Ennemy won't attack

[oxxid]

Now this is quite an annoying AI issue.

Positionned on a bridge, with a full stack of "medium-low" troops (8 spears militia, 4 archers, 2 levy archers, 2 mounted sergents, 3 men-at-arms, 1 peasant crossbowmen), I'm attacked by 2 full-stacked armies with siege weapons, heavy cavalry, lots of crossbowmen and light infantry.

After lots of bombarding and multiple rains of bolts, the ennemy stays still with his two armies, and won't attack. I just have to wait a looooong time x6 to win this stupid battle, as attacking would be suicidal for me.

Isn't there a trigger to resolve this issue ?

[Byg]

I don't know. If you can't prompt it into action then I would step off the bridge on the campaign map and let them attack you where they stand a chance of winning.

[Kernow]

Thats sounds like the AI making a sensible tactical decision.
Now that is unusual but should be applauded

[oxxid]

Sensible... I'm not sure. The case I speak of was an army I didn't care to lose, I was sacrificing poor units to soften the ennemy's troops before conquest with more up-to-date units. And in fact, the ennemy had all his chances to win, I would have lost anyway.

But he chose to lose by waiting until the end of the timer.

Not very sensible I would say

[kevindrosario]

I would still say that's sensible. He may have "lost" the battle, but in reality, neither side lost anything. Choosing to attack would have simply caused him to lose more units than he would have under normal battlefield conditions. Seems like a good tactical decision to me.

[oxxid]

Then he shouldn't have attacked in the first time... no ?

My tactic then not to move was also a good tactical decision then, as I win the battle and his armies are forced to retreat ! His loss...
And frankly I wouldn't care if it didn't mean to have to wait for loooong anoying minutes watching if he makes a move...

I can understand that the AI calculations for a offensive decision on the battle map are not the same as soon as we're effectively in battle. The AI, making the decision eventually not to attack, instead of making me wait till the end of the timer, should take the decision to retreat ==> Same result in the end, but a lot less waiting from my part : Would be a gameplay improvement, for me. But perhaps I don't see all the issues ?

[kevindrosario]

Then he shouldn't have attacked in the first time... no ?

I'm guessing this is why he attacked.

After lots of bombarding and multiple rains of bolts

[Harabec]

Had same thing happen to me a while ago, except I turn battle timers off.

I had to exit the battle, turn battle timers on then wait it out.

[Ichon]

Ha- leave battle timers off! These are the battles which are fun to play out. I've been forced to attack AI uphill or across bridges several times. More than half the time you can lure AI across by sending your general over the bridge or some weak archer unit which you run back across. It doesn't work that well if the AI has lots of archers or siege but otherwise...

If you picked such a nice defensive position the AI is right not to attack. In defeating the AI its not individual battles that usually matter but capturing cities and wearing out its armies. If the AI loses but retreats with majority of its forces and can return next turn that is usually a win for the AI which as more resources on its hands but less coordination compared to player.

[Vespasian92]

If the AI loses but retreats with majority of its forces and can return next turn that is usually a win for the AI...

This.

That is actually good AI IMO. It uses its missile units and artillery to inflict riskless casualties, and then refuses to waste its soldiers in an assault on a defended bridge. Then it retreats with no losses, having killed X amount of yours. Think of your situation as a blessing, that you had some decently-competent AI refuse to make the game too easy for you.

[Caesar Clivus]

I agree. I'd say that's the sign of a smart AI