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: Ironman Feedback

 
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: Ironman Feedback Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/5/2010 1:15:57 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Unfortunately I needed them in the AE format I managed for the Ironman update to fudge it - but that is a seriously pretty ship

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 31
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/5/2010 1:43:34 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Unfortunately I needed them in the AE format I managed for the Ironman update to fudge it - but that is a seriously pretty ship


Sorry but I'm new to this,what format do you mean ? Is it the sky background your on about,as I usually only do a clear cloud less blue sky,other than that this art works perfect with Admirals Edition.

German Battlecruiser Scharnhorst.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 32
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/5/2010 7:12:16 PM   
plund

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 11/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: plund

I am seeing one odd thing in China. I captured Canton and AI still holds HongKong with 17 units. It would send out 8-9 units to the hex between Canton and HK and then just sit there and not move anywhere else. I would whack it and it would retreat to HK and then reappear after I left. This happens repeatedly.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I hope you will find the new scripts better

I have installed the latest patch but not the database changes and am still playing 'whack-a-mole' with the HongKong garrison. Oh well. Here I go again.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 33
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/7/2010 12:20:38 PM   
pmattiasn

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 12/7/2007
From: Stockholm
Status: offline 		Tried it once as Allied vs AI, got whipped in Phil/DEI due to availability of additional carriers and ground forces that rendered all my normal routines just plain suicidal. Loved it but had to stop due to time constraints. Thinking of restarting under the latest patch and if you plan on upgrading it I most certainly will! Great stuff, that scen!

Cheers,
Mattias

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 34
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/7/2010 7:32:39 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline 		All I can suggest is a tweak to the IJN carrier forces.  They 'always' sail into allied ports, usually as a small group as mentioned earlier.  In 3 AI games I have yet to sink a Japanese carrier in combat, they always impale themselves on defensive mine fields.

BTW Kirk23, I like the art!

(in reply to pmattiasn)
Post #: 35
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/7/2010 8:06:34 PM   
Miller


Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

All I can suggest is a tweak to the IJN carrier forces.  They 'always' sail into allied ports, usually as a small group as mentioned earlier.  In 3 AI games I have yet to sink a Japanese carrier in combat, they always impale themselves on defensive mine fields.

BTW Kirk23, I like the art!


The AI used to do this way back in UV, so I think it may not be fixable.

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 36
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/7/2010 8:22:07 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline 		"The AI used to do this way back in UV, so I think it may not be fixable. "

I think your correct as well.  Still, this is one of the major issues as I see it.

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 37
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/8/2010 2:31:08 PM   
morganbj


Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline 		Ironman is the most ridiculous, ill-conceived, silly scenarios ever developed.

It's childish, moronic, and must have been the brainchild of a true cretin.

And you know I'm being objective, because I've never played it, or even loaded the scenario to casually glance at it.

And, I'm free to have any opinion I want.

Now, whadaya think of that?














Well, I got some of you riled up a tad, didn't I?

Just havin' fun with you guys. Hell, it's almost the Christmas Holidays and the University is about to close. Hours and hours of AE and WITE. I love it!

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 38
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/9/2010 3:58:23 AM   
AcePylut


Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline 		AI is AI.

I can't imagine trying to write scripts that take into account what can happen over the course of 3-4 years of day-to-day turns of 1000's of assets.

Impossible to do.

While it would kill the game to state that the "full war" scenarios are best left to PBEM, I really don't think it's possible to code a full-war ai that is even remotely capable. Me thinks its best to play the short scenarios against the AI, full-war really can only be done against a real intelligence.



_____________________________


(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 39
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/9/2010 1:04:45 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline 		Andy proved that the "full war" scenarios can be scripted with the present engine, and they seem to work reasonably well.  If you look at the scripts, there are some "what-if" versions that basically assume a certain course of war, and fire only on certain conditions.  Or others end at specific changes in the events.   However, there is little communication and interactivity between the task oriented scripts, i.e. it is difficult to create some "real dynamics" that take into account the course of previous events and the present (local/global) situation.  But generally doing so would be possible with a more powerful scripting engine.  One that could test force placements, strengths etc in certain areas, along naval courses,  and could adjust force requirements for certain tasks dynamically based on opposition, detection level, available forces etc.  With a powerful scripting language, all that would be complex, time-consuming but doable.  Just see what people have gotten out of the long-evolved ARMA2 engine by now in terms of AI scripting, as one example.  Hopefully that is something that will develop in the future of the WITP series.

(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 40
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/11/2010 7:47:06 AM   
plund

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 11/1/2007
Status: offline 		I am at Oct 30, 1943 and have just received the ARD-2 as a reinforcement at Portland but I am unable to sail it out of the port due to size restrictions.  is this intentional that I cannot move it?  I was able to sail the ARD-1 over to Rabaul with no problems because it started out from anohter port (Seattle, IIRC)

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 41
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/11/2010 1:43:24 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: plund

I am at Oct 30, 1943 and have just received the ARD-2 as a reinforcement at Portland but I am unable to sail it out of the port due to size restrictions.  is this intentional that I cannot move it?  I was able to sail the ARD-1 over to Rabaul with no problems because it started out from anohter port (Seattle, IIRC)



One of the earlier patches fixed that.

_____________________________


(in reply to plund)
Post #: 42
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/23/2010 7:36:06 PM   
Divico__


Posts: 5
Joined: 11/21/2009
From: Switzerland
Status: offline 		the orion class has only a range of 2 Hex
Can they fix the save?


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 43
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/23/2010 7:44:17 PM   
Divico__


Posts: 5
Joined: 11/21/2009
From: Switzerland
Status: offline 		The Save Game

https://share.ols.inode.at/4KE08ZA2OXSM6JRVJN5BDJAPE9SUH2KKLYUSX6UM


(in reply to Divico__)
Post #: 44
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/23/2010 7:58:25 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		I will admit that one has me a little confused it looks ok in editor but summit is iffy in game.

Need to vcheck more

(in reply to Divico__)
Post #: 45
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/23/2010 8:10:01 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		It shouldnt matter to much only 6 ships are affected I will try to get to bottom of it may I ask how you noticed it ?

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 46
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/23/2010 8:16:30 PM   
Divico__


Posts: 5
Joined: 11/21/2009
From: Switzerland
Status: offline 		I play against the strong opponent roy2008

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 47
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/23/2010 8:16:31 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		OK it looks like there must be an upper limit on endurance.

When I set it to 25,000 its all fine

No sure whether to try and fix it in code (if even possible) or to just lower end a little

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 48
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/23/2010 8:17:08 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		You are plying Ironman as a PBEM ???

Wow never thought that would happen....its designed for v AI ;)

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 49
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/23/2010 8:18:41 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Only way I can see to fix it is to upload a new class and ships fileand have you merge it - it will fix it for future ships but not the one already on map

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 50
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/24/2010 12:43:49 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I am doing another update for WITP:AE Ironman Scen 10

A couple of questions does anyone actually play it - if not I wont bother

Assuming someone does play it is there any feedback any issues with it ??



I played my last game to Jan of 43 and just started a new game and am in Jan of 42 now.

The AI still does some pretty dumb things. I have to temper my drive for early success against it so the game isn't so terribly skewed by the end of 42 that it will remain worth playing on. Sometimes I have to replay a turn to avoid complete disaster for the AI.

In praise of the AI it does do some very audacious things that keep me on my toes.

In my present game two of the dumb things it has done was to send an invasion force to Singapore to be slaughtered by the 9.2" and 15" coastal guns (Jan 11th or 12th) and sent an invasion force to Midway that included Yamato and Musashi covered only by a single CVL. All 4 American carriers converged on Midway (Yorky had to make one turn of high speed run from the west coast to get there in time). After sinking the CVL and Yamato I retired to Pearl with my carriers and let the stricken Musashi limp away.

Some really good things the AI has done was to land a force by fast transport at Rabaul on December 7th. (I assume it was fast transport because I never saw a task force landing report from an invasion force). It wasn't strong enough to take the base but it's presence seemed to make it impossible to air transport allied reinforcements into the hex (which is a standard technique for me to attempt to delay the usual early fall as even in the historical scenario Japan usually heads there a month earlier than histoorically). The second really good thing it did was to turn loose a plethora of AMCs into the allied shipping lanes. These ships are quite formidable, bristling with 6" guns, 2 torpedoe mounts AND carrying 3 Rufes each. A pair of them has 6 Rufes above on cap which are quite capable of shooting down Buffaloes andf F4F3s. Not to mention that they slam torpedoes into light cruisers that come gunning for them.

One of the things that is easy to pull off against the AI in all scenarios is surface combat raids on newly acquired Japanese bases. Usually you are not in position to stop the initial invasions but the AI repeatly follows them up with transport flotillas of base occupation troops escorted only by Es and PBs with no air cover. While it is near impossible to stop Rabaul from falling it is often child's play to sink the follow on reinforcements. I have started refrainig from such aggressive moves to give the AI a better chance.


Another reason why I was able to converge on the Midway invasion force is the odd way the Japanese invasion fleets behave after being spotted. My Catalinas spotted the Japanese about 8 hexes from Midway. The AI spent the next three turns moving the two hexes worth of TFs toward Miday at a rate of one to two hexes per turn allowing me ample time to race my carriers to the locale. It seems they are more intent on sticking close to the slow moving transports (presuming a movement speed of 2/2) than on getting the island bombardment battlehips quickly onto the target to supress the airbase or on reacting to allied TF movements. Even after being bombed heavily four hexes out and losing the CVL the invasion force still spent one more turn plowing forward into the maelstrom befroe finally deciding to beat a retreat. The AI seems at times to have a singlemindedness of purpose while ignoring what is happening to it.

A couple of turns ago I got really really lucky with the Dutch torpodoe boats and slammed two into the Chiho at Makassar sending it to the bottom. Can't place any blame on the AI for that one, it was pure luck on my part. Nevertheless I replayed the turn and sent the TBs elswhere as I had already sunk a CVE and a CVL by early January and didn't want to start skewing things in my favor too early.

Oh yea, almost forgot. The AI also routinely stacks huge concentrations of ships in port in range of allied air power without any fighter cover of their own. I sunk a CVE in Babeldaob the first week of the war with B17s flying out of Cagayan and pummeled a huge concentartion of transports at Legaspi with PBYs out of Manila.

Will be happy to provide more feedback as this game progresses.

p.s. difficulty is set to Hard

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 12/24/2010 12:57:33 PM >

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 51
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/24/2010 1:58:11 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		Andy,

One more thing. I can't recall if the same thing happened in my last game as the start was ages ago, but in the latest one the allies have complete recon of all Japanese bases on December 8th. Seems to be a bug? Here is a screenshot of Truk on December 8th loaded as the allies:






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 52
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/24/2010 2:02:42 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		The reason I chose Truk for the example above is to illustrate how overloaded with planes it is to the detriment of the Japanese cause elswhere. About the only Allied bases in range of these bombers are Rabaul, Ocean and Nauru.

Now look at the alottment of planes at Babeldaob in this screenshot. The lack of fighter cover there made the ships in port vulnerable to American bombers from the Phillipines and also deprives the Japanese of effective air threat in the Banda and Timor seas.

I would be far far less willing to station SAGs at Ambon to hit Ternate invasions forces if I was being bombed by Betty's out of Babeldaob.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 12/24/2010 2:03:19 PM >

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 53
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/24/2010 3:37:46 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		Just finished another turn and the last two turns have uncovered another aspect of the AI that ought to be addressed. Somehow it needs to be stopped from running carrier TFs through easily mined straits.

I don't know how other players utilize the Dutch mines, but I routinely deploy them in the two base hexes comprising the straits between Java and Sumatra. The rationale being that in base hexes they will only decay 1% per turn and have a better chance of being around to greet the Japs than mine fields deployed in non base hexes (which decay at 10% per turn IIRC}. I dump all the mines in their inventory there as fast as I can and then evacuate the minelayers to remote Allied ports.

The AI has a bad habit of running circles around Java with a mini or full blown KB oblivious to the fact that the straits are a natural location for the Dutch to deploy thier mines.

Three turns ago the SRA KB was south of Java nearing the straits. Two turns ago they transited. I didn't notice any "mine impact" sound effects during the naval movement phase and wondered if they steamed through untouched. Then. lo and behold, last turn the Dutch AF spotted the Soryu limpng away. When they sortied only two Rufes came up to greet them so she was sufficiently stricken to curtail flight operations. After a number of sorties the valiant Dutch fliers finally succeeded in putting one through her deck. Scratch one flattop in the middle of January 42.

I halfway regret deploying the mines now. In some ways I hold back to keep from getting too great an edge on the AI too early, but it is hard to refrain from deploying natural defences that are at my disposal. Somehow the AI needs to be encouraged to refrain from following such ill considered travel paths.

The Soryu TF is the one to the NE of the fly out text, the rest of the KB is two hexes off the Java coast. Note, also, that a stricken carrier limped away under Allied ground based air cover without any other carrier escort to provide CAP over it or any ground based fighters flying LRCAP.

The air attacks:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Billiton at 52,92

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 46 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 2



Allied aircraft
B-339D x 1
PBY-5 Catalina x 2


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-339D: 1 destroyed
PBY-5 Catalina: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Soryu



Aircraft Attacking:
2 x PBY-5 Catalina bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
790 Ku-K 42 with A6M2-N Rufe (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 14000 , scrambling fighters to 9000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 8 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Billiton at 52,92

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 22 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes


Allied aircraft
L-212 x 9


Allied aircraft losses
L-212: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Soryu
CA Yakumo



Aircraft Attacking:
9 x L-212 bombing from 6000 feet *
Naval Attack: 2 x 15 kg GP Bomb

Carrier support unable to supply air cover..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Billiton at 52,92

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 55 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 21 minutes


Allied aircraft
139WH-3 x 8
B-339D x 2


Allied aircraft losses
139WH-3: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
CV Soryu



Aircraft Attacking:
8 x 139WH-3 bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 3 x 300 kg SAP Bomb

Carrier support unable to supply air cover..


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Billiton at 52,92

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 67 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 25 minutes


Allied aircraft
139WH-3 x 5
B-339D x 1


Allied aircraft losses
139WH-3: 5 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Soryu



Aircraft Attacking:
5 x 139WH-3 bombing from 5000 feet
Naval Attack: 3 x 300 kg SAP Bomb

Carrier support unable to supply air cover..


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Billiton at 52,92

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 33 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 19 minutes


Allied aircraft
PBY-5 Catalina x 2


Allied aircraft losses
PBY-5 Catalina: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Soryu, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage



Aircraft Attacking:
2 x PBY-5 Catalina bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

Carrier support unable to supply air cover..


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 12/24/2010 3:39:59 PM >

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 54
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/24/2010 10:30:32 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		There is little I can do about the strait issue Hanss the AI does not think it does what I told it to do and in some scripts than menas isolate Java.

I will take a look at Babeldaob on next build

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 55
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/25/2010 3:29:41 PM   
SargeantTex


Posts: 420
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		Andy there is one important issue slot 4050 the 124th inf rgt seems to be a ghost unit they will not show up in game!!! please look into this I have tried everything to get these guys working cant figure out why they wont show up otherwise Ironman is a pretty good scenario!!

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 56
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/25/2010 3:48:03 PM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SargeantTex

Andy there is one important issue slot 4050 the 124th inf rgt seems to be a ghost unit they will not show up in game!!! please look into this I have tried everything to get these guys working cant figure out why they wont show up otherwise Ironman is a pretty good scenario!!



The 124th Inf Rgt starts broken down into 2 battalions:

I/124 Inf Bn is loaded on TF105 (Miri Invasion), docked at Cam Ranh Bay.

II/124 Inf Bn is located at Cam Ranh Bay.

(in reply to SargeantTex)
Post #: 57
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/25/2010 7:06:33 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Andy,

Could you check your Mod Thread for some questions I asked?

John


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 58
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/25/2010 11:46:06 PM   
patrickl


Posts: 1530
Joined: 6/20/2002
From: Singapore
Status: offline 		I found the latest Ironman (Sce 10) to be damn challenging. It overan Impal, landed at Chittagon and now lately threaten Calcutta. . Even my attempt to take Tulagi was foiled with loss of Hornet and Yorktown. To make it a mockery, the summary screen said "major victory" for the Japanese in Aug 1942.. (Score 27,000 to 10,400). I resigned and now back to the drawing board. My next attempt will end in me winning I promise.

_____________________________


Banner designed by rogueusmc

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 59
RE: Ironman Feedback - 12/26/2010 3:17:08 AM   
SargeantTex


Posts: 420
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		Ckaamp-thank you that completely went over my head that the rgt was broken down I need to look these units over more thouroghly before I start jacking with them

(in reply to patrickl)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Ironman Feedback Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.016