Pearl Harbor and AI (Full Version)

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



Message

pad152 -> Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 6:03:03 AM)

Ok having the Japanese (AI) hit Pearl Harbor a second time was cute at first but, having the Japanese still hitting Pearl Harbor on Dec 11th is a bit much![8|]



Brady -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 7:33:58 AM)

Are you playing unhistoric first turn?



pad152 -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 8:20:25 AM)

Non-historic first turn but, not twilight zone theater! My only hope now is waiting for Kirk Douglas and USS Nimitz to show up!



Andy Mac -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 8:22:20 AM)

The AI has a small chance of lingering at PH and an even smaller chance of REALLY lingering you were just unliucky !!!



myros -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 8:23:47 AM)

One of the devs said that there are some built in variances on the initial sequences, keeps it interesting IMO. If you dont like a particular startup, restart. Otherwise you just have to deal with it, the AI didnt cheat it just hit you with the unexpected ... what more could you ask for? ;)



pad152 -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 8:29:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

The AI has a small chance of lingering at PH and an even smaller chance of REALLY lingering you were just unliucky !!!


Ok, when does Kirk Douglas and USS Nimitz to show up?



Mike Scholl -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 8:34:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: myros

One of the devs said that there are some built in variances on the initial sequences, keeps it interesting IMO. If you dont like a particular startup, restart. Otherwise you just have to deal with it, the AI didnt cheat it just hit you with the unexpected ...



Actually, considering the real world fuel state of Kido Butai, it hit him with the impossible. But players were requesting more variety from the AI..., so don't be too hard on Andy for giving them what they asked for...



pad152 -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 9:25:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: myros

One of the devs said that there are some built in variances on the initial sequences, keeps it interesting IMO. If you dont like a particular startup, restart. Otherwise you just have to deal with it, the AI didnt cheat it just hit you with the unexpected ...



Actually, considering the real world fuel state of Kido Butai, it hit him with the impossible. But players were requesting more variety from the AI..., so don't be too hard on Andy for giving them what they asked for...

quote:

twilight zone theater


Variety is defined as doing something different, not the same thing over and over again!

Have Kido Butai or just some if it's carriers go hit the aircraft factories in Seattle or support the invasion of Midway, that would be different!

I think the AI needs a little tweaking, having Kido Butai camp out for 4 days at Pearl Harbor is just a bit much!



Mike Scholl -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 11:34:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: myros

One of the devs said that there are some built in variances on the initial sequences, keeps it interesting IMO. If you dont like a particular startup, restart. Otherwise you just have to deal with it, the AI didnt cheat it just hit you with the unexpected ...



Actually, considering the real world fuel state of Kido Butai, it hit him with the impossible. But players were requesting more variety from the AI..., so don't be too hard on Andy for giving them what they asked for...


Variety is defined as doing something different, not the same thing over and over again!

Have Kido Butai or just some if it's carriers go hit the aircraft factories in Seattle or support the invasion of Midway, that would be different!

I think the AI needs a little tweaking, having Kido Butai camp out for 4 days at Pearl Harbor is just a bit much!



"carriers go hit the aircraft factories in Seattle or support the invasion of Midway, that would be different!"

The first would be even more impossible given the fuel considerations..., and the second would require the Japanese to have an invasion TF headed to Midway (Which they didn't.). But I agree that there is need of some "tweeking" to prevent the "camping out" result from going to extremes. My point was "Don't blame Andy" as he was only trying to respond to player requests for variety.



Mark Weston -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 11:56:25 AM)

If camping out at Pearh Harbour is causing a player problems, then that's pretty much the definition of the AI doing a good job.



m10bob -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 12:00:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Non-historic first turn but, not twilight zone theater! My only hope now is waiting for Kirk Douglas and USS Nimitz to show up!


If playing non-historic, why wouldn't a good AI remain near Pearl?

It IS a target rich environment!.



NightFlyer -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 12:28:54 PM)

Nagumo really botched PH imo and was criticized in Japan afterwards. He only launched 2 waves. He should have attacked the dockyards, sub pens, fuel supplies, hunted out the US carriers etc etc. He was a political appointee, not that great of a air naval doctrine leader. He may have lost one or two carriers if he did this but PH would have been out of action for six months. There isn't a fuel issue because of the replenishment TF near KB. The AI is acting "smarter" than Nagumo, but I agree that being camped for 4 or 5 days is a bit much [:D] Try sending all your subs after them. I like the variation in AE, it shouldn't, again imho, repeat exactly what happened in history - that would be like watching a documentary and not let the players do some what-if's (within reason of what was possible). The US camped Leyte and Okinawa cuz they had leaders who wanted to win hehe.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 6:01:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

If camping out at Pearh Harbour is causing a player problems, then that's pretty much the definition of the AI doing a good job.


It's also indicative of the flak model failing utterly. No way could a CV group remain on station day after day hitting targets over and over... Historically they would have run out of planes due to flak losses within a day or two.

Jim



Mark Weston -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 7:06:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

If camping out at Pearh Harbour is causing a player problems, then that's pretty much the definition of the AI doing a good job.


It's also indicative of the flak model failing utterly. No way could a CV group remain on station day after day hitting targets over and over... Historically they would have run out of planes due to flak losses within a day or two.

Jim



I'm not buying this. Where during WWII did AA demonstrate anything like the ability to destroy a six-carrier air group in two days?



mussey -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 7:54:03 PM)

Love the AI surprises - keep 'em coming! [:D]



Dixie -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 8:12:25 PM)

I like to think my PT boats scared the KB away from PH [:D]



pad152 -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 8:19:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

If camping out at Pearh Harbour is causing a player problems, then that's pretty much the definition of the AI doing a good job.



If a player did this, it would be called gamey!



pad152 -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 8:25:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: myros

One of the devs said that there are some built in variances on the initial sequences, keeps it interesting IMO. If you dont like a particular startup, restart. Otherwise you just have to deal with it, the AI didnt cheat it just hit you with the unexpected ...



Actually, considering the real world fuel state of Kido Butai, it hit him with the impossible. But players were requesting more variety from the AI..., so don't be too hard on Andy for giving them what they asked for...


Variety is defined as doing something different, not the same thing over and over again!

Have Kido Butai or just some if it's carriers go hit the aircraft factories in Seattle or support the invasion of Midway, that would be different!

I think the AI needs a little tweaking, having Kido Butai camp out for 4 days at Pearl Harbor is just a bit much!



"carriers go hit the aircraft factories in Seattle or support the invasion of Midway, that would be different!"

The first would be even more impossible given the fuel considerations..., and the second would require the Japanese to have an invasion TF headed to Midway (Which they didn't.). But I agree that there is need of some "tweeking" to prevent the "camping out" result from going to extremes. My point was "Don't blame Andy" as he was only trying to respond to player requests for variety.


First no one is blaming anyone, just pointing things out.

If historic first turn is off, I really don't understand the issue. Why couldn't Japan invade Midway on turn one, then use it as refueling point with the oilers docked there? or with the magic first turn movement hit Seattle with a couple of carriers while the rest hit pearl harbor. It seems with non-historic turn one anything is possible!



NightFlyer -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 8:31:46 PM)

I don't think it's gamey, in real life massive US fleets lingered for days off the Marianas, Leyte and Okinawa. Even when an invasion wasn't involved this occurred for example the US fleet pounding Truk lagoon for two days on February 17-18, 1944. Just because Nagumo was too dumb to take advantage of an opportunity that never came again doesn't mean the AI has to be dumbed down as well. Just my opinion and the US would have eventually won anyways....



henri51 -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 9:02:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NightFlyer

I don't think it's gamey, in real life massive US fleets lingered for days off the Marianas, Leyte and Okinawa. Even when an invasion wasn't involved this occurred for example the US fleet pounding Truk lagoon for two days on February 17-18, 1944. Just because Nagumo was too dumb to take advantage of an opportunity that never came again doesn't mean the AI has to be dumbed down as well. Just my opinion and the US would have eventually won anyways....

I believe you are right. The Japanese commander got cold feet and cancelled the third strike that had been planned. If he had launched it and done enough damage, who knows if a 4th strike or more would not have become possible?

In this game, the US player has the advantage of hindsight, so if the AI does something unexpected, too bad for the player...It could be interestnig to see Japanese pbem players try to outwit the US players right after Pearl harmor.[8|]

After all, the US commanders did not have the opportunity of saying:"OK now Pearl Harbor is over, let's pull out of all the areas where we are sure to lose, and fortify the ones where we can delay or hurt them - and don't worry about the US coast, we know they won't attack there."

Henri



bradfordkay -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 9:07:21 PM)

" There isn't a fuel issue because of the replenishment TF near KB."

IRL this replenishment TF was emptied in the days before the PH attack. In stock WITP the KB starts out fully fueled and the replenishment TF is full as well. Is this still the case in AE?



Splinterhead -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 9:56:58 PM)

There's also the minor fact that KB used all of the available 800kg and, more importantly, all of the modified torpedoes in the 1st wave. The AI can continue to attack with weapons that did not exist and that's gamey.


Edit: If you don't want random, even impossible results, play JWE's Dec 8 scenario.



pad152 -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 10:07:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NightFlyer

I don't think it's gamey, in real life massive US fleets lingered for days off the Marianas, Leyte and Okinawa. Even when an invasion wasn't involved this occurred for example the US fleet pounding Truk lagoon for two days on February 17-18, 1944. Just because Nagumo was too dumb to take advantage of an opportunity that never came again doesn't mean the AI has to be dumbed down as well. Just my opinion and the US would have eventually won anyways....



You can't compare the US Fleet in 45 with the Japanese in 41. The Japanese Navy didn't have anything like the support/supplies/spare parts the USN had. Even day's super carriers can only carry enough supply/AvGas for about 3 days of combat ops then it has to go off station, replenish then return. There is no way Japanese carriers could conduct full combat ops for 3 or 4 days. Nagumo wasn't dumb, he was just cautious, he planed on a second raid but, the carriers weren't at Pearl as expected, He didn't know where the US carriers were, remember no one had every done what Nagumo did. If the Japanese stuck around for just a day, one or more of the US carriers would have been in range, then who knows what would have happened.





Andy Mac -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 10:14:30 PM)

OK Guys its quite simple there is a chance the AI will linger why did I do this its quite simple its what I would do if I was PBEM against you as Japan when designing the AI we tried to do it from the perspective of what would a PBEM pl;ayer do on the grounds that a harder nastier AI would give you a more difficult challenge.

I appreciate some people dont like it (although I am suprised its went down quite as badly as it seems to have) and it does make me wonder how much youy will like my other suprises [&:][&:] - I do understand but what am I to do - make the Ai play as hard as I can or make it exactly mirror history - most PBEM players would linger the fact that the AI only does sosome of the time seems to be going down badly.

I am really not sure what folks want but we did provide a scen starting on the 8th for those that want a `100% historic start.




Erik Rutins -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 10:28:00 PM)

It also only has a significant chance to linger if you choose non-Historical Start, so this is telling me that a lot of folks are choosing the non-Historical Start, where its chance to linger goes way up.



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 10:32:08 PM)

Ive chosen the Historical start. There hitting pearl 7th-10th now. Trying to get every ship out but about 40 percent or more are Gone!
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

It also only has a significant chance to linger if you choose non-Historical Start, so this is telling me that a lot of folks are choosing the non-Historical Start, where its chance to linger goes way up.




BeastieDog -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 10:37:36 PM)

I love this challenging non-historical AI. I hope we see many single player mods with varying AI responses( Manila KB opening, Hawaii invasion etc). Thanks for the good work Andy!



Andy Mac -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 10:40:56 PM)

The AI always has a chance to linger for day 2 and a very small chance to linger for day 3



AttuWatcher -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 10:41:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

OK Guys its quite simple there is a chance the AI will linger why did I do this its quite simple its what I would do if I was PBEM against you as Japan when designing the AI we tried to do it from the perspective of what would a PBEM pl;ayer do on the grounds that a harder nastier AI would give you a more difficult challenge.

I appreciate some people dont like it (although I am suprised its went down quite as badly as it seems to have) and it does make me wonder how much youy will like my other suprises [&:][&:] - I do understand but what am I to do - make the Ai play as hard as I can or make it exactly mirror history - most PBEM players would linger the fact that the AI only does sosome of the time seems to be going down badly.


I understand your logic behind this. People will always complain about something when it comes to AI because everyone has some predetermined idea how it's supposed to act.

For one person to improve this AI, make it act human, and keep within myriad historical scrutinies is challenging to say the least. It's not like we are playing Warcraft here where all the AI has to do is give you a challenge.

The balance between historical and challenging requires some trade offs.



Andy Mac -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/30/2009 10:49:35 PM)

I just dont know what you want - a good and challenging game v the AI or a repeat of History which you will all rip apart - you can have either (although the latter would need about 4 months of solid effort on the scripts)

If its a total repeat of history then I guarantee you will see things like the unconquerable Java, Rabaul Death Spirals etc etc

Honestly I am now confused I thought folks wanted a challenge

p.s. Historic 1st turn is exactly that a historic 1st turn after turn 1 all bets are off and the AI is designed to try and keep you interested and give you a challenge

Going to go back to working on improving the scripts based on the feedback recieved so far - If you really want a 100% historic game then contact me and I will give a quick tutorial on building Ai scripts.

Andy



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.296875