AI Suggestion/Request

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

AI Suggestion/Request

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> AI Suggestion/Request

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

AI Suggestion/Request - 4/22/2010 6:50:23 PM

The Gnome

Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline

Hey, just wanted to say thanks, I love the new AI options and aggressiveness, I'm really enjoying it. It's keeps me on my toes and prevents me from being able to turtle for 6 months. It also prevents me from being too aggressive early on as I need to cover my supply routes and rear areas.

My current game AI is pushing hard to cut off Australia from the US. It has been trying to hit the SOPAC bases between Noumea and Suva and raiding shipping anywhere between. I countered by sending an air combat tf comprised of Enterprise and Yorktown, plus two cruiser squadrons to cover my buildup at Pago Pago, and supply convoys to Brisbane.

By March 1942 the AI was raiding with small air combat tf's as well as small invasion forces to Luganville and environs. Problem: The standard makeup of the IJN air combat tf was just a tad too small. This enabled me to defeat several small actf's in detail, and use my carriers to sink invasion tf's before they reach their intended targets.

I think one or two tweaks would make things significantly more challenging:
1) I love that there is no "Death Star" wandering around, but I think the pendulum swung just a little too far. I found it common to see heavy CV's operating alone with minimal screen, which enabled me to get a tactical advantage with a pair of US CV's. I think forcing the AI to organize an air combat tf with a minimum of 2 CV's or 1CV + 2CVL would make a world of difference.

This would prevent the USN from ambushing single carriers without loss, or significant damage to their CV air wings. So far I have managed to sink 3 CV's, 2 CVL's, and a CVE in this manner at a cost of Lexington and Saratoga heavily damged.

Single CVL TF's work great in the backwater areas, keeping me from sneaking surface combat or cargo missions around, but they really need to operate asa minimum in pairs if they are going anywhere near the frontline.

2) Add just a bit more umph to the invasions. I've managed to stall the Japanese in several key spots, notably in the DEI and Singapore. This would allow the AI to resolve these areas and free up the forces for use elsewhere.

Thanks!

Post #: 1

RE: AI Suggestion/Request - 4/22/2010 10:24:33 PM

minnowguy

Posts: 85
Joined: 7/12/2005
From: St Louis
Status: offline

Concur.

I just finished May 1942 vs the Japanese AI, Scenario 2. The AI did a great job versus the DEI and the 3xBB surface combat TF that showed up undetected at Pearl was quite the surprise (especially since all my A/C were in Training mode and I had a half dozen cargo TFs formed up for the slaughter) :)

Big downside was the AI's tendency to commit single CV task forces on what were essentially raids. I had my carriers operating in paired TFs out of Noumea and Sidney and managed 4 CV vs 1 CV battles twice and 2 CV vs 1 CV twice (sort of a two-week-long Midway combined with Coral Sea). While the engagements caused serious nail biting at the time, I might have been in real trouble vs the KB with two or four CVs. As it is, I'm pretty sure I sank 3 of his heavy CVs and badly damaged another in exchange for light damage to Lexington and Yorktown.

My understanding (admittedly limited) of Japanese carrier doctrine led me to expect no fewer than two CVs in a task force.

(Play note: don't forget to pull the air groups off damaged CVs before you put them in dry dock!) :)

(in reply to The Gnome)

Post #: 2

RE: AI Suggestion/Request - 4/22/2010 11:01:58 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

its not that easy to fix

Its a script issue so I need saves or ai log files to identify what script was causing the issue

(in reply to minnowguy)

Post #: 3

RE: AI Suggestion/Request - 4/22/2010 11:14:59 PM

The Gnome

Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline

Hey Andy, first off the new stuff is awesome, you did an amazing job. The AI is on the whole is brilliant and light years ahead of stock, thanks! Second, how do you want me to get you any saves, and which specific saves? (ie before the I sank the carriers, current save, etc).

I can even zip you up a series of them, just let me know what would be helpful!

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 4

RE: AI Suggestion/Request - 4/23/2010 12:10:53 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

A save beofre the TF was destroyed please or just take a look at the Japanese side and the TYF name will tell you what AI script is driving it - the AI puts in the script number in the manual TF name slot

(in reply to The Gnome)

Post #: 5

RE: AI Suggestion/Request - 4/23/2010 2:40:27 AM

The Gnome

Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline

Ok hopefully this is the right info: Taskforce assigned to 1824

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 6

RE: AI Suggestion/Request - 4/23/2010 2:38:06 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Roughly where was the TF ? off Australia??

(in reply to The Gnome)

Post #: 7

RE: AI Suggestion/Request - 4/23/2010 8:46:46 PM

The Gnome

Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline

Hey, it's been a series of task forces, normally they are between Suva and Noumea, but one pesky one showed up just off of Brisbane. It was a really good idea too because the AI was trying to clobber Port Moresby at the time, but the air TF just didn't have enough oomph (only a single CV).

The last tf to show up was hiryu sitting on the base that is just west of Suva. It'll just sit there for a few turns, then move, then move back to the base and sit there. It seems really similar to the behavior of my ASW patrols I set up.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 8

RE: AI Suggestion/Request - 4/26/2010 2:28:20 PM

morganbj

Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

Yeah, I've seent that, too. The AI basically squanders its CVs so that, by 1943, it basically has no CV capability to impact the war to any real degree. LBA become the threat. But, then again, isn't this essentially what happened? The only difference I see is that the Allied player can ususally get away with no loss of CVs if he is careful and plays conservatively. The AI is always just too aggressive and throws his away.

(in reply to The Gnome)

Post #: 9

RE: AI Suggestion/Request - 4/26/2010 3:53:09 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

Hey, it's been a series of task forces, normally they are between Suva and Noumea, but one pesky one showed up just off of Brisbane. It was a really good idea too because the AI was trying to clobber Port Moresby at the time, but the air TF just didn't have enough oomph (only a single CV).

The last tf to show up was hiryu sitting on the base that is just west of Suva. It'll just sit there for a few turns, then move, then move back to the base and sit there. It seems really similar to the behavior of my ASW patrols I set up.

The AI must have been using the same script in my CG, because it did all those things in 1942 in my game also. I had a 2 CV TF raid south to Brisbane (both CV's sunk by cruisers and CV airstrikes), a TF of two CVL's make it all the way to Suva (sunk by cruisers), a 1 CV TF raided between PH and the WC (sunk by two CV's out of Pearl), and a 2 CV attack on Port Moresby (LBA got one of them).

After all those losses I saw single CV TF's coming south from Rabaul to attack my buildup on Guadalcanal. Except, Akagi had no attack planes (biggest strike I saw had fewer than a dozen TB/DB's in it) and Kaga was sunk by three S-boats off of the Shortlands.

It's now mid-43 and the Combined Fleet has vanished completely from the Pacific. I've seen a few CL's and one of the newer CL's got DB'ed by my CV's off of Miri, but that's been it. All the prewar CV's have been on the sunk list since late '42, but the BB's and remaining CA's are scarce as well.

(in reply to The Gnome)

Post #: 10

RE: AI Suggestion/Request - 4/27/2010 6:01:39 AM

CaptBeefheart

Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline

I saw the same behavior in Scen #8: individual IJN CVs on missions to the deep south getting hammered by my 3-4 CVs (always keeping them concentrated except when repairing/upgrading). I didn't lose one of them, although some spent time in the yard. I'd suggest making a requirement of 4 CVs per AI mission, with maybe 3 CV if that's all that's around.

Later on, BBs would go in groups of 1 or 2 to resupply bases long since bypassed and boxed in with LBA. Anyway, I understand that PBEM is the shizzle for this game and us AI players are heretics