Me too. I don't want to risk the loss of my navy just because I didn't watch it while attacking Greece.
-
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.
Me too. I don't want to risk the loss of my navy just because I didn't watch it while attacking Greece.
Yes I do use the AI a lot - mainly at Army Group or Army level.
However as others have mentioned it can be incredibly frustrating to watch :
1. Almost never keeps units within range of their HQs - will move a unit 1000km from its HQ instead of using another identical unit a lot closer to the objective.
2. Has no real idea of the worth of units or how they should be used. Will deploy garrison troops to the front line whilst using heavy armour to 'garrison' rear areas
3. Naval units are often thrown away poorly (e.g. German fleet sent raiding into English Channel)
However as others have mentioned it can be incredibly frustrating to watch :
1. Almost never keeps units within range of their HQs - will move a unit 1000km from its HQ instead of using another identical unit a lot closer to the objective.
2. Has no real idea of the worth of units or how they should be used. Will deploy garrison troops to the front line whilst using heavy armour to 'garrison' rear areas
3. Naval units are often thrown away poorly (e.g. German fleet sent raiding into English Channel)
Only when I'm bored and want to see how they'd do (I'll save, do it myself, reload, and then see how the AI does--way worse) or when I've pretty much guaranteed victory on a theater and I don't feel like mopping up myself.
In the beginning I used the AI, I'd give assignments to the lower level HQs and try to watch them all work in tandem but it got old and wasn't really efficient because I could just do it better myself.
In the beginning I used the AI, I'd give assignments to the lower level HQs and try to watch them all work in tandem but it got old and wasn't really efficient because I could just do it better myself.
No. Because I don't have the self-control and imagination necessary to see the AI making something stupid and just going along with it and role-playing the situation in my head as being something credible.
I hate micromanaging because the game goes so slow. I actually tried it, in Dies Irae.. what happend? Italy advanced into France faster than I did and got most of France upon surrender. In Poland? It took me half a year to defeat them. I was micromanaging 3 fronts - west, east, Africa. Africa was just pathetic. I attacked from Libya into Egypt before I called Italy into war, hoping - here we go, Egypt is mine, then all of my units go out of supply, I check why - oh guess what, I was stupid enough to attack it without ANY ports nearby! I had to supply 20 divisions, split across ~4 provinces with A SINGLE transport plane that I didn't expect to use at all. Micromanaging that transport plane took so much time that my French campaign got delayed EVEN more. It was a complete failure, next time I'll put AI control on atleast 1 front so I don't f**** up everything, lol.
No Never Ever. Of course if one did turn over the operational control of your armies to the AI, then they would be at same disadvantage as the AI opponents, and the AI would have a chance. It is unrealistic for a player to be able to move every unit they have to whereever they choose, a huge advantage no AI can ever overcome. But I do it too being a control freak, winning the game is more important than giving the AI a chance. I enjoy the build up to war, building armies and navies up and to see the AI waste them would be a crime.
Last edited:
Maybe with FtM I'll try and use AI control at Army and/or AG level, and try to role-play a commander rather than some sort of god. I always do USSR first with new stuff, so I'll do up a report on how that goes.
I never use AI control. Maybe I'll start experimenting with it at corps or army level, when I just need to clear out area, or in small operations.
I like to have full control of all units of my army.
I like to have full control of all units of my army.
I used to, but I found that I had to keep interfering to get things done. Now I dont have anything under AI control. The only thing I need at this point is the ability to set an alarm clock message on a unit for when its attack delay wears off.
I think the main problem is that a player can identify critical targets, and can easily weigh up risk vs. reward on the fly with a mix of short term and long term planning. AI cannot. The AI often appears to be trying to defeat the enemy army, whereas the player knows he only has to breakthrough and reach the VPs. I'll look at it again with FTM, but its very difficult to see how theyre going to have a system whereby a human can explain its goals and targets in a particular theatre and have the AI understand when to press and when to hold. Even in low key areas, where I just expect them to hold a line on a river or advance against light opposition, then Id just sit them on the river. Or Id just set waypoints on the route I want them to take - if they bump into something theyll defeat it and move on. So no AI needed, once youve got messages setup to keep you up to date on what theyre doing.
Overall, its difficult to see where the AI control fits in: Its not good enough to entrust with a complex or vital task. And its not needed for a simple/straightforward task.
I think the main problem is that a player can identify critical targets, and can easily weigh up risk vs. reward on the fly with a mix of short term and long term planning. AI cannot. The AI often appears to be trying to defeat the enemy army, whereas the player knows he only has to breakthrough and reach the VPs. I'll look at it again with FTM, but its very difficult to see how theyre going to have a system whereby a human can explain its goals and targets in a particular theatre and have the AI understand when to press and when to hold. Even in low key areas, where I just expect them to hold a line on a river or advance against light opposition, then Id just sit them on the river. Or Id just set waypoints on the route I want them to take - if they bump into something theyll defeat it and move on. So no AI needed, once youve got messages setup to keep you up to date on what theyre doing.
Overall, its difficult to see where the AI control fits in: Its not good enough to entrust with a complex or vital task. And its not needed for a simple/straightforward task.
Last edited:
I control mobile assets to affect break throughs or blunt them. I let the AI control my leg infantry as it does a fine job of shuffling leg divisions into gaps and widening them.
I play this way both in multi and single. It is more efficient and I would argue more effective than attempting to micro everything yourself. I'm also an old school monster RTS player back before 90% of RTS micro was made easy, so my micro ability is not the reason why I choose to play this way.
I play this way both in multi and single. It is more efficient and I would argue more effective than attempting to micro everything yourself. I'm also an old school monster RTS player back before 90% of RTS micro was made easy, so my micro ability is not the reason why I choose to play this way.
I use exclusively theatre AI. Very rarely I may release control of a couple of divisions and part of the airforce to take one of those provinces the AI simply isn't able to.
I will do both. If I am playing a very hard game as the USSR and have to defend like the Russians of old then ya, I will micro everything. If I feel like a relaxing game and tone down the difficulty I will make smaller theaters and use the AI. Last night I won DiG on hard using nothing but small theater AI with some micro when invading Norway and a little with my navy.
I assign Military control to Theatres extensively, Plus I auto-trade, and set the production to either Update Priority or Reinforcement Priority. But I almost always retain control of a specialist Corps or Army, which depending on the country I'm playing would include Para and Marine units as well as the required lift for them, and some mobile units as the situation and time dictate. I'll usually have a covering fleet for the transports too, of course.
AI control of the theatres works pretty well for me, despite you naysayers!
I can't conceive of playing on a major front using full manual control any more. It just sometimes requires a nudge to make it do something I specifically want.
Steve.
AI control of the theatres works pretty well for me, despite you naysayers!
I can't conceive of playing on a major front using full manual control any more. It just sometimes requires a nudge to make it do something I specifically want. Steve.
I had AI control on Maginot Line and Germans entered it freely because all of a sudden units started moving on the Maginot Line even though I put AI control much earlier and everything was set up. I do use AI control in Tunisia for my French army and in Italy.
I remove them from the hierarchy and lose the CC bonuses... but this is tolerable in SP methinks.
I do use the HQ AI, both in single player and, to a lesser extent, in multiplayer. Most singleplayer games I play these days are mostly to try out build strategies for a multiplayer game, so I am not really much concerned about micromanaging my units or doing the best I can, I just want to see relative effectiveness versus other strategies, and the Theatre AIs are fine for that. In multiplayer, I find it quite hard to manage large fronts by myself, so I often turn over some areas to the AI. I've found that the AI is rather good at making full use of a front, both in terms of length and unit readiness, whereas players tend to order attacks in spurts and clumps - so the AI can sometimes help keep the micromanaging-style opponent so busy that he might make a mistake or not notice some crucial development (though we do have house rules to announce things like amphibious or airborne landings, especially when they create new fronts). It does require sufficient forces, though, the AI does rather poorly if it's outnumbered.