Why is AI Pontos so rubbish?

[QuintusSertorius]

I'm playing my Epeiros-as-Pergamon game, and lamenting how little challenge Pontos is, since we started warring with each other. The trigger was Sinope and Trapezous; they took them and I had a diplomat demand they hand them over or I'd attack. Then I cancelled trade rights, and attacked them. I took Sinope and installed a client kingdom, and gave Trapezous to Koinon Hellenon.

Pontos seem more interested in getting Sinope back (they've made no moves towards Trapezous at all!), but the armies they send are rubbish. I thought perhaps it was just because they don't have good units (barring the Greek roster than can draw upon), but looking over them that doesn't seem to be the case. They could recruit almost identical armies to the ones I use, but instead they seem to go for a unit of Chalkaspides, one of Pontic Elite infantry, then the rest they fill up on trash: Pantodapoi (who are worthless), Eastern slingers/skirmishers, Anatolian hillmen and Akontistai. Along with a bunch of light cavalry.

They have access to the cheap, yet brilliant Hoplitai, Thureophoroi and Peltastai, but never recruit them. Hell, even some Pantodapoi Phalangitai to flank their elite phalanxes would improve things.

Why does AI Pontos have such weirdly skewed recruiting priorities?

[Boriak]

I'm not sure about this since I'm not a coder myself but I think that the AI's personality varies based on what culture you're playing. Ptolemies and Seleucids are a primary example. If I play with Rome, Ptolemies will eat Seleucids up. If I play with Carthage, the reverse will happen. If I play with Pontos, Hayasdan, Pahlava or Baktria, Seleucids will no doubt be very aggressive. Most of the time, Carthage is a pussy but I've seen them devour Lusotannans and expand rapidly in specific cases; will have to look up my old save games for more info on that.

As for your Pontos problem, perhaps you're expanding your Epirote kingdom too quickly. Spend a few decades in passive mode (it's easier that it sounds; just hit 'Next Turn' a lot) and the rest of the empires will have time to grow strong. I've done this with my Roman campaign and I can tell you that Lusotananns were a real pain as was Carthage with its elephant/phalanx stack spam. Don't get me started on the Ptolemies; 6 full stacks, brimming with elite phalanxes and Galatian Heavy Infantry, and that's just Asia Minor. They took everything between Egypt and India; it will literally take me decades to clean all that yellow piss up.

[athanaric]

They do seem to be weak and are typically the first faction to get snuffed out in my campaigns. Maybe they're having a difficult time expanding because of the 2-hp Tindanotae garrison in Ankyra?

I'm not sure about this since I'm not a coder myself but I think that the AI's personality varies based on what culture you're playing. Ptolemies and Seleucids are a primary example. If I play with Rome, Ptolemies will eat Seleucids up.

Not always the case - in my recent Romani game (finally got Marian Reforms for the first time ever - my reforming consul's name was Mel Hispalicoi. He also happened to have been the last faction leader of the Lusotannan before, er, switching sides. It was a close tie between him and a guy named Reikiwulfaz. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's almost impossible to get Roman characters with the required trait combination) the Seleukids ran amok and single-handedly destroyed Pontos, Hayasdan, and the Ptolies, and then proceeded to trash Makedonia, a former major power. I finally stopped their expansion at Ambrakia, but it's tiresome work stopping their avalanche of miscellaneous veteran units, even with five legions. I cant remember seeing an AI faction getting so strong despite my early interventions on behalf of Hayasdan (which didn't work out). Admittedly, in my previous, aborted Roman campaigns, the Ptolemaioi typically had the upper hand.

[QuintusSertorius]

For clarity, I didn't start fighting Pontos til around 225BC - which was after I'd given them Mazaka and Ani-Kamah to get them going (and to kick out the Seleukids and constrain Hayasdan). I'd gone right down til the mid-230s before any expansion at all, so I'm not sure it has anything to do with my activity. Indeed it was their taking of Sinope that triggered me to attack (since I'm protecting the Greek settlements of Asia), and it took them a very long time to build up to that.

I play on M/M, so the AI isn't getting ridiculous money bonuses. And I don't want to be facing all-elite stacks, that's not the point. I'd like there to be a balance between elite, medium-tier and trash. Rather than nothing from the middle group, as I seem to keep getting. I may have to resort to using the create_unit command to turn their stacks into proper balanced forces.

[athanaric]

I play on M/M, so the AI isn't getting ridiculous money bonuses.

So do I, but given the chance, the AI will churn out ridiculous unit combinations regardless of campaign difficulty.

[Brihentin13]

One time, on an Arverni campaign, the Baktrians wrecked the Seleucids and were slowly pushing back the Ptollies by the time I reached Asia Minor.

...this game man...

The AI in this game is ridiculous and sometimes, nonsense just sort of happens.

[Outcast]

Most of the time when I reach pontus with epeiros or macedonia or even with sauromatae they are beating the out of seleucids and spam hoplites and pontic thorakites. Sure they have tons of trash but havent seen them been eradicated by arche more then twice I think. They usually either kick them out of anatolia or just hold to their amaseia and stay there for good