Number of Battles and Strategic AI

[Lichgod]

As for the AI not attacking unless 1:1 I don't think that should be added. The only decent tactic the AI has strategically right now is a war of attrition. They gotta keep hitting your armies/weaking your forces. I've even sacrificed men/family members myself to do this. After losing Cirta I brought a merc army to assault the city, it was underpowered but allowed me to kill another 700 units, meaning next turn the city revolted back to my control.

The specific case for the 1:1 test is for a AI relief force attacking your siege army. AI relief force + AI garrison vs Player Siege force must equal 1:1 power unless siege is about over. Maybe a decreasing sliding scale the further along the siege is.

The problem I have is the garrison sallie being crushed when the relief force is so small. See my example for Rome above. Also not, I had no siege engines, my infantry was all Sacred Band, Slingers, Skirmishers. I was going to sit out 9 turns to siege Rome (and its big garrison) but was able to take it in 1 turn because a tiny relief force forced the garrison to sallie (and die).

I appreciate your reply. BTW - your revolt story. I had a case where the Carth town in spain was taken by Gaul assualt. I had succeeded in weakening them so bad they were immediately booted out of town. The rebels stayed Carth. I got 4 peasent and 8 free town militia with gold sword/shield/3 cheverons. Just silly.

[Tim]

Ulstan, Didz,

It just might be Faction related, don't know yet.

Not only do you have all these little Armies handed by Captains as Ulstan pointed out, but you have "Family Members" wondering around with the smallest of all the Gual armies. I seen 3 or 4 such "Family Members". The AI made no effort to consolidate under with the Family Member.

In fact, I don't believe a single army in battle was headed by a Gual "Family Member". Anyone else experience this? This *might* be the result of Difficulty level. A higher Difficulty level might result in Family Member lead armies. Confirmation?

I didn't think about the AI using them as governors. But, could it be that the reason you dont' see family members is because they don't survive the first couple of battles against any other AI factions they've come across? I don't think I've come across an army with a commander with more than a star or two. The reason is simple. They die easily.

[Tim]

Darius had 3 major battles against Alexander. In Granicus he fielded about 30.000 men, in Issus 55.000 and in Gaugamela about 500.000.

The first two figures are probably close to the actual number of men he had. But 500,000! No way. Those are Dragon Ball Z numbers.

[ChaosLord]

Ah, well if its just for sallying forth that would make sense. Sallying forth itself is a little odd, it handicaps the defender from the start, if you try to rush out your men get cramped and the enemy rushes you. Sallying forth shoudl let you deply your army outside the gates before the battle. Right now its easy just to sally forth, man the walls with archers and lure the enemy in to be slaughtered with no chance to get at you.

I've fought three "the Mighty"(Legendary Commander) AI chars, two were Gaul/Carthaginian Kings, and the other was the Egyptian heir. The two kings both put up a fight, but the Egyptian heir seperated from his army and I caught him out in the open. Which makes me wonder if the AI tries to move as far as it can sometimes, without taking into account all the troops in its armies. So with family members being cav they outrun their infantry on the campaign map and the like.

Mostly thing 2 stars is the best AI commanders I see, the Egyptians have been tossing alot of 2-3k stacks led by Captains at me. Which aren't as easy to kill as it sounds because they're chariot/bowmen/pharoh bowmen/desert axemen armies that are upgraded. Usually at least 2 experience, i've seen as high as 6 though.

That said, the AI really needs some way to get more govenors/generals, they just don't use them as often as the player. I really think bringing titles back would help, have the AI programmed to use them for only that region and it'll free up family members to lead armies.

[Ktonos]

Well Tim that is true. The historians of that era wrote for about 1.000.000 troops, but that is exagerating. It believed by modern historians that Darious fielded 400-500 thousand men. Macedonians 55.000. And they would propably had lost the battle if only Alexander did not routed Darious himself. The battlefield was so vast that when the right flank Persian cavalry smashed the Greek left they thought that they won the battle, and they could not see the rest of their army routing.

[ToranagaSama]

I didn't think about the AI using them as governors. But, could it be that the reason you dont' see family members is because they don't survive the first couple of battles against any other AI factions they've come across? I don't think I've come across an army with a commander with more than a star or two. The reason is simple. They die easily.

I'm sure Easy and Early deaths have an effect upon the game, but its not that I don't *see* family members, I do. It's that most often they are not at the head of significant Armies. They mostly wonder around with just a couple units (or less) in their stack, and rarely consolidate.

Though, as I started to push the Gauls over the Alps, and take a couple of their Cities (I've left Pativium for last as it has a FULL stack in Garrison), I've noticed that more consolidation, in general, and more under Family Members.

So the Gaul Campaign AI, has it's being squeezed is beginning to present better Armies. At least the above is on the *Default* Campaign/Battle settings.

I've put this Campaign on hold and have started a VH/VH. I've just played a, relatively, few turns and can't comment on much yet; but, astondingly, I just lost my FIRST battle and am not sure *why*. At the Default settings, I'd lost none.

From the very outset of the Campaign the Gauls were more numerous. I'm playing the *red* Romans. Just a few turns in they asked for a Trade Agreement which I granted, and several turns latter attacked me.

NOTE: Upon the *opening* of the Campaign, the Senate handed out a Mission, before I'd made a sigle move.

Like I said, I had a large battle develop rather quickly, much quicker than at the default settings. I lost the battle, not sure if I need to adjust my MTW-battle style to fit RTW or what. Actually, I lost the battle, because I ran out of time. The battle was sort of an *epic* affair with the outcome swinging back and forth a couple of times, with both armies wittled down to 150-200 men.

NOW that I think about the battle played as if the AI and I were on Crack or something. EVERYTHING happened at TWICE the speed as it would have with MTW/MedMod. Units routed quicker, units recovered quicker (and automaticely w/o my intervention), units flanked quicker, ecetera....

Frankly, and curiously, it wasn't fun....

RTW battles, just don't have the *feeling* that STW and MTW/MedMod have.

Well, I'm going to start my third Campaign, as this second one is hopeless (or at least I want to see if the same things happen). I concentrated on building my Economy, while the Guals planned to eat my lunch!!!

I also encounted a couple of Strange Occurrences, see my new thread.

Trying this again....