RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Apollo11 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/25/2008 3:35:11 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson Right, the main "deathspiral" I think we've been workin on - over the past 6 months - is preventing the AI from getting stuck and doing "nothing" from some point forward. Now if you send everything including the kitchen sink to Java (as I did in a recent test) you can still (well could then anyway) stall the AI out at Java, but it will keep going in Burma, China, Solomons, CENPAC, etc. A good human player will usually be able to beat the AI, but the AI did kill my carriers in two prior games, so it isn't a "walk over" by any means. Great news Joe! [&o][&o][&o] BTW, when WitP was first published my fruiend Oleg (he posted quite often here) made few AI vs. AI tests at work (after he went home during the night) for many many days... The original WitP AI (both Allied and Japanese) almost perfectly followed the historic WWII in the Pacific! How is that nowadays with WitP-AE? Did you guys run such long AI vs. AI games to see what is happening (and with ocassional "break into" to see situation, positions and stocks)? Leo "Apollo11"

Don Bowen -> Christmas Present (12/25/2008 3:52:08 PM)
This may get posted as part of an ongoing AAR, but it is a little rare and I thought it would make a nice Christmas present: Sub attack near Port Moresby at 98,130 Japanese Ships DD Mutsuki DD Yayoi E Asanagi E Oite CL Yubari Allied Ships SS S-42, hits 19, and is sunk SS S-42 launches 4 torpedoes at DD Mutsuki S-42 bottoming out .... DD Yayoi fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Mutsuki fails to find sub and abandons search E Asanagi fails to find sub and abandons search E Oite fails to find sub and abandons search DD Yayoi attacking submerged sub .... DD Yayoi attacking submerged sub .... SS S-42 forced to surface! DD Mutsuki firing on surfaced sub .... E Asanagi firing on surfaced sub .... E Oite firing on surfaced sub .... CL Yubari firing on surfaced sub .... DD Mutsuki firing on surfaced sub .... E Asanagi firing on surfaced sub .... E Oite firing on surfaced sub .... CL Yubari firing on surfaced sub .... Sub slips beneath the waves

m10bob -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/25/2008 10:04:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac I think we have licked the old AI deathspirals Right, the main "deathspiral" I think we've been workin on - over the past 6 months - is preventing the AI from getting stuck and doing "nothing" from some point forward. Now if you send everything including the kitchen sink to Java (as I did in a recent test) you can still (well could then anyway) stall the AI out at Java, but it will keep going in Burma, China, Solomons, CENPAC, etc. A good human player will usually be able to beat the AI, but the AI did kill my carriers in two prior games, so it isn't a "walk over" by any means. Excellent and appreciated descriptions with an obvious knowledge of past problems guiding the cure of those problems.Thank you.

mlees -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/31/2008 12:42:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Barb How many main battery salvoes could be fired by old battlewagon until magazines become empty IRL? Has someone any idea? I think they expected about a hundred shots per gun. The USS Idaho was ordered, as a test on 10 October 1942, to "fire to exhaustion" by Admiral King. The account is detailed on page 352 of U.S. Battleships, by Friedman, in five paragraphs. I don't feel like typing them all in their entirety now... sorry. heh Highpoints: 20 6-gun, 47 5-gun, 22 4-gun, 31 3-gun, 25 2-gun, 11 1-gun salvoes were fired (only the two forward 3-gun turrets were used). The average salvo time was 67 seconds, but by the last 20 or so salvos, the rate of fire slowed down to once every two minutes, due to the slow arrival of powder or shell from the magazines (the crews of which were manually moving the bags/shell to the hoists). 2400 bags of powder were handled without incident, and each shell in the magazine was "walked" to wherever they needed to go to get to the hoists by rocking and turning the shells so that their points moved in a horizontal circle about 6 inches in diameter. [X(]

JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/31/2008 1:26:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac I think we have licked the old AI deathspirals Right, the main "deathspiral" I think we've been workin on - over the past 6 months - is preventing the AI from getting stuck and doing "nothing" from some point forward. Now if you send everything including the kitchen sink to Java (as I did in a recent test) you can still (well could then anyway) stall the AI out at Java, but it will keep going in Burma, China, Solomons, CENPAC, etc. A good human player will usually be able to beat the AI, but the AI did kill my carriers in two prior games, so it isn't a "walk over" by any means. Excellent and appreciated descriptions with an obvious knowledge of past problems guiding the cure of those problems.Thank you. To amplify just a touch on Joe, testing is pretty rigorous. You got the Coral Sea AAR going, there's other H2Hs going on; play against JP AI, play against Allied AI, all multi day turns, and an ongoing AI v AI, all designed to get to 1944 so as to slow down a bit and wring out anything that crops up in those "later years" that not many people get to. Also, there's a ton of sandboxes for this & that. We got LCI(R)s that actually work! We've diddled with multiple matrix invasions from a Bn on a Div, 1, 2, 3 Rgts hitting 3, 2, 1 Rgts, to a Div on a Bn, with forts from 0 to lots. Woof ! My personal timer is on how long it takes the JP economy to come to a grinding halt if merchies aren't replaced. I'm assuming lots of high value merchies were converted to auxiliaries (in the historical course), making the remainder more interesting as sub targets. Taking bets.

herwin -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/31/2008 8:10:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac I think we have licked the old AI deathspirals Right, the main "deathspiral" I think we've been workin on - over the past 6 months - is preventing the AI from getting stuck and doing "nothing" from some point forward. Now if you send everything including the kitchen sink to Java (as I did in a recent test) you can still (well could then anyway) stall the AI out at Java, but it will keep going in Burma, China, Solomons, CENPAC, etc. A good human player will usually be able to beat the AI, but the AI did kill my carriers in two prior games, so it isn't a "walk over" by any means. Given that you're updating a game rather than redesigning it, I suspect death spirals are unavoidable. My experience in chess is that strategy is like tactics, just more general. That suggests the basic approach to AI in WiTP II should be to work on a number of levels of abstraction, such as: 1. The first question is the strategic direction. Top-level HQs are assigned to strategic directions. 2. The second question what objectives in the chosen direction. 3. The third question is the order of operations (including bypasses, alternatives, and switches) in the chosen direction. Operations in secondary directions need to be identified as well. This can probably be programmed. 4. The fourth question is the required resources for the operations. 5. The fifth question is how to organise each operation. 6. The sixth question is the tactics to be employed for each operation. 7. The seventh question is the real-time management and co-ordination of each operation. From time to time, each level of decision is revisited. The Japanese error was to misjudge the answer to question 3 for a secondary direction where the real goal was defensive. So make the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor a high-probability alternative operation with an unexpected side-effect on the length of the war.

John Lansford -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/31/2008 1:53:41 PM)
Have the effects of torpedoes been adjusted to more accurately reflect real life results? There are many, many RL examples of merchant ships sinking with only one torpedo hit, but there have been very few instances of that in my game vs the AI. Similarly, DD's weren't all that resistant to single torpedo hits either, while cruisers could absorb one Long Lance torpedo without sinking (although two tended to sink them).

wild_Willie2 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/31/2008 2:33:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford Have the effects of torpedoes been adjusted to more accurately reflect real life results?� There are many, many RL examples of merchant ships sinking with only one torpedo hit, but there have been very few instances of that in my game vs the AI.� Similarly, DD's weren't all that resistant to single torpedo hits either, while cruisers could absorb one Long Lance torpedo without sinking (although two tended to sink them). The damage model in the game is quit conservative in the damage level per weapon hit. IRL 1-2 bomb hits would damage a merchant beond repair, In WITP most merchants shrug of a single bomb hit. To compensate for this low level of damage per bomb, the amound of hits that are scored in game are also higher than IRL (until a certain exp level is gained, then a miss has a lower probability than that of a hit. Luckely this is fixed in AE). I asked this question some time ago, and from the answers I understood that this high hit/damage ratio was done deliberatly to "spice" up the game.

Panther Bait -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/31/2008 3:28:22 PM)
IIRC, one of the reasons for merchant ships ability to shrug off damage is that a ship's durability (sort of like their "hit points" to borrow an RPG term) is based in large part on displacement, but the stock game does not factor in their basic construction. Warships have much better compartmentalization versus a merchant ship, so they should have more "hit points" per unit displacement than merchant ships, but in stock at least, that is not the case. I think that some of the mods played around with durability to try and make merchants more fragile, but I think there were unintended consequences. I can't remember seeing if anything was done with this for AE or not. Warship survivability depended a lot on where the hit was, at least for torpedoes. Hits in the bow were typically less of a problem, although US Cruisers had a tendency to loss the whole bow from single hits. I have read of some DDs that were so thin at the bow that a torpedo would pass right through and explode on the other side. Hits in the rear were bad for cruisers, IIRC, since the penetrations for the propeller shafts tended to weaken the overall structure of the hull, but relatively, a little better for DDs since it restricted the damage to one end. Hits in the middle could break a DD in half, but in a cruiser were more likely to only flood several compartments (very possibly in the engineering spaces). They might need a drydock, but at least they could still operate. Of course, a TT hit near a cruiser's turrets had a chance of a magazine explosion, which would be almost certainly fatal (or severely damaging at least).

Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/31/2008 5:20:16 PM)
being brutally honest for once it varies - if I have thought of it and programmed a counter then you will be met by opposition but the further out the game goes the harder it is to forsee every eventuality or more importantly the strength of the option The AI does not think and pick an appropriate response it uses the forces I tell it to to counter an invasion. So if I misjudge the likely time or force then t could be a sledgehammer response or possibly insufficient force All the likely regions have counterattack forces specified but will they be enough only time will tell

Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/31/2008 5:21:28 PM)
p.s. I cannot and will not over promise on the AI I hope its better than stock but as good as is all we said it would be so I really don't want to build expectations to high

Enforcer -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/31/2008 9:37:44 PM)
HEY ANDY MAC Please email me - thomaslukemills@gmail.com I tried your email link but it bounced back and your PM is full

Tanaka -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (1/2/2009 2:15:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grognerd That's all anyone can ask for! Thanks for the response. Can't wait to try it! PS I have two PBEM friends waiting too. With all the improvements being made there is no way the AE AI could be worse than stock! And asking for a better AI than stock is definitely not asking too much! [sm=happy0029.gif]

Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (1/3/2009 3:11:15 AM)
How sonar will be factored in AE?

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (1/4/2009 12:03:57 PM)
No change.

Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (1/5/2009 4:18:44 AM)
Thanks.

jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (1/5/2009 4:43:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili How sonar will be factored in AE? yeah, my bathothermometers got axed too! [:'(]

Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (1/5/2009 6:00:07 AM)
Well sonar was a crucial device in ASW. So it should have been there and could be just a bonus tick in ship anti-submarine detection capacity. Since i don't know maybe it required to much resources to do it. Not perfect but one option is to edit anti-submarine weapons making w/ sonar and without sonar versions.

m10bob -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (1/5/2009 8:50:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Well sonar was a crucial device in ASW. So it should have been there and could be just a bonus tick in ship anti-submarine detection capacity. Since i don't know maybe it required to much resources to do it. Not perfect but one option is to edit anti-submarine weapons making w/ sonar and without sonar versions. Maybe with the editor, you will be able to assimilate?.I figured out how to make Goliath s and Piper J 3's in SPWAW.

Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (1/5/2009 10:43:38 AM)
That is what i wrote, edit those weapons making a version with factored Sonar input, or do you mean something diferent?

m10bob -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (1/5/2009 12:26:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili That is what i wrote, edit those weapons making a version with factored Sonar input, or do you mean something diferent? I meant you (as an individual) might look for ways to do this, which would not delay the AE team. This suggestion in no way indicates you might not have a good idea, but the AE product is far enough in its' development any further modifications might be saved for possible future patching. Why...heck....I even know how to make my Bob Hope USO travelling tour show! [;)]

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (1/5/2009 1:37:52 PM)
For "might be saved", read "must be saved"...

witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (1/5/2009 2:22:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Why...heck....I even know how to make my Bob Hope USO travelling tour show! [;)] Will a future patch include units equipped with the Red Ryder BB Gun?

Shark7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (1/5/2009 2:51:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Why...heck....I even know how to make my Bob Hope USO travelling tour show! [;)] Will a future patch include units equipped with the Red Ryder BB Gun? I doubt it, you'll shoot your eye out! [:D]

m10bob -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (1/5/2009 6:15:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Why...heck....I even know how to make my Bob Hope USO travelling tour show! [;)] Will a future patch include units equipped with the Red Ryder BB Gun? They told me I'd poke my eye out.[8D]

Don Bowen -> Tidbit (1/5/2009 6:30:12 PM)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Banjoewangi at 57,107, Range 10,000 Yards Japanese Ships CL Natori DD Satsuki DD Minazuki DD Fumizuki DD Nagatsuki DD Harukaze DD Akikaze DMS W-2 DMS W-3 PC Ch 7 PC Ch 8 PC Ch 9 AMC Akagi Maru xAK Ayatosan Maru xAK Kansai Maru AMC Kiyosumi Maru xAK Goyo Maru xAK Nankai Maru xAK Tokai Maru xAK Aobasan Maru xAK Asosan Maru xAK Asakasan Maru xAK Atutasan Maru AMC Nosiro Maru AMC Bankok Maru LSD Shinshu Maru xAP Asama Maru xAP Brazil Maru xAP Buenos Aires Maru xAP Huzi Maru xAP Yoshino Maru xAP Taizan Maru xAP Keihuku Maru xAP Ussuri Maru xAP Tango Maru xAP Naminoue Maru Allied Ships PT TM-7 Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 7% moonlight: 8,000 yards Range closes to 4,000 yards... Range closes to 2,000 yards... Range increases to 4,000 yards... CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 4,000 yards CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 4,000 yards Both TF attempt to withdraw! Range increases to 10,000 yards... AMC Nosiro Maru , LSD Shinshu Maru , xAP Naminoue Maru , xAP Tango Maru , xAP Ussuri Maru , xAP Keihuku Maru , xAP Taizan Maru , xAP Yoshino Maru , xAP Huzi Maru , xAP Buenos Aires Maru , xAP Brazil Maru , xAP Asama Maru , xAK Atutasan Maru , xAK Asakasan Maru , xAK Asosan Maru , xAK Aobasan Maru , xAK Tokai Maru , xAK Nankai Maru , xAK Goyo Maru , xAK Kansai Maru screened from combat - escorted by DD Akikaze , DD Harukaze , DD Nagatsuki , DD Fumizuki , DD Minazuki , DD Satsuki CL Natori engages PT TM-7 at 10,000 yards Task forces break off...

Yamato hugger -> RE: Tidbit (1/5/2009 6:35:17 PM)
Jap commander: EEK! PT Skipper: EEK!

m10bob -> RE: Tidbit (1/5/2009 6:38:58 PM)
Well....the Jap warships stayed with the troopships to defend them. For all they knew, the PT might have been a "draw".

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984375