I wonder if it's true - as someone above said - that it does no long-term planning? I hope that's fake news. For instance, raising recruits is essential in the longer games and I cannot think they've actually designed an AI that doesn't do this. The games wouldn't get anywhere near the lengths advertised if this was so, no?
I am very new to the games and have never played above around twenty turns so far. I haven't noticed any glaring AI weaknesses in that time frame. I hope as I learn and progress that it will do enough long term planning to continue to fight well through much longer time frames, because I too don't play PBEM anymore.
It's true that the consensus in the forums is that the AI is better in shorter scenario titles - like Alea Jacta Est (which I don't have), but I've noticed that a lot of the criticism has been directed at Wars of Napoleon, not because it's longer and the AI doesn't do long-term planning, but because there are many smaller factions that the AI must handle each scenario, and it doesn't handle that very well. Most titles are just 2 sides, including WoS.
You seem to have misunderstood what I meant by "long term planning." The AI approaches every turn the exact same way- it will recruit, it will move its units usually to places where it the player has strength, it will combine its units into stacks, and it will attack if it thinks the odds favor it. However, it does NONE of those things with any concept of how it will effect the game the next turn, let alone 5, 10, or 20 turns down the road.
This is ok when the scenario isn't too long, but the longer the scenario then the more Ageod's AI will struggle even with boosts and/or the player handicapping himself through the attrition and activation options. What makes those monster scenarios so much fun for the player are their demands of setting long term goals and trying to figure-out how to achieve them, but the AI doesn't do that. It works strictly in the moment.
I have a great deal of experience with Ageod games, and, although I think their AI is decent as strategy PC gaming AIs go, I'm already noticing a lot of the same AI behavior in WSS that has undermined it in every other Ageod game. It's 1705 playing as the Bourbons, I've already opened-up a significant NMP lead over the AI and that's only going to get more exacerbated as the game goes by. I've watched large AI armies whither away due to the AI's mishandling of the attrition and supply rules. It attacks with armies consisting of just artillery batteries which I then capture. It currently has a Dutch army in Hungary. The script helped it with an invasion of Spain, but then it had its armies wandering all over the map to no strategic purpose where I'll be able to corner and destroy them. It hasn't blockaded the port of one of my besieged cities and thus the siege goes on and on.
Frankly, I don't expect much from the AI. I put-up with its glaring weaknesses because PBEM sometimes isn't feasible and trying to outsmart myself playing both sides hotseat has no appeal. I love Ageod's games, and they can be a lot of fun even playing solo. However, I know that I'm probably going to quit my current campaign long before its end because the AI is going to get weaker and weaker the longer I play. It's strictly just crunching numbers on a turn-by-turn basis with no ability to plan ahead that could provide a long-term challenge. It is what it is.
< Message edited by mkeogh76 -- 2/1/2018 4:23:28 PM >