I've watched quite a few wars go this way:
1) AI declares war on AI ally. AI ally calls me in. Our forces are clearly superior in number and peer or near-peer tech.
2) Ally immediately goes on the offensive, deploying troops forward, attacking across rivers and into hills, and suffering attrition while sieging a mere one province away from a critical battle.
I imagine this happens with wars I'm not called into as well, though I can't watch them as easily. I watched Burgundy lose a 3:1 troops ratio war against France (with higher miltech!) this way. They had lost 10 battles on French soil before France moved the first man into Burgundy.
Is this what most people are seeing? It seems that the AI should be more reluctant to immediately push an offensive in a DEFENSIVE war. That they make frustrating tactical decisions (i.e. attack into mountains) is one thing, but that they're doing it on enemy soil on the opening movements of the war seems more unfortunate...
1) AI declares war on AI ally. AI ally calls me in. Our forces are clearly superior in number and peer or near-peer tech.
2) Ally immediately goes on the offensive, deploying troops forward, attacking across rivers and into hills, and suffering attrition while sieging a mere one province away from a critical battle.
I imagine this happens with wars I'm not called into as well, though I can't watch them as easily. I watched Burgundy lose a 3:1 troops ratio war against France (with higher miltech!) this way. They had lost 10 battles on French soil before France moved the first man into Burgundy.
Is this what most people are seeing? It seems that the AI should be more reluctant to immediately push an offensive in a DEFENSIVE war. That they make frustrating tactical decisions (i.e. attack into mountains) is one thing, but that they're doing it on enemy soil on the opening movements of the war seems more unfortunate...