I have been busy with land battles and didn't see the enemy fleet attack mine. Especially irritating when I have three large fleets that are nearby and could have easily won the battle, but they didn't reinforce because I did not realize the battle was occurring. That's why I almost never split up my fleet anymore unless I am paying strict attention or already have naval supremacy to the point where any enemy attack would be futile.

Have a look in the message options, you can set the game to display a popup (+pause) when any of your fleets get into a fight.

 

[grisamentum]

Only when you are trying to lure them into a trap.

So it's WAD that we can't lure the AI into traps? I mean...

 

[Rambo Panda]

I've used my navy to spy on coastal provinces in the Black Sea against Russia as the PLC, I took a large army and gave it an order to march from Moldavia to Georgia by marching through Ukraine. The next day every army that was visible from the coast (a few stacks of 10-15k) all began maneuvering to Georgia. Something tells me the AI knows a bit more than just seeing 2 provinces deep into my territory.

It could be a bug and I don't have a save file to prove it, but I've encountered it many times against Russia. I ended up using this to my advantage while I distracted their army by issuing/cancelling the order into Georgia while I sieged the north.

 

[Alblaka]

Tip: Hunt the fleet down with an armada of light ships. Even a hack cannot make their heavies escape your faster lights. Then follow up with heavies. Sure you will take losses, but with the current naval mechanics the enemy fleet will implode the second your heavies arrive.

 

[balmung60]

Split your fleet and corner them for inland seas. For open seas split off a group of light ships only, since fleet speed is restricted to the slowest ship type, you can chase down enemy fleets consisting of heavies and then catch up later with your own heavies.

In inland seas, you can also often get away with simply separating your galleys and having them join the fight later.

 

[zodium]

So it's WAD that we can't lure the AI into traps? I mean...

If my palm hits my forehead, does it make a sound?




Yes.

 

[fufie]

Got any tips on a trap?

Light Ships are your best bet as they are faster than everything else, and the enemy generally lumps everything together into one stack that is as slow as their slowest member. Use light ships to surround or catch up with the enemy and when you catch up and start the battle you send in your heavies and galleys as soon as possible. Put your admiral with your main light ship fleet so it has a bigger chance of damaging the enemy and avoiding damage until your heavies/galleys catch up. Combat bonuses from ideas or NIs for light ships, robustness-bonuses for the ships, as well as using the latest light ships helps as well.

 

[Imgran]

Except that with the navy, they do not use fog of war. I've had blockades on my ports that have lasted for a month or two. I select a much superior naval force that is 10 sea zones away and select the sea zone the blockade is in. The blockading fleet immediately begins to move. If I select the zone next to them, they won't move until I become adjacent to them or within maybe two zones. Speaking of which, I would like an option for a fleet which is called evasion to where if your fleet is blockading, it will retreat if an enemy fleet at a certain percentage of your fleet (can be adjusted when option is selected) comes within two noticed sea zones. Too many times I have lost fleets because I have been busy with land battles and didn't see the enemy fleet attack mine. Especially irritating when I have three large fleets that are nearby and could have easily won the battle, but they didn't reinforce because I did not realize the battle was occurring. That's why I almost never split up my fleet anymore unless I am paying strict attention or already have naval supremacy to the point where any enemy attack would be futile.

Yeah, doomstacking your navy is the only safe way to go right now if you want to win wars at sea.

 

[KaleRaven]

Too many times I have lost fleets because I have been busy with land battles and didn't see the enemy fleet attack mine. Especially irritating when I have three large fleets that are nearby and could have easily won the battle, but they didn't reinforce because I did not realize the battle was occurring. That's why I almost never split up my fleet anymore unless I am paying strict attention or already have naval supremacy to the point where any enemy attack would be futile.

Enh. That's perfectly historical. There's a reason that naval theorists came up with concepts like "Fleet in Being" and "Decisive Battle". Control of the seas is hard and fleeting, unless you destroy the enemies navy. Poor communication leading to defeat in detail is a matter of course. Nations kept their main fleets in port much of the time because of the tremendous risk involved in putting to sea. Keeping a balance between concentrating strength and controlling larger areas was always a challenge. Your losing your fleet shows precisely why full-time naval blockades were so difficult historically. If that taught you to concentrate your fleet or keep it in port, then you've learned a valuable lesson.

 

[Pellucid]

Enh. That's perfectly historical. There's a reason that naval theorists came up with concepts like "Fleet in Being" and "Decisive Battle". Control of the seas is hard and fleeting, unless you destroy the enemies navy. Poor communication leading to defeat in detail is a matter of course. Nations kept their main fleets in port much of the time because of the tremendous risk involved in putting to sea. Keeping a balance between concentrating strength and controlling larger areas was always a challenge. Your losing your fleet shows precisely why full-time naval blockades were so difficult historically. If that taught you to concentrate your fleet or keep it in port, then you've learned a valuable lesson.

Are you seriously arguing that poor video game controls are "historical?"

 

[aitaituo]

Are you seriously arguing that poor video game controls are "historical?"

s

Are you saying players not paying attention are poor controls?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Every time I have to deal with fleet combat in the Mediterranean around Sicily, I heard the Benny Hill theme song start up in my head!

 

[Pickle_mole]

Thanks Devs for the honest and concise responses, those types of answers show a respect for the community.

 

[Pellucid]

s

Are you saying players not paying attention are poor controls?

You're right, we should get rid of all notifications.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

The British Isles are not a problem. Don't chase the fleet. Send half your ships each way. Eventually, the other fleet has to head to open waters, which slows them down, while your pincer movement crushes them.

 

[grommile]

s

Are you saying players not paying attention are poor controls?

I would concur with someone who said that the default message settings are terrible (and made doubly so by the way the game has historically ended up throwing away your message configuration every time a new patch comes out, instead of just discarding references to messages that no longer exist and setting any message type not referenced by your message settings to the default behaviour).

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Only when you are trying to lure them into a trap.

Are you sure? What I have observed thus far is that the AI knows where I am going to move my troops even if they are ~6 provinces away (or more); this is so consistent that it can be exploited.

It would probably better too if the AI did not knew about faraway player troop movements (i.e did not cheat) or the war goal had less priority than going after the player stacks, because that behavior can be exploited big time. I can keep a superior foe doing literally nothing, stranded between my 2 faraway stacks simply because I am ordering one of them to go after the war goal>AI doom stack goes protect the war goal/kill my stack that is still very far away> I cancel the movement and the AI comes after my weakest stack that is sieging> rinse and repeat until I won.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

No, the AI will spam actions based on the knowledge of forces marching on them from far away. I get what you're trying to say, that it only "sees" these stacks when being marched upon, but experienced players have used this to get it to "cheat" and lift sieges or combine stacks into attrition through the fog of war and cripple its siege progress, melt its own stacks, or lose because they or their ally got sieged first and suddenly one side is the player's vassal.

On sea, it's less abusable, but on land you can definitely make the AI screw itself over without the inconvenience of ever having to actually move.

+1