-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
1. No, not really unless I'm zombie play testing for some reason.
2. However, I do occasionally give the AI control of Armies and AGs, but never Theatres - stuffs up the units too much, this has been discussed many times before and I think to answer the OP's Edit: the general consensus is never to give control of your Theatre HQs to the AI (unless you play that way and stick to it) because of it messing up divisional structures or creating bad combos with spare Brigades. AG or Army is fine, but not fore amphibious or breakthrough actions.
See same point, although one can give things to the AI when situations are in hand, but not at Theatre HQ level ever...
Good reasoning, well expressed too.
I do when playing France, it is better at coordinating things with my AI allies than I am. Apparently they think the same way...
Good point too.
I am not God so I can not be at multiple places at once. Therefore I use the AI for less important theatres and watch what it does once in a while. That gives me the opportunity to micro-manage on division level and set up joint attacks at certain places I find crucial.
I'm a mix.
I do stay away from large armies though.... so as Russia, *everything* is on AI but as Bulgaria I'd probably manage my own dang units.
I do stay away from large armies though.... so as Russia, *everything* is on AI but as Bulgaria I'd probably manage my own dang units.
I don't use AI but that will change. In my new 1936 game with USSR i gave all the theatre to AI and i will have a chance to see the consequences. In MP i think i will give the fronts ,which are not against real players such as Poland or China, to AI because some players do not allow to go with 3 level of speed and it can be difficult to manage at 4 or 5.
In most MP games the game speed is 1 once the real war starts and no one uses AI control. Handling the UK at speed 1 against Germany, Italy and Japan once France has fallen is very hard, even with a co-op player. The instant rebase air forces across the globe without penalty and massive naval manoeuvrings with multiple carrier fleets on both sides in a single engagement means you have to keep your eye on everything.
Anyways, I like to use the AI in single player since it gives this feeling of your Generals never doing as you envision, they have their own minds.
i use Ai all the time.
mainly from a "roleplay" point of view.
ie:
if i want to attack france, i could do that, and meta game a bit, and work round the enemy AI. wow i can outthink a computer.
the trick, i find, is providing your own AI with the right equipment, allies, timing, research, so it can out-do itself (ie the other AI)
taking 2 things the same and beating one is better than beating something that isnt on a par with a human brain
i dont really play multiplayer- when i do, i do manual control
mainly from a "roleplay" point of view.
ie:
if i want to attack france, i could do that, and meta game a bit, and work round the enemy AI. wow i can outthink a computer.
the trick, i find, is providing your own AI with the right equipment, allies, timing, research, so it can out-do itself (ie the other AI)
taking 2 things the same and beating one is better than beating something that isnt on a par with a human brain
i dont really play multiplayer- when i do, i do manual control
I use only theatre AI. I'm horribly bad at micromanaging so many divisions or corps.
Sometimes.
I use it for countries abroad. For example, as Great Britain, controlling India will help the fight against Japan.
I use it for countries abroad. For example, as Great Britain, controlling India will help the fight against Japan.
I'd say I am in a cozy 80/20 in regards of AI use. I always start any offensive operation manually, specially if it's an amphibious operation(absolutely a must then), but then I switch to AI control most of the time, but only for Army Groups and lower. I do this so as to not be stuck in micromanage hell, but also due to the fact of AI controlled air cover; this way I don't loose any wings without noticing and don't have to give them missions. Naval combat can never be left to the AI, it does stupid things like merging perfect fleets into massive penalty ridden fleets. Other special armies/corps, like marines, paratroopers and blitz divisions go manual most of the time; however the minute I think the "real" battle has been won, I just leave them under the AI to mop up whatever is left of the enemy. Only when playing relative small wars, like the SCW, I might go manual through the whole conflict; but then lately after the heavy lifting is done, I let the AI finish off the nationalists.
I'm really looking forward to the day where the AI is solidly-better than me. Right now, I use the AI to control theatres that are not the centre of attention.
After the Vichy trigger has gone off, and I have occupied Britain, France and the Low Countries, I set all of it up under one BIG theatre, and then attach all the garrison units to it directly. I turn on the AI, click on the provinces that I want protected, and forget-about-it. The AI is EXCELLENT for dealing with partisans this way - they hunt the little buggers down much better than I could.
The Theatre AI still has MAJOR problems keeping command lines within distance, planning attacks optimally so that units stay together while still moving FORWARD, and properly exploiting break-throughs.
The AI has to learn how to think about preparation in terms of the command structure it is presented and how to move the entire formation toward the goals as expediently as possible. There is still WAY too much lateral movement along the front. The AI tends to want to send units hundreds of miles in order to exploit openings and weak spots. Of course, by the time the units get there, those openings and weak spots no longer exist, so the AI sends those same units hundreds of miles again looking for the next spot.
The AI has vastly improved at seeking flanks and expanding frontage. I have found that I have to watch very carefully where I attack or my first units into the province can get ganked!
I would like to see more work done with teaching the AI to utilize different formations more creatively - army corps and armys especially. Keep formations together, attack along consistant vectors to keep formations moving in the same direction, and limit lateral movement along the front to an absolute minimum!
The only thing that would make the AI even better is if it could actually evaluate my entire armed forces and suggest different combinations to achieve goals. Especially after Bitter Peace when invading India. Too little force gets bogged-down, to much starves on lack of supplies - I wish there was a supply calculator that allowed me to figure out a good balance for that. Even better: Let the AI do That!
After the Vichy trigger has gone off, and I have occupied Britain, France and the Low Countries, I set all of it up under one BIG theatre, and then attach all the garrison units to it directly. I turn on the AI, click on the provinces that I want protected, and forget-about-it. The AI is EXCELLENT for dealing with partisans this way - they hunt the little buggers down much better than I could.
The Theatre AI still has MAJOR problems keeping command lines within distance, planning attacks optimally so that units stay together while still moving FORWARD, and properly exploiting break-throughs.
The AI has to learn how to think about preparation in terms of the command structure it is presented and how to move the entire formation toward the goals as expediently as possible. There is still WAY too much lateral movement along the front. The AI tends to want to send units hundreds of miles in order to exploit openings and weak spots. Of course, by the time the units get there, those openings and weak spots no longer exist, so the AI sends those same units hundreds of miles again looking for the next spot.
The AI has vastly improved at seeking flanks and expanding frontage. I have found that I have to watch very carefully where I attack or my first units into the province can get ganked!
I would like to see more work done with teaching the AI to utilize different formations more creatively - army corps and armys especially. Keep formations together, attack along consistant vectors to keep formations moving in the same direction, and limit lateral movement along the front to an absolute minimum!
The only thing that would make the AI even better is if it could actually evaluate my entire armed forces and suggest different combinations to achieve goals. Especially after Bitter Peace when invading India. Too little force gets bogged-down, to much starves on lack of supplies - I wish there was a supply calculator that allowed me to figure out a good balance for that. Even better: Let the AI do That!
I generally avoid it, except when I'm playing as the SU on the offensive, because trying to coordinate 4.5 million men when you are probably going to win anyway (once the Red Army goes on the general offensive there is little chance of it being stopped) is not worth it.
On the defensive I manage any necessary retreats by myself to prevent units being overrun and as previously said, overall I try to avoid AI control in most other scenarios as any nation.
On the defensive I manage any necessary retreats by myself to prevent units being overrun and as previously said, overall I try to avoid AI control in most other scenarios as any nation.
The AI controls my theatres but I take manual control of my Panzers, the Airforce and the Navy.
Those of you who control only armoured units etc.: do you have a separate command chain right up to theatre for those separate units, or do you just take them out of the hierarchy altogether?
No, I insist on controlling absolutely everything. That way if it goes wrong, its only myself to blame.....and if it goes right, I get all the credit Besides, allowing the AI to control my military just.....I don't know, it takes the fun out of the game I find. The ability to make the tactical decisions yourself and see how it all unfolds, be your decisions successful or a disaster.....that's where the fun in the game lies
Besides, allowing the AI to control my military just.....I don't know, it takes the fun out of the game I find. The ability to make the tactical decisions yourself and see how it all unfolds, be your decisions successful or a disaster.....that's where the fun in the game lies
I normally control everything. But in my current game I thought I might give the AI an relatevely easy but time consuming conquest at armygroup level.
It's not finished yet and it's nearly impossible to fuck this task up, but the AI is close to getting this impossible feat done.
I don't think I'll ever assign it a task again. Except something like the defense of Iceland on Korps level maybe ...
It's not finished yet and it's nearly impossible to fuck this task up, but the AI is close to getting this impossible feat done.
I don't think I'll ever assign it a task again. Except something like the defense of Iceland on Korps level maybe ...
Not that I am one of those that only controls armoured units (MAR etc) but I suggest that it would not be a good idea to take them out of hierarchy altogether because a) it means losing the bonuses from higher HQs for them especially the 50% from Corps HQs making them less combat effective so to speak and b) these are likely to be expensive supply & fuel consumers and the most important thing to reduce these units demands is from the skill effect from their Army Group HQ Leader and being in range up the hierarchy chain to receive it. By not having these units under HQs at all is very likely going to cost you more supply production and drain the supply pipeline causing out-of-supply issues which is not good to have happening to the best units in your Army!
No I use the same command chain, as I move my control between theatres rather than just armoured units etc. I will not sacrifice the bonuses which the command chain brings.