AI Allies are almost entirely useless.

[PogoMarimo]

I'm France in War against Germany. Russia joins as my ally about 3 months into the war. Germany and I are about equal in tonnage and Russia is slightly larger. Germany originally had their entire fleet in Northern Europe to duel with my navy, but now that Russia has joined, guess how much of their fleet they sent to protect the Baltic Sea? None! 6 months now. Am I getting any benefit from Russia's 11 Battleships in the Baltic? None! Not a single VP has been given to me despite their naval dominance outside of major German ports. Have they fought a single engagement with Germany? Nope! Not a single one. How many battles have I fought with the entire German fleet on my doorstep? Over a dozen now by myself.

It's baffling how little AI allies do and, for that matter, how much combat there is between AI nations in general. Makes the rest of the world look like set dressing that your punished for mistaking as "Real" or tangible in any functional sense.

And that's not even touching on how much more effective alliances are AGAINST you. Alliances in practice feel like a complete player trap.

[Stele]

They probably see that they don't have adequate basing in NE Europe while sharing possesions with Germans in the Baltic so they stay there.
Allies are usefull for blocade points when fighting from other side of the globe. As US/Japan/China , drawing UK/France/Germany agains other European powers do all work for you. Even if they won't roll any battles, distraction factor and blocade points are enogh to win war for your side, that would result in prelonged trade warfare without them.

[ulzgoroth]

AI allies can be extremely useful! I have gotten quite a bit of help out of them.

However, maybe not Russia. Great Britain, that's a useful ally.

Though it does seem like dominance of the Baltic ought to have an impact vs Germany.

[PogoMarimo]

Originally posted by Stele:

They probably see that they don't have adequate basing in NE Europe while sharing possesions with Germans in the Baltic so they stay there.
Allies are usefull for blocade points when fighting from other side of the globe. As US/Japan/China , drawing UK/France/Germany agains other European powers do all work for you. Even if they won't roll any battles, distraction factor and blocade points are enogh to win war for your side, that would result in prelonged trade warfare without them.

They have my basing in NE Europe as well as complete naval control of the Baltic. They can do whatever they want. They're doing nothing. This is hardly the first time this has happened either, I've played over a dozen games to this point. Allied contributions in most wars is completely paltry--You'll be lucky if you get a pop-up advising they've added 140vp and maybe even sunk a CL. Maybe throughout a 30 month war they'll sink a couple destroyers and CLs. Meanwhile the player goes toe-to-toe with the AI two or three times minimum per round with ships being sunk frequently on both sides. This kind of asymmetry is bad design.

[ulzgoroth]

Originally posted by Pogo el SpaceBandito:

Originally posted by Stele:

They probably see that they don't have adequate basing in NE Europe while sharing possesions with Germans in the Baltic so they stay there.
Allies are usefull for blocade points when fighting from other side of the globe. As US/Japan/China , drawing UK/France/Germany agains other European powers do all work for you. Even if they won't roll any battles, distraction factor and blocade points are enogh to win war for your side, that would result in prelonged trade warfare without them.

They have my basing in NE Europe as well as complete naval control of the Baltic. They can do whatever they want. They're doing nothing. This is hardly the first time this has happened either, I've played over a dozen games to this point. Allied contributions in most wars is completely paltry--You'll be lucky if you get a pop-up advising they've added 140vp and maybe even sunk a CL. Maybe throughout a 30 month war they'll sink a couple destroyers and CLs. Meanwhile the player goes toe-to-toe with the AI two or three times minimum per round with ships being sunk frequently on both sides. This kind of asymmetry is bad design.

Two or three times per round? Is it even possible to generate more than one battle per round?

They also can and often will contribute divisions to battles you have in zones where they're present. A division of battleships that aren't yours can be a welcome thing...

[Enoukdep Mav]

Austria needed all the British light cruisers it could get, in my experience.

[Goul]

there can be more battles generated if one side declines battles. Only 1 Battle per round so far for me that gets fought.

I had enemies decline 2 Battles and then accept a third generated battle in 1 Turn.

[Phantasmagoria]

Germany gets to blockade the Denmark Strait once active mine warfare is developed, they probably can't sail out for some Russian Jutland.

[PogoMarimo]

Originally posted by Goul:

there can be more battles generated if one side declines battles. Only 1 Battle per round so far for me that gets fought.

I had enemies decline 2 Battles and then accept a third generated battle in 1 Turn.

I should clarify this is what I'm referring to. Having two declined battles is worth often 1000vp alone, which is almost certainly more than your ally will contribute over the course of the entire war. And that's from one month of warfare.

I mean, VP in general is pretty nonsensically balanced anyways. If you setup a raider, he might destroy one or even two enemy merchants during a turn. That's worth an unbelievable 10 vp! If you get a raid enemy coastal mission and sink two merchants, that's worth... 900 vp. What the ♥♥♥♥? Why am I even wasting my ships time as raiders when I should obviously just try put all my ships as active in one region and fight massive fleet actions? Even if my opponent declines the battle because of my overwhelming advantage, it's still worth the same amount as sinking ONE HUNDRED MERCHANT VESSELS with raiders. It's utter nonsense.

[ulzgoroth]

Originally posted by Pogo el SpaceBandito:

Originally posted by Goul:

there can be more battles generated if one side declines battles. Only 1 Battle per round so far for me that gets fought.

I had enemies decline 2 Battles and then accept a third generated battle in 1 Turn.

I should clarify this is what I'm referring to. Having two declined battles is worth often 1000vp alone, which is almost certainly more than your ally will contribute over the course of the entire war. And that's from one month of warfare.

I mean, VP in general is pretty nonsensically balanced anyways. If you setup a raider, he might destroy one or even two enemy merchants during a turn. That's worth an unbelievable 10 vp! If you get a raid enemy coastal mission and sink two merchants, that's worth... 900 vp. What the ♥♥♥♥? Why am I even wasting my ships time as raiders when I should obviously just try put all my ships as active in one region and fight massive fleet actions? Even if my opponent declines the battle because of my overwhelming advantage, it's still worth the same amount as sinking ONE HUNDRED MERCHANT VESSELS with raiders. It's utter nonsense.

So you're relying on the generator consistently dropping battles the AI can't or won't accept? That seems highly unreliable. And yeah, you probably don't need allies if your enemy is declining 1000 VP worth of battles per month.


As for surface raiders, two or three reasons:

- Those massive fleet actions aren't guaranteed. Also, depending on the war, they might be fights that you don't want!

- Raiders can inflict unrest, if you disrupt trade enough, which helps force the war to end. Admittedly, an ocean-full of submarines may be better for this than CLs. Though it's hard to beat AMCs for getting ships out on short notice.

- Raiders motivate the enemy to disperse their own cruisers into trade protection, since DD and KE trade protection ships can't thwart cruiser raiders.