AI-controlled groups - proper use?

[CountMRVHS]

Hi all,

As the Scots in the Britannia campaign I'm experimenting with putting parts of my army under AI control.

This seems to work miserably most of the time, so I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing.

Typically, I'll pick an infantry wing of my army, group them, and put them under AI control. The problem I'm having is that they don't seem to take any initiative - you need to tell them where to move and when to attack, even if there are enemies in the immediate area.

Does anyone use this option with decent results, and if so, how?

CountMRVHS

[Ethelred Unread]

I concur with your resullts tbh. I use AI control cos I use the general cam alot and usually find the results disappointing.

In fact the only good AI use I have found is with HA - when you apply it to infantry the AI just puts them in a pretty line and then they proceed to ignore everything else around them.

I live in hope that someone will respond to this thread and say "No, no, no, what you need to do is use the AI like this...."

[phonicsmonkey]

Typically, I'll pick an infantry wing of my army, group them, and put them under AI control.

That's your problem right there.

Never let the AI control your troops unless you really really don't like them for some reason.

Ever seen the AI control its own troops sensibly? No?

Then why would it do any better with yours?

Somebody please prove me wrong, I'd love some evidence of AI tactical aptitude...

[CountMRVHS]

I think we all can agree about the tactical shortcomings of the AI.

However, I expected that when I put some of my own troops under AI control, they'd at least do things like *move toward the enemy* and *fight*.

I don't expect any real tactical ingenuity here, but I was thinking about giving the General Cam a try, and so it seemed to make some sense to put a wing of my army under AI control (to represent the way medieval generals often split up command of an army) and let them do their thing, while focusing on another wing.

But if they won't even advance or fight, there's no point.

[Galain_Ironhide]

:wall: Then you have the other side of the fence, where your missile and artillery troops advance too far out of sight from the supporting infantry and then they get wiped out as a result. :wall: (no experience with this, though when it comes to Kingdoms sorry - don't have it yet)

[Rhedd]

While the AI isn't going to win any prizes for innovative thinking, I've had better luck making the AI groups their own little, balanced, army.

Don't just group a couple of infantry units together and expect it to do anything but sit there.

Putting an infantry unit, a unit of archers, and a cavalry unit together, however, seems to jumpstart the AI's little brain.

I've still had VERY mixed results, but it can be handy for less important parts of your battle line.

[Slaists]

i have had similar experiences: with the AI's little brain being jumpstarted by giving it a mixed army to control. in most cases, i even can get those mini-armies to move and attack. the most miserable however is the ai's use of heavy/light cavalry under such scenarious. mostly, after the initial charge, the ai would let the cavalry to be bogged down and slaughtered.

[alpaca]

What AI control does is to micromanage the group you give it, that is it'll decide which unit attack which when you tell him to attack, and how the units should be placed in relation to each other.
It's like placing the units under command of a captain who will still wait for your command to do anything. It's much better than if the AI decided for you, but it'd be preferable to have that option, too.

[Old Geezer]

I only let the AI control an army if I don't want it to enter combat.