Handpicking AI Generals and Units for comined Battles

[Morkonan]

So, I had a critical battle where I was counting on my AI Reinforcement General to, at the very least, do something worthwhile. It wouldn't have been difficult. Ideally, I wanted him to turtle up. At the very least, he could have managed to make a dent in the enemy forces. (Timmurids - Yeah, had no choice but to fight them in the field.)

Instead, he comes right in behind me (Not where he was supposed to come from) and promptly runs all his cavalry through my longbow stakes. Then, he simply runs up to the Timmurid armies (two of them) and proceeds to get his butt handed to him. On the way back while running for his life, you guessed it, he runs back through the stakes again, killing most of what cavalry he had left.

A while back ago, several years maybe, there was some discussion regarding handpicking an army and general to get it to do what you wanted. Yes, this particular general was high-ranking with lots of promotions and was also half-nuts. BUT, I at least expected a bit more from him and his forces.

I have yet to have any allied forces (my own generals) "Turtle" up during a battle. They all seem to stream straight for the enemy. But, most at least put on a show of grabbing some high-ground and setting up first. Aside from looking at some obvious traits, are there some that help form the AI's decisions on the battlefield as far as Allied troops are concerned? Should I pick a coward general or groom one so he will turtle up his forces and let his cannon do some work for him? Should I stay away from cavalry in these allied forces and stick with defensive units like spearmen if I want the AI to turtle up with them and give me an anvil to strike against?

[Morkonan]

I ran the above encounter again with the same general. This time, I brought along a Captain lead stack of reinforcements. The headstrong general in question did not charge straight into the wall of Timmurid elephants but, insead, choose to take up a position on my right flank. Also, he did not come from the same direction on the battlefield even though he attacked from the same location as last time. He was more "cautious" than last time and deployed his forces somewhat defensively. Of course, eventually he attacked and was routed. But, his hesitation gave me time to pepper the enemy positions with cannon fire. I won this engagement because he did hold back and gave me time to pick off the enemy generals and drive their elephants nuts.

I'm trying to see what the differences are in the two battle-stacks now. IIRC, the only difference is that I included a stack of reinforcements.

So, there's probably a bit of randomness there. I just wish I could nail it down so I could get rid of it.

[Thalassocrat]

I just wish I could nail it down so I could get rid of it.

Men will understand women before we can fathom the working of a TW AI. But yes forming an all spearmen, archer/artillery force tends to make AI generals more defensive....except that time the general abandoned his army and charged in alone

[Morkonan]

Men will understand women before we can fathom the working of a TW AI.

ROFL! Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh.

But yes forming an all spearmen, archer/artillery force tends to make AI generals more defensive....except that time the general abandoned his army and charged in alone

Yeah, it appears that Generals are either a bit too bloodthirsty, believe a bit too much in their own immortality or are just plain stupid when it comes to their own unit's actions. I'd rather they hang back a bit but.. oh well.

Charging headfirst into three-rank deep spearmen isn't exactly an example of a brilliant tactician no matter what his darn unit card says...