AI strategic & tactical map observations

First of all let me say that overall I'm enjoying ETW. My Russian and Prussians campaigns have been enjoyable. A couple points about the AI that really seem to take away from the immersion factor that I've noticed:


1. No naval invasions. This would make playing as the English a complete joke as there is zero threat to the British Isles. There declaration of war against me was a joke as well in both cases. It also made my campaigns against Sweden both as the Prussians and Russians a snap, as they would march troops north out of Stockholm around the Baltic to get to me. I'd just hop on a boat and sack Stockholm within 2 turns. This also results in Spain haveing a ridiculous amount of land forces milling around the Iberian peninsula until they seem to get bored and annihilate Portugal. I can't see France or England but imagine they are stocked as well.
-Admittedly this is something CA struggled with in RTW and M2TW. If I recall correctly it was all scripted for the most part in Rome, and slightly decision based in M2TW but still predictable.

2. Siege offence against damaged forts and cities. In several cases as Prussia I was able to defeat forces in excess of 2500 men with around 700. The catch was I was defending cities I'd just taken and the defenses were breached. The AI would march in a column to the hole and be butchered by 3 sided musket fire. In both cases I would have probably lost the settlement if the fortifications had been repaired.

3. Siege defense. The AI never garrisons buildings inside walls. I repeatedly batter down a wall, rush in and charge into the nearest buildings. It's just shooting pigs in a barrel after that.

4. Major powers easier to destroy than minors. As Prussia Sweden, Poland, and Austria fell in a matter of turns. My one military defeat came when fighting Bavaria. In fact Couland and the Italian States proved much tougher opponents than the powers listed above. Additionally as the Russians the Crimean Khanate can cause quite a rucus if left alone the first few turns. Georgia also proved a noble adversary. Once again Sweden was a joke.

Anyone else find this a little frustrating?

Naf

The small states seem to get ridiculous upkeep bonuses since they make those massive armies but can't seem to move them into enemy territory. And the siege exploits have been there since RTW.

Indeed Hannover and Westphalia have been going tit for tat with the UP for 20 years or so. In fact Hannover seems to be one of the more imergent powers in Western Europe.

I recall the seige exploit from Rome and M2TW but I also recall loosing it at times as the HTH aspects of those time periods led themselves to numerical advantages playing out better. Three units of militia spearmen could not box out an enemy for long. Three depleted units of line infantry can annihilate a force of 30 units.

Granted my M2TW experiences largely come from Lands to Conquer.

Yes, the disparities between Major and Minor are... odd, to say the least. I just started a Russian campaign, the Swedes fell like wheat before a sythe and I've carved out a sizeable amount of the Balkans aswell. Courland and Georgia however? Both have soaked up in excess of about 5k troops between them.

Another niggling little thing, maybe a bug, but Courland vs Latvia, I've a large garrison, they've a larger that I can't manage to break. They'll send out a single militia or line infantry to invade, and despite not recieving reinforcements, the auto-resolver lists their force as 3:1 superios (on the power bar), so I've been fighting 2-3 tiny engagements each Courland turn for the past several. :furious3:

The naval issue effects not just obvious British Isles etc, but in the late game, an ascendant European power never seems to embark into either India or the Americas by sea. I've seen the Ottomans expand once into the east but that was via Persia on land.

Oh, and I just got my first CTD. Wages of sin I guess, I was feeling all smug for not having had any. :embarassed:

Small states have a death wish. It seems that the app is scripted to engage the player in a war if there's been too much peace for too long. After conquering all the European majors, we get a series of DoWs from each of the surviving minors. Those with only 1 or 2 regions barely last a year. Ditto for the various native tribes in America.

What's the point of having a "Terrifying" power rating?

after taking all of india, with out any interfearance from the european powers with the exception of portugal until they lost goa, i sat around building up my economy and waiting another 20 years but no one showed up to try take any territory, and with france i found there was no rush to go colonize places as none of my european neighbours seemed they were going to launch any naval expeditions.

proper use of ships to transport troops and conduct invasions would make the game hugely better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nafod

First of all let me say that overall I'm enjoying ETW. My Russian and Prussians campaigns have been enjoyable. A couple points about the AI that really seem to take away from the immersion factor that I've noticed:


1. No naval invasions. This would make playing as the English a complete joke as there is zero threat to the British Isles. There declaration of war against me was a joke as well in both cases. It also made my campaigns against Sweden both as the Prussians and Russians a snap, as they would march troops north out of Stockholm around the Baltic to get to me. I'd just hop on a boat and sack Stockholm within 2 turns. This also results in Spain haveing a ridiculous amount of land forces milling around the Iberian peninsula until they seem to get bored and annihilate Portugal. I can't see France or England but imagine they are stocked as well.
-Admittedly this is something CA struggled with in RTW and M2TW. If I recall correctly it was all scripted for the most part in Rome, and slightly decision based in M2TW but still predictable.

2. Siege offence against damaged forts and cities. In several cases as Prussia I was able to defeat forces in excess of 2500 men with around 700. The catch was I was defending cities I'd just taken and the defenses were breached. The AI would march in a column to the hole and be butchered by 3 sided musket fire. In both cases I would have probably lost the settlement if the fortifications had been repaired.

3. Siege defense. The AI never garrisons buildings inside walls. I repeatedly batter down a wall, rush in and charge into the nearest buildings. It's just shooting pigs in a barrel after that.

4. Major powers easier to destroy than minors. As Prussia Sweden, Poland, and Austria fell in a matter of turns. My one military defeat came when fighting Bavaria. In fact Couland and the Italian States proved much tougher opponents than the powers listed above. Additionally as the Russians the Crimean Khanate can cause quite a rucus if left alone the first few turns. Georgia also proved a noble adversary. Once again Sweden was a joke.

Anyone else find this a little frustrating?

Naf

---

as to #3: I have had battles in which the defending AI actually garrisoned several buildings in the town. However... I had artillery with me and the city had no walls...

#4: I agree. I was playing as British and the 13 colonies (my protectorate at the time with a VERY FRIENDLY relationship) declared war on my. At the time when they declared, my 2 main armies were marching towards the sea (to sail off to India) after having defeated Hurons, Iroqois and the mighty Polar army of Inuit... It was just a matter of changin the course and marching into the American lands instead. To my surprise the colonies had almost no army... All their provinces were taken in 3 turns. Stupid strategic AI, obviously.