About AI... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Pyrrhos1976 -> About AI... (2/15/2008 9:22:56 PM)

Hello,

It seems that AI is not very good when playing the overall campaign. At strategic level, Ai is just a good partner for training, but doesn't offer a great challenge.
But what do you think of AI in short scenarios (Coral Sea, Marianas, Guadalcanal) ? Tactically does it offer some challenge, maybe like a human opponent ?
At your opinion, at which level is the AI the best ?



Terminus -> RE: About AI... (2/15/2008 9:25:01 PM)

It isn't.



HansBolter -> RE: About AI... (2/15/2008 10:17:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It isn't.



That non sequitur is certainly useful.



Ursa MAior -> RE: About AI... (2/15/2008 10:21:07 PM)

When playing against the AI treat it as a tutorial. It will attack in a very lame way (if at all), and defend like an oak (rooted to the spot). 



Pyrrhos1976 -> RE: About AI... (2/15/2008 10:39:14 PM)

Ok. No hope.[:(]

For my scenario projects, I will try with "Carriers at War"...

But I'm surprise. I thougth that, at least for short scenario with accurate goals, the AI could offer some challenge.



Joe D. -> RE: About AI... (2/15/2008 11:03:04 PM)

CaW has a much better AI, but the scenarios aren't as complicated, and last only days, not months or years. W/the WitP/UV engine, the longer the scenario, the lamer the AI as it progresses.



bradfordkay -> RE: About AI... (2/15/2008 11:18:35 PM)

The other aspect is, the bigger the map the harder it is for the AI to cope. Thus in playing against the AI, you are better off playing the partial map scenarios - but then tht's not why we purchased  this game, so we are regularly asking the AI to provide us with an enjoyable game and  are getting upset when we run afoul of its limitations. It's kind of like expecting a competitive game of Trivial Pursuit from a parrot...



Pyrrhos1976 -> RE: About AI... (2/15/2008 11:35:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

W/the WitP/UV engine, the longer the scenario, the lamer the AI as it progresses.


It's why I asked for short scenarios. Usually, in wargame, AI has the greatest problem when scenario becomes longer and bigger. But sometimes, tactically, it offers a good challenge, in shorter scenarios.
I'd like to create a little campaign, with a "bordgame" for strategic aspects and PC game for operational: thus I can counterbalance AI's difficulty with strategy. I thought that maybe with short scenarios (=operational aspect of my campaign) WITP's AI could be a good partner. I just want a good opponant for scenarios which simulate a single operation (like invading an atoll or trying to intercept an invader's force with maybe a major naval battle: a duration between some days and a month). Do you think that WITP'AI can be good for this (scenarios which have the same size that Corail Sea) or CAW is better ?



Joe D. -> RE: About AI... (2/16/2008 12:50:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

... It's kind of like expecting a competitive game of Trivial Pursuit from a parrot...


LOL - the AI and the parrot are both scripted!

CaW to WitP/UV has been compared as checkers is to chess, but although the game is simpler, the AI is more challenging in CaW.

It's also nice to fire up a scenario and not spend an hour or two on your first move. Besides, in CaW you can't micromanage your subs and you have the option of setting airbases and fleets to AI control; now that I'm older, I do that as much as possible



Pyrrhos1976 -> RE: About AI... (2/16/2008 1:23:03 AM)

Let's take an example of short scenario: the battle of Corail sea. Is it more easy to win against AI in WITP than with CAW ?? How is the AI in this scenario of WITP ?



Joe D. -> RE: About AI... (2/16/2008 3:38:57 AM)

The WitP/UV Coral sea scenario is more involved, but when it comes to carriers, the CaW scenario is more realistic and has mystery/alternative variants.

Once you beat Coral Sea in UV, that's pretty much it, but CaW is unpredictible, so I'd have to say it's harder.

Realize that I'm comparing a turn-based WEGO w/a pausable real time game.



Pyrrhos1976 -> RE: About AI... (2/16/2008 6:35:05 PM)

So, Ai is worst when the size of the game is bigger.
At your opinion, what's the duration and the size at which AI is at his (poor) best ?
It's important for me because I want to create some small hypothetical scenarios for playing against AI and I need to have an idea of the best size for this (just a battle of some days: CAW is better for this, a little campaign of some weeks, a campaign of some months ??).



Joe D. -> RE: About AI... (2/17/2008 12:28:28 AM)

If you want a game to "mod" its scenarios, CaW is your best bet, but as I am not a modder, I suggest you go to the CaW forum on Matrix and ask the experts who run it.



Pyrrhos1976 -> RE: About AI... (2/17/2008 11:07:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

If you want a game to "mod" its scenarios, CaW is your best bet, but as I am not a modder, I suggest you go to the CaW forum on Matrix and ask the experts who run it.


Yes, for a single naval battle, but not for a more complicated operation. With WITP it's possible to combine air and land battles (to provide an aerial support to ground units was an important mission for carriers...). It's why I would prefer to use this game for short scenarios, with acurate objective (like in the Marianas scenario, or a little more): the AI will not disperse too much. Don't you think that AI can perform well in this kind of scenario (ok, it's not for this that the game was conceive, but I'm free to practice it as I want !!) ? Or should I lost all my illusion ? [:(]

[I'm sorry to insist on this, but modding take a lot of time, and I don't want to create something that AI will spoil. I thank you to take time for responding].



Joe D. -> RE: About AI... (2/17/2008 2:58:45 PM)

CaW scenarios are short by default, so I can't compare a CaW "campaign" w/WitP. But as a rule of thumb, w/the Grigsby engine, the shorter the scenario, the better the (scripted) AI peforms.



Shark7 -> RE: About AI... (2/17/2008 5:16:11 PM)

Honestly the only thing the AI is really good at is being ready to play any time you are day or night. It is nice that I can turn on the game and run through several turns in an afternoon against the AI as opposed to a PBEM where 1 or 2 turns in a day is usually the limit.

But as far as presenting a real challenge, nope the AI in WITP is just as bad as any other game AI. It practically garrauntees the player will win.

Should the AI in any game be referred to as the AS (Artificial Stupidity)? [;)]



treespider -> RE: About AI... (2/17/2008 5:24:22 PM)

Reading through this thread I don't believe anyone actually answered Pyrrhos1976's question....

For a small short scenario that is limited in scope is the AI at least somewhat competent???

We all know for a full map extravaganza the AI is lacking....but for a small short and limited in scope scenario - I don't know....as I haven't played them.



Mike Scholl -> RE: About AI... (2/17/2008 5:26:32 PM)

In my experiance, the AI is never competant. But it's incompetancy shows up less in a smaller, shorter scenario.



Shark7 -> RE: About AI... (2/17/2008 5:30:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Reading through this thread I don't believe anyone actually answered Pyrrhos1976's question....

For a small short scenario that is limited in scope is the AI at least somewhat competent???

We all know for a full map extravaganza the AI is lacking....but for a small short and limited in scope scenario - I don't know....as I haven't played them.


It has been my experience, that even with smaller, very specific scenarios the AI will invariably do something that leaves you scratching your head and saying "What was it thinking?" Unless you can completely script out the way the AI should behave so that it actually has a human brain behind it, and is not thinking for itself, it just never seems quite up to the task.

I think the resupply routine is really weak in this area, as I have seen the AI dump off troops for an invansion, and if it doesn't take the objective in a timely manner it will just leave the troops there to starve without resupply. Maybe other players have had better luck?

I wouldn't mind an improved AI, in fact I would love a more robust AI because that is mainly what I play against.



Mike Scholl -> RE: About AI... (2/17/2008 5:42:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
I wouldn't mind an improved AI, in fact I would love a more robust AI because that is mainly what I play against.



Everybody would LOVE a robust and competant AI. But I won't hold my breath. Stop and thing of the number of unit types and systems in the game. And how they must interact just to play at all. Then the hoops that must be negotiated to make that interaction tactically sound. And when you have all that, you have to make it capable of both developing and pursuing a strategy, and reacting effectively to the player's. And if it's Japanese, doing production effectively.

I'm amazed it does as well as it does..., and it doesn't do all that well. The ideal AI is still a long way off as I see it.



bradfordkay -> RE: About AI... (2/17/2008 8:51:44 PM)

"I think the resupply routine is really weak in this area, as I have seen the AI dump off troops for an invansion, and if it doesn't take the objective in a timely manner it will just leave the troops there to starve without resupply."

Rather similar to what the Japanese did IRL... okay, they sent in about 1/10th the supply needed, as opposed to none.



Shark7 -> RE: About AI... (2/17/2008 9:18:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"I think the resupply routine is really weak in this area, as I have seen the AI dump off troops for an invansion, and if it doesn't take the objective in a timely manner it will just leave the troops there to starve without resupply."

Rather similar to what the Japanese did IRL... okay, they sent in about 1/10th the supply needed, as opposed to none.


Yes that is true. However the problem is that I usually play as Japan against an ALLIED AI, so it should be resupplying its troops to be historically accurate. [:-]



Pyrrhos1976 -> RE: About AI... (2/17/2008 9:20:46 PM)

Is this problem systematic ?



Joe D. -> RE: About AI... (2/17/2008 9:30:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Reading through this thread I don't believe anyone actually answered Pyrrhos1976's question....

For a small short scenario that is limited in scope is the AI at least somewhat competent???


... "W/the WitP/UV engine, the longer the scenario, the lamer the AI as it progresses."

Therefore, the shorter the scenario, the less lame/more competent the AI. By inference, the answer is "yes".




Shark7 -> RE: About AI... (2/17/2008 9:34:10 PM)

I don't know if the problem is based on the GE itself, or on the way that I play the game.

Any time I see an AK/AP task force headed anywhere, I will dispatch my carriers and as much LBA as is feasible to sink as much of it as possible. I just wonder if this is affecting the AI's decision making on whether to send follow on supply TFs or not, being that I usually end up with a large number of air and surface forces in the attack area. It could just be that it is doing the smart thing by not trying to force a lightly escorted tranport TF into the teeth of the dragon, so to speak.

Which is why I was wondering about other players experiences in this situation.



Joe D. -> RE: About AI... (2/17/2008 9:52:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

... Any time I see an AK/AP task force headed anywhere, I will dispatch my carriers and as much LBA as is feasible to sink as much of it as possible. I just wonder if this is affecting the AI's decision making on whether to send follow on supply TFs or not, being that I usually end up with a large number of air and surface forces in the attack area. It could just be that it is doing the smart thing by not trying to force a lightly escorted tranport TF into the teeth of the dragon, so to speak.


Isn't WitP based on the PacWar game engine, which had (bomber) Air Zones of Control to prevent the passage of routine convoys; these same convoys would "never be run into areas where naval and air combat were to be expected."

In my experience, this never really worked in PacWar, so why would it be expected to work in WitP?



Shark7 -> RE: About AI... (2/18/2008 5:33:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

... Any time I see an AK/AP task force headed anywhere, I will dispatch my carriers and as much LBA as is feasible to sink as much of it as possible. I just wonder if this is affecting the AI's decision making on whether to send follow on supply TFs or not, being that I usually end up with a large number of air and surface forces in the attack area. It could just be that it is doing the smart thing by not trying to force a lightly escorted tranport TF into the teeth of the dragon, so to speak.


Isn't WitP based on the PacWar game engine, which had (bomber) Air Zones of Control to prevent the passage of routine convoys; these same convoys would "never be run into areas where naval and air combat were to be expected."

In my experience, this never really worked in PacWar, so why would it be expected to work in WitP?


Well if that is the case, then it does explain why the AI never makes any attempt to resupply assault forces.



Gem35 -> RE: About AI... (2/19/2008 1:19:31 AM)

If you play on hard setting the AI is always supplied so it doesnt really matter, add to the fact the AI is scripted and will do the same things every game again it doesnt matter. Name a game who's AI can think and react like a competent human being.
If you want that challenge start a pbem with somebody.
How many threads are there about how lame the AI is?
Shut up already.[;)]



Joe D. -> RE: About AI... (2/19/2008 2:31:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

... Name a game who's AI can think and react like a competent human being.


BoA, GoA, etc.



Pyrrhos1976 -> RE: About AI... (2/23/2008 9:57:55 PM)

Other questions about AI. In your experience:
1) has AI a tendency to scatter his carriers or is he able to concentrate them for striking ?
2) how does he manage the different TFs (bombardment, transport, air) for an invasion ?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375