"Optomistic" 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

"Optomistic" AI?

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> "Optomistic" AI?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

"Optomistic" AI? - 12/7/2002 10:47:47 AM

Diealtekoenig

Posts: 56
Joined: 5/18/2002
From: Port Moresby, New Guinea
Status: offline

I am not sure quite how to express this (but I am sure I will get lots of help from others ) so bear with me a bit.

In thinking about what people have been saying about Aircraft losses, bombers etc. I think it it pretty accurate that if a (loose, unorganized as was their wont) group of (poorly armored) Zeros flew into a box of Allied Heavy Bombers and kept re-engaging aggressively after each pass they would indeed get shot to pieces. So that part seems quite realistic. But _would_ they pound themselves to bits against that tight box of B-17s?

I think _if_ my Betty's on Naval Attack did, indeed choose to go after the 10 APs unloading at Port Moresby (where there are, say, 200 Allied fighters) (rather than going for the 10 APs sitting in Gili Gili unloading where there are no operational fighters) the Betty's would, indeed take heavy losses. But again, would they go after the most heavily defended target rather than the other TF of APs sitting a few hexes to the east which are not defended?

I get pretty frustrated when my (carefully husbaned) Japanese air units are finally given a Naval Attack order and they pick the most bone headed choice from the self preservation perspective- the fleet sitting in a Port that has a huge airbase covering it (usually Port Moresby for me) rather than hitting those allied transports out in the open. I do understand that they may not contact, or if launched may not spot the easy, undefended target, but it frustrates me not that they fail to go for the "safe" target but that, failing to choose the safe target they choose a target so heaviliy defended that going for it is suicide (and surely I could, in real life, say "You guys are free to hit any TF spotted on the open seas this turn, but you MAY NOT decided to make an attack on Port Moresby because I did recon ther last turn and there are 225 fighters waiting for you").

Is the thing that is frustrating people here, and seeming to create such severe A/C losses an overly optomistic/ unrealistic/ not risk averse enough AI? Is the AI (the AI running the other side if you play against the computer AND the AI choosing to make tactical decisions for your own units) being way too aggressive and bashing itself to pieces against a defense that is just idiotic to take on?

That is a different problem than saying the air to air weapons should be less effective. It is saying the Air Units should be given ssome unit level sense of self preservation.

For example, after a group of 40 Zeros start fighting a group of 20 B17 and right off the Zeros lose 8 of their first 10 AC that attack, maybe the remaining 30 should abort the attack, rather than follow the first 10 into the slaughter. Give Air Units a unit morale that makes them break off.

The obvious problem is there are times the air units had better sacrifice themselves (CAP over their own carriers for example). So if the Air Units are given some sort of unit morale (or a better sense of self preservation if they already have one) this might be different depending on the situation (higher for CV based Ftrs on CAP over their own ships) or even be settable by the player (like you can set the level of CAP or Naval Search allow some setting for "Be Careful" "Normal Combat" "Back with your shields or on them".

Post #: 1

- 12/8/2002 8:40:51 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

Indeed, it is odd that Adneral MacGhormley - theater commander of both SOPAC and SWPAC areas - can interfere with the altitude setting of each individual squadron, but is unable to issue general directives concerning rules of engagment and target priorities.
Standing orders like "be prudent / calculated risk / don't come back alive", "don't bomb outside escort range", "avoid hex x/y" or "interdict enemy ships in the vicinity of Buna (and don't even think about attacking that lonely MSW at Kavieng while Buna is packed with APs)" would make some sense at this level of command.
At least the squadron commanders should make more intelligent decisions about what and where to attack, and perhaps learn from past mistakes. It is frustrating to watch the daily soap "Three Hudsons trying to hit ships at Rabaul harbor only to be shot down by CAP" time and again.

A check of "unit moral that makes them break off" is already implemented in the UV combat resolution, if I'm not mistaken. What UV needs is a check for "we will not even try to attack that target because it is futile (unless specifically ordered to do so)". On the other hand, in certain situations (e.g. CAP over own CVs) there should be a check for "units in hopeless position fighting on regardless of costs, driven by the courage of desperation". Another dream feature conceived by people who have no clue about the difficulties of programming...:D

LST

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 2

- 12/9/2002 1:35:11 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Hi Diealtekoenig.

The problem with the picture you've described (IMHO) is that, particularily during the early periods (like where i am right now with my campaign), the IJN CAP's are neither what i would consider "loose" or "unorganized" as the pilot exp levels right now are very high. The other issue is that even low numbers of unescorted bombers (and not just B-17's) can consistantly inflict equal or greater than equal losses on fighters so the whole "Box" theory really doesn't explain things either.

Personally i dont place all that much stock in the boxes anyway....they did not shoot down signifigant numbers of enemy fighters in Europe, if they had, then there would not have been the pressing need for long range escorts. I simply think that hitting a small fighter with a handheld machine gun is a far harder proposition than a fighter pilot making a run on a big slow (and unmaneuvering) bomber, firing multiple machine guns and/or cannon combos.

Let me word it in a different way, a way that has not really been touched on. Alot has been said regarding the fragility of the A6M as a logical explanation for the losses, particularily B-17. However, "armor" and "durability" work least for a fighter when being counter-attacked from the their front quarter. (some specialty 'destroyer' aircraft an exception)

Why? for the same reason that head on attacks were so potentially effective against bombers...even the mighty Fortress. If you are facing your target, and the target is firing back at you....you are presenting your most vulnerable side to the enemy.....vulnerable because you've giving the enemy a shot at your cockpit, and your exposed engines (if radials at least) and the props themselves. The thick slab of pilot armor behind his seat will do him little in this situation, same if a stray bullet makes a near full deflection shot from the side.

Yet despite this reduction in protection due to the necessity of pointing your snout at the bomber....the bombers still couldn't protect themselves adequately vs enemy fighters, eventually bringing on the long range escorts. The escorts were needed because bombers were proven unable to adqueately defend themselves alone against fighters.....not certain fighters, but fighters in general. True some fighters are better suited for the job than others and noone will suggest an A6M is in the top five catagory (neither is the ME-109 IMO either), But whether one is talking an Zero or a Fulk Wulf, the bomber gunners are still going to have their hands full trying to nail them.

Making Bomber D-fire more realistic certianly wont make the A6M's job of trying to knock down B-17's or B-24's any easier......sure one should see plenty of light to moderate "damage" msgs but few "destroyed" However on the same token i dont expect to see even a 10th of the Zero destroyed msgs......it makes the need for escort fighters, not to mention prudent decisions on when and where to attack pretty moot.

In the end, as far as I'm concerned, i have read no source...from either side of the Pacific war that states clearly, that *unescorted* Allied bombers, being both tough and able to badly damage and deplete enemy CAP's roamed at will over enemy bases using first penny packets, then hordes of medium and heavy bombers.

The SoPAC campaign after all did not stop at Guadalcanal and Port Morsoby. of which the latter is in easy range of Rabaul for heavy bombers, the campaign continued, inching and then leaping ever closer to encase the premiere Japanese bases in a virtual ring of steel......a steel ring consisting of long legged Lightnings and Corsairs.

I am hoping with the next patch we will see the end of the self sufficient bomber, and not by making the enemy CAP's shy away from them either, because i feel this solution will continue the trend of players not being fearful of sending unescorted raids against potentially strong targets.

Fortunately Matrix has stated this wont happen so i remain confident in the upcoming patch.

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 3