RE: Pearl Harbor and AI

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI

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 >> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/30/2009 11:06:40 PM

AttuWatcher

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/25/2009
From: Hex 181, 36
Status: offline

I would have built the AI the same way (like playing a PBEM player) had I been in your shoes Andy. I think it's the way to go for the game to provide the widest range of enjoyment and the most lasting challenge upon repeats.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 31

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/30/2009 11:08:33 PM

undercovergeek

Posts: 1526
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

you did a great job dont worry - youve got what? 2-3 unhappy people while the rest are out there trying to fight off the AI - please dont pander to the 'but the AI did this to me' crowd - thats exactly what you were tasked to do!! i say congrats and look forward to many more surprises - if you dont want historical why the hell are you playing non-historical?

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 32

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/30/2009 11:13:56 PM

Sheytan

Posts: 863
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline

Frankly I dont want to see anything about this game changed unless there is a real and compelling reason to do so, IE bugs etc. As was mentioned people can as easily play the Dec 8th scenario as well. The game has only been out a few days and I see debates about mines, AAA etc.

Lets see how the game plays out before we jump all over about our pet peeves. I like this game, it is simply outstanding.

(in reply to undercovergeek)

Post #: 33

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/30/2009 11:15:00 PM

Splinterhead

Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline

I'm playing scenario 8 so my opinion is irrelevant, but here it is. I don't believe the engine can simulate the Pearl Harbor attack very well because it allows the Kates to use more heavy weapons than existed in real life. KB lingering for days while repeatedly attacking the US fleet with weapons that didn't exist is not a sign of good AI, it's fantasy. Having the KB bound by the historic logistic reality during the Pearl Harbor attack shouldn't mean you have to be bound by history later.

That's my opinion, and it only applies to scenario 1 as scenario 2 assumes the Japanese are better prepared so all bets are off.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 34

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/30/2009 11:18:41 PM

Keifer

Posts: 92
Joined: 9/27/2007
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline

error

(in reply to Mark Weston)

Post #: 35

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/30/2009 11:18:42 PM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

I've not played the first few turns yet, but from what I've been hearing I don't see what the problem is-especially if non historical is checked. I want a mean, dirty and nasty AI that doesn't play fair-I don't mean cheating, just something that isn't afraid to kick me when I'm down. If you lose a carrier or 2 as the allied vs the AI in the first few turns in a long campaign game then that just makes it more challenging.

(in reply to Sheytan)

Post #: 36

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/30/2009 11:25:52 PM

Keifer

Posts: 92
Joined: 9/27/2007
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I just dont know what you want - a good and challenging game v the AI or a repeat of History which you will all rip apart - you can have either (although the latter would need about 4 months of solid effort on the scripts)

If its a total repeat of history then I guarantee you will see things like the unconquerable Java, Rabaul Death Spirals etc etc

Honestly I am now confused I thought folks wanted a challenge

p.s. Historic 1st turn is exactly that a historic 1st turn after turn 1 all bets are off and the AI is designed to try and keep you interested and give you a challenge

Going to go back to working on improving the scripts based on the feedback recieved so far - If you really want a 100% historic game then contact me and I will give a quick tutorial on building Ai scripts.

Andy

I like the tweak to make the AI stick around a few days.

If you are going to improve the scripts, make the AI nastier.

I just started a historical start scenario and I've got 4 BB's sunk and 4 with float damage over 50. I am eager to see if the KB sticks around and finishes off my 4 damaged battlewagons. Just in case I am evacuating every ship with less than 30 float damage and keeping my CV task forces well away until it is safe.

What would be really nasty would be for the KB to sail away on Dec 8, refuel at Kwaj, and then hit Pearl again a few weeks later.

keep up the good work

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 37

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/30/2009 11:26:09 PM

Cap Mandrake

Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

What do you guys want the AI to do?

Recreate historical moves so you can anticipate everything and beat up on a bunch of lousy logic gates or kick your ass every once in a while so you dont get bored two weeks into the game.

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 38

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/30/2009 11:26:57 PM

AttuWatcher

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/25/2009
From: Hex 181, 36
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead
KB lingering for days while repeatedly attacking the US fleet with weapons that didn't exist is not a sign of good AI, it's fantasy.

This is an OOB issue, not AI. If they would run out of ammo then they would, I'm assuming , go home.

Does this happen with historical first turn on? With it off all bets should be off, just like scen 2.

(in reply to Splinterhead)

Post #: 39

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/30/2009 11:30:22 PM

Keifer

Posts: 92
Joined: 9/27/2007
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

If camping out at Pearh Harbour is causing a player problems, then that's pretty much the definition of the AI doing a good job.

It's also indicative of the flak model failing utterly. No way could a CV group remain on station day after day hitting targets over and over... Historically they would have run out of planes due to flak losses within a day or two.

Jim

I'm not buying this. Where during WWII did AA demonstrate anything like the ability to destroy a six-carrier air group in two days?

At the Battle of Santa Cruz the Shokaku and Zuikaku air groups were massacred in one day of battle, mostly due to us AA.

I could easily see the Japanese KB air groups losing 50% in a few days of air attacks on Pearl harbor.

Historically on Dec 7 "Of Japan's 414[48] available planes, 29 were lost during the battle (nine in the first attack wave, 20 in the second), with another 74 damaged by antiaircraft fire from the ground." (from wikipedia)

In just the hour between the 1st and 2nd waves, US AA over Pearl became over 100% more effective.

(in reply to Mark Weston)

Post #: 40

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/30/2009 11:34:36 PM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

I'm not 100% sure, but I think by the time of the Battle of Santa Cruz the US Navy had upgraded their AA. The 40 mm Borfors had replaced the less effective 1.1 mounts. I also think the 20mm Orelikons came on line replacing less effective small caliber mounts. I'm sure too that by Santa Cruz the Navy was out of peacetime mode and took training more seriously and the peacetime days of saving money and scrimping on live fire were over.

(in reply to Keifer)

Post #: 41

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/30/2009 11:37:34 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston
I'm not buying this. Where during WWII did AA demonstrate anything like the ability to destroy a six-carrier air group in two days?

OK, let's take a look at the Battle of Santa Cruz Islands:

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/battles/santa_cruz.htm

Here are the highlights:

quote:

At 0725, 62 planes from all three carriers of Nagumo's force had assembled and were heading to the position indicated in the report of the scout.
Immediately, the three carriers re-spotted their remaining planes, but Zuiho's unhappy experience reduced the second wave to just Zuikaku's and Shokaku's planes � a further 48 planes to add to the first strike.

quote:

CAP hurried to intercept them, but it was to little avail, since the Enterprise Fighter Direction Officer completely failed to deliver effective information to the fighters.

quote:

Fifteen minutes had transformed Hornet into a blazing wreck, motionlessly sitting on the ocean with thick black smoke belching from her innards. She had taken 38 of 52 Japanese with her

Now that is just for the attack on the Hornet, as they don't list how many planes Enterprise brought down.

This site:

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=8

Says the Hornet group only downed 25 Japanese planes, but the Enterprise group took out 33. So roughly half the original attacking planes from the two strikes were downed by flak. And this is just 1942 flak, it was far more effective later in the war. No way could a carrier group remain on station DAY after DAY in WWII. Flak would have destroyed their squadrons by the end of day 2. That's why the US developed CVEs, so they could replenish their depleted air squadrons during a fight and have their fleet carriers remain on station longer than just a couple of days.

Pearl was a fluke, it was a surprise attack with ships sitting idle at port in peace time conditions. Even so, about 30 Japanese planes were downed by flak historically at Pearl. By day 2 the entire fleet was on full wartime alert along with the harbor defenses. Had Japan come in again their planes would have been shredded.

Jim

Edit: One last important footnote. These carrier groups only had a handfull of ships in them, yet they destroyed about half the strike. There were hundreds of ships and many shore batteries very close together at Pearl. When on full alert they'd have carpeted the skies over Pearl till they were black with AA shells.

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 7/30/2009 11:56:59 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Mark Weston)

Post #: 42

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/30/2009 11:40:20 PM

undercovergeek

Posts: 1526
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston
I'm not buying this. Where during WWII did AA demonstrate anything like the ability to destroy a six-carrier air group in two days?

OK, let's take a look at the Battle of Santa Cruz Islands:

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/battles/santa_cruz.htm

Here are the highlights:

quote:

At 0725, 62 planes from all three carriers of Nagumo's force had assembled and were heading to the position indicated in the report of the scout.
Immediately, the three carriers re-spotted their remaining planes, but Zuiho's unhappy experience reduced the second wave to just Zuikaku's and Shokaku's planes � a further 48 planes to add to the first strike.

quote:

CAP hurried to intercept them, but it was to little avail, since the Enterprise Fighter Direction Officer completely failed to deliver effective information to the fighters.

quote:

Fifteen minutes had transformed Hornet into a blazing wreck, motionlessly sitting on the ocean with thick black smoke belching from her innards. She had taken 38 of 52 Japanese with her

Now that is just for the attack on the Hornet, as they don't list how many planes Enterprise brought down.

This site:

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=8

Says the Hornet group only downed 25 Japanese planes, but the Enterprise group took out 33. So roughly half the original attacking planes from the two strikes were downed by flak. And this is just 1942 flak, it was far more effective later in the war. No way could a carrier group remain on station DAY after DAY in WWII. Flak would have destroyed their squadrons by the end of day 2. That's why the US developed CVEs, so they could replenish their depleted air squadron during a fight and have their fleet carriers remain on station longer than just a couple of days.

Pearl was a fluke, it was a surprise attack with ships sitting idle at port in peace time conditions. Even so, about 30 Japanese planes were downed by flak historically at Peal. By day 2 the entire fleet was on full wartime alert along with the harbor defenses. Had Japan come in again their planes would have been shredded.

Jim

quote:

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=8

'AHISTORIC' what does this tell you?

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 43

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/30/2009 11:51:23 PM

Splinterhead

Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FAsea

quote:

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead
KB lingering for days while repeatedly attacking the US fleet with weapons that didn't exist is not a sign of good AI, it's fantasy.

This is an OOB issue, not AI. If they would run out of ammo then they would, I'm assuming , go home.

Does this happen with historical first turn on? With it off all bets should be off, just like scen 2.

The problem is that in real life the Japanese had only forty modified torpedoes that would work in Pearl Harbor, the other torpedoes would not operate in the shallow water of the port. The engine can't distinquish between modified and unmodified torpedoes. Similarly, KB only had 50 800kg AP bombs but the engine isn't able to simulate this.

It's not that the KB ran out of ammo but it ran out of useable ammo for port attack. If the AI wants to hang around and use Kates only for non-port attacks, that would be valid IMO, but it is exploiting a flaw in the engine.

Of course, as I said in my original post in this thread, I'm more more or less a devil's advocate in this thread since I do have Dec 8 to play.

(in reply to AttuWatcher)

Post #: 44

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/31/2009 12:41:36 AM

Keifer

Posts: 92
Joined: 9/27/2007
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline

To Anybody who had the KB stick around to pound Pearl for several days,

Can you use the editor to see how many planes and pilots the KB had left when they finally sailed away?

I'd be curious to see how deadly the flak was.

Personally, I'd trade all my Pearl BB's and CA's to kill off half the KB's pilots.

(in reply to Splinterhead)

Post #: 45

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/31/2009 1:08:33 AM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

OK Guys its quite simple there is a chance the AI will linger why did I do this its quite simple its what I would do if I was PBEM against you as Japan when designing the AI we tried to do it from the perspective of what would a PBEM pl;ayer do on the grounds that a harder nastier AI would give you a more difficult challenge.

I appreciate some people dont like it (although I am suprised its went down quite as badly as it seems to have) and it does make me wonder how much youy will like my other suprises �- I do understand but what am I to do - make the Ai play as hard as I can or make it exactly mirror history - most PBEM players would linger the fact that the AI only does sosome of the time seems to be going down badly.

I am really not sure what folks want but we did provide a scen starting on the 8th for those that want a `100% historic start.

I'm pleased to have an AI that's unpredictable. I can even live with the unrealistic ordinance situation. The only complaint that I can fully sympathize with is the fuel situation.

IMO if the CVs stick around PH then the better the chance of putting holes in them. At the very least I know where they are. :)

One question. Is the Dec 8th scenario the same as the Grand Campaign minus the first day or were they designed seperately?

_____________________________

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 46

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/31/2009 1:28:30 AM

John Lansford

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

Andy,

You're not going to satisfy everyone, so don't bother trying. Make the AI as unpredictable, as nasty and as ferocious as you can. If that means the KB gets to hang around Pearl 5% of the time, so be it. If players get comfortable knowing "the KB can't stay after one attack, they're out of ammo", then they will take advantage of knowledge no one had at the time. I'd not change anything unless it's a clear bug or game killer, which having the KB stay more than a day around Pearl is not.

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 47

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/31/2009 1:44:34 AM

Scott_USN

Posts: 715
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Eagle River, Alaska USA
Status: offline

Man that would have been fun they hit me 7 and 8th and everything that moved when they were leaving and supported the Wake Invasion when I sent the CV's there I had to run south and west to get away. Then they bombarded Wake which I thought I might hold after dealing with the invasion task force. But 145 bombers from KB hitting the little island was a bit too much for them. Oh well I loved it, yes I like to hold wake but I am glad they changed tactics.

I was playing Historical too.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 48

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/31/2009 1:46:08 AM

Scott_USN

Posts: 715
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Eagle River, Alaska USA
Status: offline

As for playing ahistoric and not being happy well you can play historic and your still going to get roughed up really hard. I don't wanted scripted Pacific War as it happened. If they never go to Tulugi and take the fight into Johnston Island and Pago Pago I am cool with that. Let's fight.

Great job with the unpredictable and Andy and team thank you.

Oh and I am playing the ahistoric Grand Campaign also where they have more stuff and such.

(in reply to Scott_USN)

Post #: 49

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/31/2009 1:48:00 AM

Scott_USN

Posts: 715
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Eagle River, Alaska USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

OK Guys its quite simple there is a chance the AI will linger why did I do this its quite simple its what I would do if I was PBEM against you as Japan when designing the AI we tried to do it from the perspective of what would a PBEM pl;ayer do on the grounds that a harder nastier AI would give you a more difficult challenge.

I appreciate some people dont like it (although I am suprised its went down quite as badly as it seems to have) and it does make me wonder how much youy will like my other suprises �- I do understand but what am I to do - make the Ai play as hard as I can or make it exactly mirror history - most PBEM players would linger the fact that the AI only does sosome of the time seems to be going down badly.

I am really not sure what folks want but we did provide a scen starting on the 8th for those that want a `100% historic start.

I'm pleased to have an AI that's unpredictable. I can even live with the unrealistic ordinance situation. The only complaint that I can fully sympathize with is the fuel situation.

IMO if the CVs stick around PH then the better the chance of putting holes in them. At the very least I know where they are. :)

One question. Is the Dec 8th scenario the same as the Grand Campaign minus the first day or were they designed seperately?

Could they not have put more Replenishment Fleets to sea? Did they not have them?

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 50

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/31/2009 1:49:48 AM

Scott_USN

Posts: 715
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Eagle River, Alaska USA
Status: offline

I wonder if he took his Fighters off Training missions? The allied fighters can put up a fight at least maybe not win but they could have hurt the KB aircraft some.

(in reply to Scott_USN)

Post #: 51

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/31/2009 1:51:08 AM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

It is true that after the initial attack the AA became more effective, but its also true that soon after the raid on PH a flight from the Enterprise flew into Pearl Harbor was was shot up badly by trigger happy AA gunners-a tragic case of friendly fire. I would argue that having KB stick around and its air wings not getting shot up as badly as one would expect could be plausible due to the "fog of war" and confusion.

(in reply to Keifer)

Post #: 52

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/31/2009 4:05:00 AM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf
I would argue that having KB stick around and its air wings not getting shot up as badly as one would expect could be plausible due to the "fog of war" and confusion.

That would be fine to me as well, just as long as we saw historically plausible flak results as a mid line result. But we aren't seeing that, not even close. I mean has anyone lost even half the planes Japan lost to flak on Dec 7th?

And what are the Dec. 8th losses like? Nowhere near the loss results they suffered for the surprise raid on the 7th even, let alone close to plausible results for a huge fleet and harbor on war alert status.

A lot of the Coral Sea battles in the AAR section show just a tiny fraction of planes going down to flak, if any get downed at all. Coral Sea is hard to find detailed data on, but the last time we had this discussion I think the one source Treespider had that listed any kind of reliable losses indicated about 25%-30% of the strike planes were downed by flak in that battle.

But since every other CV battle of the war saw about 30%-50% or more of strike planes downed by flak, I think it's probable that his source book was probably under-reporting flak losses. But even so, the game produces less than 5% flak losses usually. It needs major tweaking.

The net result of poor flak will be a failed allied counter-offensive. Historically the allies depended heavily on their flak to help protect fleets anchored in harm's way. Without adequate flak protection the allies are going to lose far more amphibious assault ships than they did historically.

And since they are locked into historical production numbers no matter what kind of losses they suffer, they have no way to make up for the severe shortfall in shipping these excess losses will put on them. Their ability to then load enough troops to amphibiously invade a well defended stronghold like Saipan, Iwo Jima or Okinawa will disappear and their offensives will grind to a halt simply due to lack of shipping.

Realistically had the allies suffered much heavier shipping losses, they would not have started shutting down the ship building programs in mid to late 43 as happened historically. But in game they lack the ability to keep production up if needed, so getting things right in the air to air and flak department is critical to allowing the allies (and Japan) some ability to protect their shipping assets adequately.

I'm not calling for exact history here, just plausible results and abilities.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to sfbaytf)

Post #: 53

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/31/2009 4:13:20 AM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

Andy-love the surprises, keep up the good AI work. I love the challenge and the occasional curve ball-THAT's why I play the game.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 54

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/31/2009 4:22:06 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
You're not going to satisfy everyone, so don't bother trying.�

During the development of AE we had more hot debates about the PH events that any thing else. Many, many adjustments were made. However, to make PH come off exactly as it did - would require hard coding the results. Essentially this is what the Dec 8 start is - minus the "movie". So if you get a lot of "angst" about the PH results not being exactly as you think they should be, then the Dec 8 scenario is for you. What happens in scenario 01 - historical start - on Dec 7 - is as close as the engine can get to the results - given that the engine is designed to represent all events everywhere on the map from 7 Dec to 9 Aug (and beyond) - and includes all the variations in results necessary to support the entire war. We actually think the accuracy of the 7 Dec attack on PH as represented in the game is amazingly. Others may disagree and that is fine. If it really bothers you a lot then maybe the 8 Dec scenario will be more enjoyable.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 55

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/31/2009 4:25:44 AM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

Some time ago I pulled this off the J-Aircraft Sight, note this is not me talking, I offer it up hear for the consideration of all concerned:

IMO, there is no truth to the suggestion that the TF lacked fuel resources for an extended stay at Hawaii. Combined Fleet had provided 80,000 tons of additional fuel oil, plus about 4,000t more on 2nd CAR DIV, Akagi and 8th CRUDIV. One of these tankers might have broken down, making it around 70,000 tons. 5TH CARDIV (about 11,000 tons internal capacity) returned to Japan with 1,700 tons of oil still aboard, but had only received 700 tons resupply during the entire operation. DD Akigumo burned 1,100 tons during the mission (her internal capacity was about 500 tons), meaning the entire DD force should not have taken on much more than 6,000-8,000 tons from the tankers during the raid. Kaga and the two battlecruisers had the range to perform the mission without refueling, so for these units and Akagi, refueling was also probably minimal.

The destroyers also needed to make a 48hr run at 24-28kt to enter and clear the battle zone, but Nagumo was capable of resupplying these from his battleships and carriers.

5th Carrier used about 10,000 tons between Shokaku and Zuikaku for the entire mission. Figure Akagi and Kaga and the two BC�s to be heavier consumers and 2nd Car Div and the heavy cruisers to be lighter consumers than that. Each destroyer burned less than 1,200 tons and the light cruiser � call it 2,000 just to be on the high side. That�s 10 heavy units @ 50,000 + about 10 destroyers @ 22,000 + 1 light cruiser @ 2,000 = <74,000 tons. The attack unit could carry about 45,000 tons of fuel. Plus another 4,000 tons overloaded, plus 80,000 on tankers = 129,000 tons. The surplus is 59,000 tons, or 49,000 if one broke down. Nagumo could expend most of his ammunition and avgas in 3 days of intensive ops, so he had the fuel

_____________________________

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 56

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/31/2009 4:37:59 AM

afspret

Posts: 851
Joined: 2/19/2004
From: Hanahan, SC
Status: offline

I think I found a way to get rid of them, or at least reduce the serverity of follow up attacks. Before running turn 2 I sent all the subs I had in or around PH to the hex KB is supposed to be in and during the combat resolution they showed up several hexes west of their turn 1 location and only launched a small strike on PH (20+ ea Kates & Zeros).

Unfortunately I forgot about the Portland TF, which was apparently closer to KB than PH was. The end result was the TF was wiped out by numerous AM & PM air strikes. Now that I think about it, maybe thats why KB didn't launch a bigger follow up attack on PH, so maybe I'll run turn 2 again and this time move the Portland farther south and see what happens.

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 57

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/31/2009 4:42:47 AM

Rexor

Posts: 295
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: The Oort Cloud
Status: offline

Hey Andy,

I think a lot of the points being made in this thread, particularly those by Jim D Burns, are intriguing food for thought. But I would also like to take this opportunity to extend my sincere gratitude for doing what you've done, which I believe many thought was impossible. Even from my ignorant perspective, I can see that this thing is a bear, and yet you have managed to create a worthy AI opponent that is only going to get stronger--an important step in the ongoing debate over the viability of solid AI opponents these days.

I salute you.

_____________________________

"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." (H.G. Wells)

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 58

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 7/31/2009 5:04:07 AM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

It also only has a significant chance to linger if you choose non-Historical Start, so this is telling me that a lot of folks are choosing the non-Historical Start, where its chance to linger goes way up.

The only reason I use the non-historical start is so I can review the map and forces before the start, I aways play with variable reinforcements set to max and forces can vary greatly. In my game the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor from Dec 7th through Dec 12th - thats five straight days, (linger is a week

) that's a complete fantasy!