AI is a terrible naval strategist

[unmerged(11015)]

The AI obviously has not read Alfred Thayer Mahan. It never seems to seek a decisive engagement with your main fleet - instead it spreads its ships around in small packages that are easily destroyed in detail. (The AI seems to run its armies in similar spread-out "penny packets" too, which are easy to stomp one by one with a big force under a good leader.)

For example, I am in the middle of Napoleon's Ambition, and as France, I used Villeneuve with 60 ships to exterminate the entire British Navy. I don't think I ever fought more than 30 British ships at one time - mostly 10 here, 10 there. As a result, I have entirely evicted the British from North America, the Carribean, Ireland, and India. I haven't had to build a ship the whole game, yet I rule the seas. It's sooooo wrong...

I would have thought naval strategy would have been one of the easier things to program the AI to do. The basic principles are very simple.

 

[Carolus Rex]

Originally posted by Damien Thorne
I would have thought naval strategy would have been one of the easier things to program the AI to do. The basic principles are very simple.

Johan would've loved to know how to code that.

That's why the AI doesn't suffer attrition too...

 

[Shai]

The AI is playing more historically, I'd say. When, if ever, did the French OR the British put together a fighting fleet of 60 ships? You'd have to reach back to the Spanish Armada to find the like, and that was an administrative nightmare for Spain, besides becoming a unmitigated disaster. Huge fleets should be penalized, not utilized.

More logical would be to require smaller squadrons to maintain control of sea areas vital to trade by stationing patroling squadrons in an area. No fleet in the area means lots of pirates, additional losses to trade, loss of victory points. That would better simulate the need, then, to maintain a naval presence in key areas.

 

[Castellon]

Re: Re: AI is a terrible naval strategist

Originally posted by Carolus Rex


That's why the AI doesn't suffer attrition too...

Which may be part of the problem!

 

[unmerged(8022)]

Originally posted by Shai
The AI is playing more historically, I'd say. When, if ever, did the French OR the British put together a fighting fleet of 60 ships? You'd have to reach back to the Spanish Armada to find the like, and that was an administrative nightmare for Spain, besides becoming a unmitigated disaster. Huge fleets should be penalized, not utilized.

More logical would be to require smaller squadrons to maintain control of sea areas vital to trade by stationing patroling squadrons in an area. No fleet in the area means lots of pirates, additional losses to trade, loss of victory points. That would better simulate the need, then, to maintain a naval presence in key areas.

Yes, but no historical admiral should be so stupid so he attacked a armada on 60 ships if he only had 2 or 3 ships.

 

[Carolus Rex]

Re: Re: Re: AI is a terrible naval strategist

Originally posted by Castellon


Which may be part of the problem!

The problem would be even bigger if we didn't have that rule.

 

[Castellon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: AI is a terrible naval strategist

Originally posted by Carolus Rex


The problem would be even bigger if we didn't have that rule.

I don't think so. I could probably code an algorythm for the naval AI that accomplished both well.
The problem with the No attrition is that they do not have to return to port, which are natural gathering and concentration points. Plus they do not need larger fleets since they are not going to lose a few ships to attrition. So you end up with small fleets spreed out more.
The No attrition is not the only problem just something that contributes, IMNSHO!
For instance we see similar problems with land troops.

 

[unmerged(11008)]

Originally posted by Shai
The AI is playing more historically, I'd say. When, if ever, did the French OR the British put together a fighting fleet of 60 ships? You'd have to reach back to the Spanish Armada to find the like, and that was an administrative nightmare for Spain, besides becoming a unmitigated disaster. Huge fleets should be penalized, not utilized.

Trafalgar...

While I agree large fleets to this day are cumbersome and not the norm, when the AI splits its navy up so you can defeat it peacemeal it makes seafaring AI's a much easier target.

 

[unmerged(5817)]

Originally posted by Zeppelin


Trafalgar...

Well, Trafalgar is one of the biggest naval battles of that period, but still, it involved 33 Franco-Spanish ships vs. 28 English only. So that's nowhere near the figures like for the Invincible armada.

 

[unmerged(11008)]

Really? I always thought the fleets were larger, but I'd imagine you are correct given the numbers (33 Vs. 28 seems credible cf. to about 40). You'd figure the battle would be somewhat more grand considering the lore surrounding it.

I'll try another example...Lepanto. I know each side had 200+ galleys and despite the fractious nature of the Christian alliance, they managed to avoid disaster and slaughter (quite literally) the Turks. A bit ealier than Napoleon but still right in the heart of the EU II time period.

 

[Alerias]

Im having trouble managing small navies due to attrition, I imagine larger ones would be only worse.

Additionally, for some reason, I get smashed by forces much smaller than mine although I keep navy tech up there. *shrugs*

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Alerias
Im having trouble managing small navies due to attrition, I imagine larger ones would be only worse.

Additionally, for some reason, I get smashed by forces much smaller than mine although I keep navy tech up there. *shrugs*

A) Whith large navies you can afford to lose a few ships to attrition.

B)But not when you have 60 and they have 2 or 3.

 

[Baron Jukaga]

Well I've read, that's read mind you that someone sighted an english fleet numbering in the thousands, and that's warships. I've seen ai fleets in excess of 150 many times. I find it does mass a fleet after a long period of peacetime, but once in war when it has been shattered, it then attacks you in piecemeal, in essence right out of drydock.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Baron Jukaga
Well I've read, that's read mind you that someone sighted an english fleet numbering in the thousands, and that's warships. I've seen ai fleets in excess of 150 many times. I find it does mass a fleet after a long period of peacetime, but once in war when it has been shattered, it then attacks you in piecemeal, in essence right out of drydock.

Same problem on land!

 

[Baron Jukaga]

Originally posted by Castellon


Same problem on land!

Exactly the same problem. The Ai just can't stomach long wars, that's why we have war exhaustion the way it is.

 

[unmerged(11015)]

"The AI is playing more historically, I'd say. When, if ever, did the French OR the British put together a fighting fleet of 60 ships? You'd have to reach back to the Spanish Armada to find the like, and that was an administrative nightmare for Spain, besides becoming a unmitigated disaster. Huge fleets should be penalized, not utilized."

That's really beside the point. It's not the relative sizes of the fleets that's the problem, it's how the AI (mis)uses them. Obviously no human player would sit there and let your monster fleets gobble up his smaller fleets piecemeal.

 

[Carolus Rex]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AI is a terrible naval strategist

Originally posted by Castellon

I don't think so. I could probably code an algorythm for the naval AI that accomplished both well.
The problem with the No attrition is that they do not have to return to port, which are natural gathering and concentration points. Plus they do not need larger fleets since they are not going to lose a few ships to attrition. So you end up with small fleets spreed out more.
The No attrition is not the only problem just something that contributes, IMNSHO!
For instance we see similar problems with land troops.

Send Johan an email then.

 

[unmerged(3489)]

The problem with the naval situation gets even worse when you consider what happens to war scores. Those walking 2-3 ship navies are money waiting to be sent to the bottom of the sea, but they're also 1% each in the tally. When I was playing the USA in The American Dream, I kicked the English out of NA repeatedly but to get a bigger war score I'd get one concentrated navy and pick off English fleets until I got to 99.

And I was doing it in American national waters. The British had no business being there, and frankly I don't see how you can maintain a blockade in this game if the enemy has a fleet in being. The moment I got an opening to rescue one of my fleets from drydock and hook up with another it was all over for the blockade and they didn't know when to stop.

In short, I think the best thing the naval AI can do is stop trying to do so much with its navies if we can't make its AI worthwhile.

 

[unmerged(760)]

Originally posted by Castellon
Whith large navies you can afford to lose a few ships to attrition.

in fact you loose much more ships due to attiriton with a big navy than with a small one, making a string of ports and/or micromanagement essential. if you have decent ports in an area, armadas are way more effective due to combat superiority , if you go for exploration 5-10 fast ships will do

long live the galley!

 

[Castellon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AI is a terrible naval strategist

Originally posted by Carolus Rex


Send Johan an email then.

I don't think he would want to put that much money into a finished game.