The AI is building big stacks but not fighting

I have completed about 60 turns of a Lugiones campaign. Not one of the other barbarian factions has yet attacked a rebel settlement. Most have nearly a full stack in the capital and a couple of nearly full stacks outside. All are bankrupt.

A couple of the rebel settlements have filled up with troops and are assembling stacks outside.

I attacked the Boii and took their capital. Their remaining troops outnumber me.

I'd say that the one-city-four-stack problem is arising earlier than in earlier versions.

What version are you playing? If 2.02c, we're working on the CAI passivity (especially towards the Rebels) right now for 2.02d.

Rebel settlements will have more troops in them anyway, that's nothing to do with the one-city-four-stacks problem. If the other AI factions are doing that, however, then we do have an issue.

Yes, I just installed version 2.02c.

Yeah next version should be better.

Now about 100 turns with my Seleucids. I'm the only one which wages really war.

Well, I am testing new code in regards to that- though I am not sure it will act entirely how I want. It will start more wars from time to time.

Hello all, I'm new to the forums and have been playing eb for a few weeks. It's really great fun and thanks to everyone who helped make it. I'm not sure if this is quite the place to say this sort of thing but it looks like it, apologies if I'm mistaken. This is similar but a bit more specific. I'm thinking the AI for Epeirus in my Macedonian campaign is placing too much importance on protecting its really strategically insignificant minor settlement on the mainland of the Epeirus province. Pyrrhus immediately retreated to garrison it at start rather than attack my vulnerable cities. It is turn 29 now and he and his full stack, along with about a 3/4 stack accompanying him (and representing probably 75% of all of his nation's military forces in total) are just hanging out in that area, occasionally wandering over to the nearby watchtower closer to the border, and once wandering near Epidamnos but never really straying too far or doing anything. Pella and Demetrias are now well defended, but Athens, Korinthos, and Sparta are not (I took those two from the Greeks early on), and there is also an Illyrian force on the far edge of Illyrian territory which is causing devastation in Epidamnos's province. Pyrrhus seems content not to do anything about any of this and instead make sure that minor settlement is protected. I know nothing at all about the mechanics behind the game, but just from this I wonder if maybe the AI is putting too much of a priority on minor settlement defense leading to increased passivity.

Yeah that is a big problem, i have seen a lot of factions do that, keeping their full stacks in the minor settlements and forgetting about anything else. Honestly i personally would prefer if there were no minor settlements at all, since there is that issue, the battles in them are quite "weird" and static with the AI just keeping all their force in the middle without moving, while the remnants of the fort is quite obvious, such as you cant even right click and drag to put a full line with your army in the middle or it blocks it, and it opens a chance for the player to "cheat" and siege and starve an army that is supposed to be on the field and ready for battle.

IMO this hasnt changed at all the "Siege" total war that the devs complained, at least for me, because all my battles are when the enemy is OUT of the minor settlements, so it would still be out if there were none of them. And its too complicated for the AI. How the AI deals with it should be another priority.

I'm not averse to experimenting with removing them, but will that make the AI cluster around their settlements, or try to fully garrison them instead? Every settlement with a full garrison is worse than the current situation where they waste time going in and out, but at least do travel about some.

Well from all my M2TW and Stainless Steel campaigns i did not see that cluster. Besides i dont think EB 1 itself was such a siege fest, normal battles were quite common in it. EB2 without the minor settlements woudnt be that much different IMO to how it happens in SS and etc. If the AI wanders about with the minor settlements, it probably will wander about just the same without them, though its worth some testing.

Originally Posted by Wulfburk

Well from all my M2TW and Stainless Steel campaigns i did not see that cluster. Besides i dont think EB 1 itself was such a siege fest, normal battles were quite common in it. EB2 without the minor settlements woudnt be that much different IMO to how it happens in SS and etc. If the AI wanders about with the minor settlements, it probably will wander about just the same without them, though its worth some testing.

I found EB1 on Medium campaign difficulty, to be a siege fest. On anything higher, you just got the same battles over and over again.

Well i always played it on hard. Only time i always thought there were many battles was when playing either Pontus and Hayasdan and fighting the seleucids, but that was more of a diplomacy issue (the hate player thing) than anything else.