Just wanted to know what other players do, me I like to let the AI handle them but sometimes they do stupid things and then i wish I wouldn't. Overall i find it easier to let the AI handle big scenarios so you can concentrate on playing your core troops which is more satisfying...but its annoying to lose such scenarios because the ai did smething stupid...
Yep, AI sometimes do some stupid things from perspective of player. Yesterday AI supported my UNITA infantry attack with a platoon of SADF oliphants. Result: Oliphants drive ahead alone in the trees and get ambushed by enemy infantry and t-55.
However, because of AI oliphants I got intelligence information about enemy positions, changed my attack vector and concentrated effective artillery fire on enemy positions. So in the end things weren't that bad, and the attack resulted in DRAW (oliphant losses/damage seriously hurt the outcome).
Also one has to remember that enemy is also controlled by AI, not just your allied troops. Also strange moves by the AI makes it difficult to predict enemy AI plans.
I think that there should be some kind of interaction between friendly AI troops and player during battle, which might improve the result. But how to do that is anything but clear. At least in the newest patch it's possible to see plans of allied AI on the map. In my example above two of allied oliphants were attacking and two doing recon ahead of my forces.
One question. The new patch did give some kind of punishment if the allied troops are under player control. does anybody know what exactly are the penalties?
I think transferring allied AI troops under your command (in the settings) will reduce their morale.
One thing I find funny is that if no player troops are included in a battle, then the player can control allied AI troops. Kind of killing the purpose of placing troops under AI command? Though I understand the logic here: player must have something to do, not just watch the battle.