Ranger-75
Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline
|
Regarding the "miracle at midway":
In a previous thread I outlined how the Japanese violated 8 out of the 9 Principles of War, while at the same time the US paid special attention to several of these same principles, which is why The Japanese got their a$$ handed to them by the USN.
Savo Is:
The Japanese admiral got cold feet, just like Admiral Pye in early Dec 1941 with Wake Is. Here, it was the USN who violated too many Principles of War.
On a "Japanese Victory":
Admrial Yammomoto said (and this is often mis quoted and misunderstood) that the only way the Japanese would be able to win a war that she started with the US was to dictate peace terms in the White House. A lot of folks seem to take this as Yammamoto's thinking that he could actually defeat the US, but what he was really saying was that if you want to take the US on, you had better be prepared to fight it out right to their doorstep, because that's the only way you are going to defeat them.
About US resolve (WWII vs. Vietnam):
These 2 eras could not be further apart. on the one hand, there was a nation technically at peace, savagely attqcked without a declaration of war, causing massive damage and loss of life. Even if Midway (or a similar battle) had gone badly, the US would not have given up, "germany first" would have changed to "germany as soon as we beat the Japanese Devils back into the stone age" The US and British CCS had several global contingency plans that they constantly updated in the event of a serious and unexpected turn of events (on either side). They would have reacted appropriately, but there was no question of throwing in the towel.
The only way to acheive a "victory" as the Japanese, should be by racking up enough "victory points" to make it clear who the better player is.
(I personally like grinding the Japanese units into dust.)
On the other hand, there was a nation tired from Korea, with an ambigious "incident" used as a pretext to support a government that wasn't even a real democracy. We weren't attacked, it was as if the government was trying to pull the country into the conflict.
On AIs:
I used to program quite some time ago (I also programmed Fortran IV on a CDC Cyber 70 or something) It's tough programming an AI especially for something as complex as PACWAR or WITP. Its even harder to account for "stupid human tricks" like assualting Los Angeles (to destroy the factories there, like LA really had that many factories and like the west coast really had that many shipyards, the east coast had about 10 times the capacity of the west coast), or sending a TF with NO AIR SUPPORT to invade Hawaii, because the AI has all the carriers in Australia, or invading Ceylon, or invading India by the coast, or even invading Australia. The Japanese Army as, ineptly led as it was would not even consider any of these items EVER. They had no troops to spare and didn't want to get caught in another land campaign. Thier primary objective was to "settle the 'China indident'", They had 6 years to do that without the additional burden of being at war with the US/UK. After they started the war, the Army would be even more strained. We have the advantage of hindsight, which they didn't have, but one must also remember that the high command of the Japanese Army was bent on wwar and was living in a fantasy world for some time.
_____________________________
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
|
Printable Version
The challenge of creating a competent AI - 
![]("wink.gif")
![]("frown.gif")
But, then again...
Perhaps begin by dividing the areas in question into theatres much like was done in reality, perhaps further divide these theatres into sub areas etc. Assign each a priority value and a chain of command with varying levels of aggressiveness, competence etc., and have an overall doctrine (historical or random)which can react to the game results). I like the concept of heueristic approach...maybe this can be incorporated in a chain of command encompassing logistical, political, and military responsibilities.
Just rambling on here, but man, I can only begin to see the vastness of the problem. It would be interesting to do the research (primarily with regard to how historical leaders reacted to situations of all varieties over the period in question) if supplied with a concept of how AI engine works. 
- ![]("biggrin.gif")
- ![]("tongue.gif")
Due to the scope of options facing the Allies, limiting play to human vs Japanese AI might be preferable. Restricting the Japanese initial opening of hostilities strategy to roughly resemble historical aims I believe is crucial to an AI game (shouldn't affect play too much given the resources available to the allies early on)and it sets the tone and feel for the conflict as realistic, and possibly keeps the game from becoming silly.
We all know that the Japanese are going down, the variable is the price the AI charges the human player for achieving this goal (ultimate cost is allies sue for peace if human player thoroughly stinks); thereby setting up the basis for assigning victory points. If anyone was to lose to AI...give up.
[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: SGT_Saueracker ]
[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: SGT_Saueracker ]
[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: SGT_Saueracker ]
- 
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