so disappointing

[unmerged(676431)]

I really do not understand how to publish a game of the Napoleonic Wars with such a low level of diplomatic ai. For me, this kills every fun.

I played several games with a friend ( so 2 human players), and I have to say that many aspects of the game are very well designed. But the diplomatic ai is a disaster.
The human french player declared war on Sicily, I (with GB) let an army of 40k pass to the island of Sicily, then blocked the route with my navy. These french were trapped, while Wellington himself came to land with an army of 70k to stop the siege of the capital and to crush the french troops. But- Sicily refused to ally and did also not allow GB to move troops to Sicily. Of course the capital was lost a few days later and so was Sicily and became a french vassal.

Similar with Austria in another game. While Napoleon himself stood in front of Vienna, Austria refused to ally to GB, and did not allow british troops to enter Austria. Austria had to surrender, but no help was accepted.

In another game I formed an alliance with Prussia and Russia against France while Austria refused to join first, but joined one month later. It was still 1805, the human french player had taken control of several German minors. And what did my ally Prussia do with Napoleon and the whole french army close to Prussian Border ? Declared war to Austria, both on my alliance !

France invaded Prussia, Russia joined as asked the war - but not a single Russian soldier came to help, even when half of Prussia was under french control. Ok, perhaps Russia wanted to see Prussia lose and France should become unassailable...

But well, in another game I saw both Prussia and Russia fighting Sweden and still moving their troops towards Stockholm, while Berlin got lost to French troops and even Russia was invaded. Seemed to be no problem for them, Sweden must be very attractive.


Is such diplomatic a bug and will be fixed or a feature ?

 

[unmerged(15561)]

The AI is always going to be a work in progress. Id wager its very difficult to get an AI to "work" 100% of the time. Granted it does make some silly decisions, but from my experience the early part of the game is quite good.

Its the 2nd and later phases wars and situation that cause problems for the AI.

Since this will be markedly varied for each player, its not going to be a simple thing to fix.

That said the developers have already stated that they are aiming to work on both the SP and MP ai's.

 

[unmerged(364820)]

I think it will improve. As 2Coats said, PI is working on it and I'm hopefully keeping my fingers crossed.

For example, consider how much HOI3 improved from release to TFH (Their Finest Hour).

 

[unmerged(676431)]

Thank you for your answers. I do hope as well that it will be fixed. Thats why I report the obvioulsy silly decisions.
But I do think that some basics would be easy to fix.

If a nation run by ai is in war with Nation A, and Nation A is as well at war with Nation B, Nation B should be accepted as an ally. And if even the capital is under siege, all of the land is occupied by Nation A, the ai should not reject Nation B to enter and so to fight Nation A. This is Kindergarden level, isn´t it ?

And if France overruns Prussia, the ai should not go on sending all prussian troops to Stockholm for several month until the war with France is lost.

 

[Tutamun]

And if France overruns Prussia, the ai should not go on sending all prussian troops to Stockholm for several month until the war with France is lost.

Maybe the AI did not want to loose all troops to France and decided to tactically retreat into Sweden...

ps. No, I do not think the AI is that smart.

 

[Shiranui]

This is why I play multiplayer, which is awesome. I do hope the AI improves, though.

 

[Antiscamp]

Your situation with Sicily reminds me of when the Swedish refused British troops on their soil in 1808. The Swedish were hard-pressed by the Russian advance in Finland, but King Gustav IV Adolf refused to move the large troops standing in southern Sweden to Finland to perhaps beat the Russian forces. The bulk of the Swedish army was therefore camping in southern Sweden for the duration of the war, expecting a French-Danish invasion that never came. The British, who were the allies of Sweden, had The Royal Navy sailing in the Baltic, keeping the Russian navy in check, but the stubborn Swedes refused to let them land regiments in Gothenburg to guard against the French in Denmark. The Brits then decided to sail for Portugal instead, as Sweden lost the war against Russia out of pure pride and foolish stubbornness. These things actually happened.

 

[Chamboozer]

Your situation with Sicily reminds me of when the Swedish refused British troops on their soil in 1808. The Swedish were hard-pressed by the Russian advance in Finland, but King Gustav IV Adolf refused to move the large troops standing in southern Sweden to Finland to perhaps beat the Russian forces. The bulk of the Swedish army was therefore camping in southern Sweden for the duration of the war, expecting a French-Danish invasion that never came. The British, who were the allies of Sweden, had The Royal Navy sailing in the Baltic, keeping the Russian navy in check, but the stubborn Swedes refused to let them land regiments in Gothenburg to guard against the French in Denmark. The Brits then decided to sail for Portugal instead, as Sweden lost the war against Russia out of pure pride and foolish stubbornness. These things actually happened.

Which is, of course, entirely different from the situations mentioned above where the enemy armies were already besieging the capitals of the nations in question. I think that if Russian or French soldiers had been at the gates of Stockholm the king would be more swift to allow the British access.