Union War Secretary Asleep? - AI Question

[Old Abe]

I just played my First game - This seems like an awesome game. But the AI seems a bit limited. (Played Basic game with most of the complex options turned off - just wanted to learn the game mechanics)

I was playing the CSA for the first time and went on the offense pretty much from the start. I launched and invasion to Harrisburg which I captured but took really heavy losses and then the war in the east came to a standstill. The Union worked its way down the Mississippi until I held it from keeping New Orleans or Baton Rouge. Any attempt to move back up the Mississippi was met with a crushing battle which I could not beat becasue of my numerical weaker forces.

So I moved my focus to take Kentucky. After I successfully took Kentucky, I sent a force and captured Indianapolis... I thought heck lets try for Columbus OH. With relatively small forces about 30K troops I was able to take all the cities in OH, MI, IL, and MO and Pittsburg without one Union Force counter attacking. Needless to say I won by January '64. This seemed very odd.

I assumed that the AI would pull some forces from DC or From the lower Mississippi. But they never did. Anybody else experience something similiar?

[Kielec]

Played 5 or 6 games as CSA and found this (or close to what you are describing) happening all the time. Winning the "Western Front" allows you to freely roam the map and conquer the North as you see fit. The only thing you have to take care about is to capture state capitals last, as when you start with them, the newly "elected" governors start to get unhappy due to the rest of the state being "occupied" by them Yakns.
Sad, but the Union War Secretary seems to be really asleep...

[terje439]

Up the difficulty. Do not use greater economy, greater population. Do use every supply rule and movement rule, and you are in for a harder time [:)]
But, the AI imo is a learning tool. It is great for learning the basics of the game, but playing against a human in pbem... Now that gets interesting [;)]

[Kielec]

Terje!
I've seen you (and others) writing this "try playing human on PBEM" a few times already on this forum. Allow me to reject your suggestion. For me (and I've got a feeling I'm not alone on this one) this game is just as much about the strategy, as about the tactics... but I think that strictly statistically speaking, I spend 3-4 times more time on the tactical map, than on the red-blue one. Quick combat is not for me (and I don't want to go on with the useless partisans in PBEM etc.) and so... no human opponents for me. Shame, as it is.

As for higher difficulty levels, I somehow dislike the extra whatever cassualities per enemy's salvo because of a difficulty level. I understand that AI cannot be a really serious opponent, but sitll - just don't like it. I guess I wouldn't mind the economical penalties that much, but that? No, thank you.

Oh, and I do use all the optional "pain in the back" rules. Just no higher officers' levels for me - alergy on those "extra" soldiers killed by a difficulty level and not by the enemy.

[terje439]

Well, I do not claim that this game is flawless (show me one that is!). But, as to the AI, well I agree that the extra casualties is not that fun, but it makes for a better challenge, and with supplies etc in motion you should see your invasions slowed.
Well, I am not trying to force you into playing pbem games at all, far from it, it was a mere suggestion to see something different than what you experience with the AI.
And if you want ANY game to stay fun/challengingm you will eventually have to up the difficulty at some time.
One of my fav games ever will have to be the CIV-series. Higher difficulties gives the AI alot of advantages, but I find it acceptable as it makes for a challenging game. Same with FoF, when I play the AI I will use the Full General setting, and yes, it is annoying having to kill every Union trooper on the field of battle, but if that is what it takes to make the game more challenging, I am fine with that.

I guess what it comes down to is "each his own".
I hope you find some way to make the game more fun for you, as I truely feel that this game is a true gem!

[Kielec]

I concur. The game is awesome - no questions here.
As for the necessity to pump up the difficulty level to have a challenge with the AI - total agreement (and same story here - all of them CIVs on impossible levels a big number of times). I just prefer not to be blatantly faced with the unfortunate "AI cheating" to the effect of: "the whatever Union brigade cannot shoot for %#$@, but you loose +78 dead&wounded because you needed a challenge". Just does not feel right, but you get it right in your face with the details on. The, so called, immersion vanishes right away.
 
Looking forward to the possible changes in the new patch... although I doubt they will touch on this thread's innitial subject...

[ptan54]

Is the AI still like this in the latest patch?

[GShock]

The simulation level of FOF is detailed enough (not the detailed battle) to allow a much stronger-thinking AI. We need a patch here with priority of objection selection and an increased northern attitude for amphibious invasions which is truly what smashes any offensive CSA strategic initiative as they have to go back to defend the core of the deep south from a second side with limited manpower.

Most of the efforts on the AI were concentrated on the detailed battle side but the way i see it, if you neglect playing pbem of course, the only major changes needed are in what i just said... the rest in the wishlist are mere details compared to this priority. I am sure WCS is tayloring the feedback about the AI on COG:EE and since the engine is the same i expect better routines and algorithms to be coming in the near future. All in due time i think.

[Matrixation]

seem the IA has three war strategies in the latest patch.
1 it maps the 'anaconda plan' from the real ACW, right down the mississippi river.
2 goes after richmond
3 end runs using amphibious invasions

[gunny3013]

If you really want to make the game realistic, Do not opt for Impression of units.