Automated armies - hot mess

[hail kraken]

I like to role play, so if my ruler is king or emperor, and does not have martial education, he will let others deal with armies. Except that automated armies option is a huge mess, very situational at best. I don't expect it to be Sun Tzu, you get to win some battles and lose some (which could be won by player), and that is fine by me. But it seems that it behaves even worse than other AI armies.

Unless you play somewhere deep in Siberia, be certain that AI will bankrupt you. It needs to capture a province nearby, that you are bordering with, nope it's going to use boats to go around and around, and then it will embark to get that sweet embarked penalty. And as soon as it's penalty is done, and it didn't clashed with enemy army, it will go again in the boat just so it can refresh the penalty. Until it finally clashes with enemy and loses, which usually leads to downward spiral of defeat. It is like watching crusades over and over again, which it was fixed allegedly? Only time it did used land is when I had 3k soldiers left, and then it decided to go from south of Achaia (south of Greece) to Thrace by land, except that the territory was swamped with hostile soldiers (another war) and it crashed 3k soldiers into 7k hostile soldiers as if they didn't existed at all. But then on the other hand if there is a rebellion of 10k peasants, my 7k army (3k MaA and 4k levies) will just stand idle while watching the entire kingdom burn.

Anyone else had better experience with it, or do I need to wait for another 17 patches for this to work?

 

[Tom The Viking YT]

Let me ask you this, why would you use the automated armies in the first place? If you want to do something well, do it yourself. I love roleplaying myself, but I dont see using it at any point.

 

[hail kraken]

Well if my ruler is sitting back home, then it makes sense that some other guy is leading the armies, i.e. automate armies. From role playing perspective, there is variety of cases where leading armies is delegated to someone else. Shy, lazy, craven, child, and in most cases king and emperor level rulers are usually not going to lead armies. Then on the other hand, brave, wrathful, martial education, as well as counts and dukes will always lead their armies, even if there is someone more competent around.

 

[Emperor 1997]

Well if my ruler is sitting back home, then it makes sense that some other guy is leading the armies, i.e. automate armies. From role playing perspective, there is variety of cases where leading armies is delegated to someone else. Shy, lazy, craven, child, and in most cases king and emperor level rulers are usually not going to lead armies. Then on the other hand, brave, wrathful, martial education, as well as counts and dukes will always lead their armies, even if there is someone more competent around.

But the Devs have said, that you should still do it yourself, because the AI is bad at War.

Before this Update, my Vassals have won Wars under 5 Years, now they take more than 5 Years to win an War, because the AI refuses to use Men-at-Arms, who have Siege Progress(Ballistrai, classified as Archers) and only uses Levies or Siege Men-at-Arms for besieging a Holding now.

 

[AchedTeacher]

Let me ask you this, why would you use the automated armies in the first place? If you want to do something well, do it yourself. I love roleplaying myself, but I dont see using it at any point.

My first instinct was also to use it in an RP fashion, but I was quickly dissuaded due to the fact that it's just so bad. I would love for it to be better.

 

[hail kraken]

But the Devs have said, that you should still do it yourself, because the AI is bad at War.

Before this Update, my Vassals have won Wars under 5 Years, now they take more than 5 Years to win an War, because the AI refuses to use Men-at-Arms, who have Siege Progress(Ballistrai, classified as Archers) and only uses Levies or Siege Men-at-Arms for besieging a Holding now.

Where did they state it, I have probably missed it? Then what is the point of it?

I am not sure I follow, it was in latest updated they introduced automated armies? What do you mean by your vassals taking more than 5 years to win a war?

 

[AchedTeacher]

Where did they state it, I have probably missed it? Then what is the point of it?

I am not sure I follow, it was in latest updated they introduced automated armies? What do you mean by your vassals taking more than 5 years to win a war?

In dev diaries they basically admit that automation ought to just be used for trivial wars where you will clearly win. It's akin to rebel suppression in EU4.

 

[Mercedes Romero]

I'm actually pretty impressed by the improvements to the war AI and use automated armies a fair bit. Though I have found that it's a little too eager to spend money on unnecessary naval voyages.

 

[hail kraken]

In dev diaries they basically admit that automation ought to just be used for trivial wars where you will clearly win. It's akin to rebel suppression in EU4.

Ah, well that explains a lot. I would say that is my experience as well, if I severely outmatch opponent, then it's viable. Any other case, it's worse than other AI. I hope they will improve this system in the future, it really has a lot of potential.

 

[hail kraken]

I'm actually pretty impressed by the improvements to the war AI and use automated armies a fair bit. Though I have found that it's a little too eager to spend money on unnecessary naval voyages.

I guess efficiency might depend on terrain, continental Europe and anything with coastline might have vastly different results.

 

[Willy Waggler]

In dev diaries they basically admit that automation ought to just be used for trivial wars where you will clearly win.

Funny thing i noticed in trivial wars it's too cautious and is absolute time waste. Also it's raising armies too far away for big empires, even against visible rebels.