RE: Pearl Harbor and AI

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (Full Version)

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

Message

TOMLABEL -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 6:05:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FAsea I would have built the AI the same way (like playing a PBEM player) had I been in your shoes Andy. I think it's the way to go for the game to provide the widest range of enjoyment and the most lasting challenge upon repeats. TOTALLY AGREE!!! Nice work Andy!!![&o] I've been so tired of playing a lame AI in the past. I need an AI that is going to challenge me - no matter what the outcome is.

ImaginaryBaron -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 7:20:40 AM)
I'm loving the AI Andy, keep making it aggressive and challenging. The new and improved AI was the main reason why I decided to upgrade to AE and so far I am not disappointed.

Valgua -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 9:01:45 AM)
The main reason for me buying AE is the new AI. I want to be challenged. So far I am very pleased. The AI is doing what every pbem player would do. Of course, we could (and we will!) argue for the next two years about the historical accuracy of the PH attack. It is quite possible that the engine is not able to simulate the lack of specific weapons, such as modified torpedoes. Unfortunately there will always be a limit to what a $100 software is able to do. But the question is: do you want the AI to take into account limitations that do not bind human players? Imho that is the receipe for a boring game. In conclusion: Good work Andy!

Falken -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 1:37:18 PM)
Because of my work schedule, I cannot afford to play PBEM, and can only play AI. In WITP, it used to take, and this is no exageration, 50-60 first turn attempts, before I could get a satisfactory "aggressive" PH attack by the JAI. I've always wanted my PH to be decimated, in order to ensure a longer, slower, US retaliation on my part. Well, after 2 attempts in Scen 002 (love this scenario, btw), i've lost 6 BBs, 3 CLs, and 2 DDs. The 2 remaining BBs are heavily damaged, thanks to a second day attack by the Japs (love this scenario, btw, or did I saw that already... :) ), and 90% of my remaining cruisers are heavily damaged as well. Also lost 178 A/C. Now I can play. Finally, an aggressive AI. Long live WITP AI, and especially, long live Andy. Don't change a thing Andy for Scn 002 (except to make it meaner). My many many, and oh yeah... , many thanks.

Sonny II -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 2:29:04 PM)
Seems like the big complainers are the folks who are playing the Alies against the Japanese AI. Are there no folks playing the Japanese against the Allied AI?

Chickenboy -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 2:39:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sonny II Seems like the big complainers are the folks who are playing the Alies against the Japanese AI. Are there no folks playing the Japanese against the Allied AI? Sonny II, I'm reading the responses differently. Sounds like most of the AI players on the board (and this thread) are playing the Allies vs. Japanese AI and are quite satisfied with the results. Don't know as I'd say they're complaining. Due to my 'other life' (life outside of AE / WITP), I can't really play more than one game at a time. After I give the Allied side a whirl, I'll start up as Japan. It's a bit much to bite off and chew to be playing Japan right off the bat, particularly with a new-ish game engine. At least that's how I view it for myself.

NightFlyer -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 2:39:47 PM)
Andy, great job on developing an unpredictable and challenging AI. It seems that most people like the AI so please don't script it so that the results are like history plus or minus 1%. I've played games where everything is scripted, e.g. go here than this happens, repeat and they become boring very quickly. Since players have the option of a Dec. 8th campaign I don't see the problem. Maybe the real question is what could KB have done if they had a bolder commander on Dec. 7th, and the AI is maybe giving us that insight. I don't have much regard for Nagumo, his indecisiveness and incompetence cost Japan dearly (thankfully for the allies) at both PH and Midway, but his rank kept him in his position. I can't imagine someone like "Bull" Halsey saying "We better leave now before the enemy does something" lol. Tip for the darkside KB fans: switch the Kates launching airfield attacks to port attacks since torpedoes are better against the BBs, while switching some of the Vals attacking the port to airfield attack. The Vals 250kg bombs just seem to bounce off the BBs decks hehe. Post Script: in a past life I developed "Expert" computer applications and it did get a little eerie when it did stuff you didn't expect (but was correct), maybe real AI is already here.

Grollub -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 2:47:30 PM)
For those who have trouble with the AI, here's an exclusive on what you're really facing; [;)] [image]local://upfiles/18375/9A1DD39363574B6EB68F44866A8F7161.jpg[/image]

tanksone -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 4:01:53 PM)
Hi, Andy thanks for the curveball. [&o][&o] [sm=00000436.gif]

sfbaytf -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 4:49:18 PM)
If Japan was as competent and aggressive as the WiTP AI is, the war would have dragged on to 1946+. Great job! I also assume that with the full editor people wil be able to create their own AI scripting.

DrewMatrix -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 5:21:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf If Japan was as competent and aggressive as the WiTP AI is, the war would have dragged on to 1946+. The sobering thought is that they were much more competent, but Nimitz and MacArthur were even further ahead of us in intellect and ability, in spite of our high opinions of our own abilities.

Ketza -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 5:43:43 PM)
The AI hit PH for 2 days in my game and lost according to the numbers 60 planes shot down. KB then sailed to Midway and pounded it for 2 turns. Off the PI my subs and PTs (I brought the british mtbs in from Hong Kong as well) are having a field day and its much fun to watch. Sub combat is much more interesting. I also loaded up the Aks in Hoing Kong with supplies and got 75% of them into Manila which is a nice bonus. Wake Island is a very enjoyable fight with the Wildcats actually flying and one pilot with 5 kills. Too bad i will not be able to rescue them. My only concern is the AI flying unescorted bombers into the teeth of allied fighters in the PI and Singapore. In my game 300+ Japanese planes have been lost to 180 allied. Betties and Nells are getting shredded. I am having a blast and appreciate very much all the hard work that went into AE.

Andy Mac -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 6:33:10 PM)
Yup well enjoy the happy hunting ground I am taking steps for patch 1 to better protect TF's off of PI and Borneo

RevRick -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 8:37:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac The AI always has a chance to linger for day 2 and a very small chance to linger for day 3 So, the JFB's have managed to wangle a transporter device onto their tankers and carriers to magically beam aboard full loads of fuel, ammo, and torpedos. Wow...I would have at least thought the game would TRY to act in somewhat of a historical fashion... Oh, Well. BOHICA!!!

gunnergoz -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 8:59:38 PM)
OK, so there are some historical issues with ammo loadouts. That aside, I'm immensely enjoying the new AI. In fact, I want a Japanese AI thats so crafty and aggressive that it will walk me around the Washington DC Mall on a leash like a poodle after it conquers the USA...[:D] I want an AI that makes me sweat, guess and wonder where it will strike next. So I think this one is a really, really good step in the right direction. Thanks, Andy et al at Matrix! [&o]

AcePylut -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 9:07:43 PM)
Well consider it like this... If the AI keeps the KB around an extra day or 3, just assume that was what the Japs had planned, and stocked their ships with enough ammo to bomb//torp an extra few days. It's not too hard to dream up a believable fantasy to account for the extra attacks. Imagine it to be true. This IS - after all - a fantasy "what if" game.

AttuWatcher -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 9:22:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AcePylut This IS - after all - a fantasy "what if"�game. What?![&:][:D]

mjk428 -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 9:36:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AcePylut This IS - after all - a fantasy "what if"�game. Well, it's not being marketed that way. quote: This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever Unpredictable: Yay. Fantasy: Nay. Unless of course I'm playing a Final Countdown scenario. :) BTW, I'm not complaining. So far, so good.

RevRick -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 9:47:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AcePylut Well consider it like this... If the AI keeps the KB around an extra day or 3, just assume that was what the Japs had planned, and stocked their ships with enough ammo to bomb//torp an extra few days.� It's not too hard to dream up a believable fantasy to account for the extra attacks.� Imagine it to be true.� This IS - after all - a fantasy "what if"�game. Okay, if that is what this is supposed to be - I want turbochargers on the P-39s, re-engining of the old BB's so they can steam at 27 kts., torpedoes that work for the USN (that's in!), and a Congress that had the foresight to plan the two ocean Navy in 1939 instead of 1940. I mean, if the IJN can dream up more tankers to refuel the tankers who already fueled the KB, and then more ammo on each ship which the IJN didn't have in the first place, and an Admiral with a pair, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Oh, by the way, Grumman started work on the F6F a year early. It shows up in January of 1942, along with the TBF. All this is to say that having the KB stick around and obliterate PH just because the game allows it because of the mechanics is only a little bit shy of slightly gamey. I know the USN would not have folded up and quit, but if you want the USN to wait in Pearl and San Fran until Jan of 1944, and then come out hunting, so be it.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 10:11:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AcePylut Well consider it like this... If the AI keeps the KB around an extra day or 3, just assume that was what the Japs had planned, and stocked their ships with enough ammo to bomb//torp an extra few days.� It's not too hard to dream up a believable fantasy to account for the extra attacks.� Imagine it to be true.� This IS - after all - a fantasy "what if"�game. No..., fantasy should have gone out the window when you designated the "HISTORICAL START". Nothing wrong with "little green men" if that's your thing..., but when you designate something as "Historical" then the words "not too hard to dream up a believable fantasy" should have no place in it's discussion...

gunnergoz -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 10:26:45 PM)
Well, guys, we are either talking about playing a "historical simulation" or a "historical game." The simulation should turn things out pretty much as they did historically, IMO. The game could take history and tweak it a bit here and there, not based upon little green men, but based upon concepts that might have been within the grasp of the historical participants, had they some more foresight...since we clearly have the benefit of hindsight. I can live with calling this a well-researched historical game, that takes a liberty or two to better enable me to play it with more enjoyment, and for longer. Yes, a grog can argue that a shortage of such and such type of bomb fuzes could totally negate this and that type of scenario from ever happening, but who is to say what might have happened historically with just a few changed events and conditions? War is all about uncertainty. Writing history is attempting to explain the uncertain. Playing history games is all about enjoying the uncertainty and in some way pretending to be part of it, in your mind and imagination, at least. Now if this were a War College simulation, I would have to agree, bomb inventories and fuel levels are indeed where it's at. But Matrix is not selling to the US War College primarily, but to all the history and naval buffs out there. And most of them want to enjoy cutting loose their imagination a bit. That's my two bits, anyway.

AcePylut -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 10:42:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RevRick quote: ORIGINAL: AcePylut Well consider it like this... If the AI keeps the KB around an extra day or 3, just assume that was what the Japs had planned, and stocked their ships with enough ammo to bomb//torp an extra few days.� It's not too hard to dream up a believable fantasy to account for the extra attacks.� Imagine it to be true.� This IS - after all - a fantasy "what if"�game. Okay, if that is what this is supposed to be - I want turbochargers on the P-39s, re-engining of the old BB's so they can steam at 27 kts., torpedoes that work for the USN (that's in!), and a Congress that had the foresight to plan the two ocean Navy in 1939 instead of 1940. I mean, if the IJN can dream up more tankers to refuel the tankers who already fueled the KB, and then more ammo on each ship which the IJN didn't have in the first place, and an Admiral with a pair, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Oh, by the way, Grumman started work on the F6F a year early. It shows up in January of 1942, along with the TBF. Say hello to the AE editor, and all your fantasies may come true! quote: All this is to say that having the KB stick around and obliterate PH just because the game allows it because of the mechanics is only a little bit shy of slightly gamey. I know the USN would not have folded up and quit, but if you want the USN to wait in Pearl and San Fran until Jan of 1944, and then come out hunting, so be it. I won't stick the USN navy on the West Coast or PH if the KB obliterates PH. That might be your fantasy, but it ain't mine. [:)]

Andy Mac -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 11:26:40 PM)
I honestly just dont get it maybe its me but I dont we tried to make the AI play the game as hard as we could to make it interesting. If thats not your cup of tea there is a scenario that starts 8th Dec which has a 100% historic approach or you can play the stock Ai which will faithfully recreate history and fall over in mid 42 at Rabaul when a player a historically reinforces I guess it boils down to what do you want 1. Faithfull recreation of history where the Ai loses badly because you know its every move UNLESS you also follow history 100% 2. An AI that will try to do unpredictable things but while following the shape of history will try to do things I would do if I were playing PBEM against you. If the majority honestly want 1. then I am not sure I haved provided what you want. Andy

Avenger -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (7/31/2009 11:38:16 PM)
That would be great Andy! Those landings are all way too lightly covered, and there are a bunch of English ships that can be there really early. Even the PT boats can make it to Davao to cover.

afspret -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (8/1/2009 12:00:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: afspret I think I found a way to get rid of them, or at least reduce the serverity of follow up attacks. Before running turn 2 I sent all the subs I had in or around PH to the hex KB is supposed to be in and during the combat resolution they showed up several hexes west of their turn 1 location and only launched a small strike on PH (20+ ea Kates & Zeros). Unfortunately I forgot about the Portland TF, which was apparently closer to KB than PH was. The end result was the TF was wiped out by numerous AM & PM air strikes. Now that I think about it, maybe thats why KB didn't launch a bigger follow up attack on PH, so maybe I'll run turn 2 again and this time move the Portland farther south and see what happens. Okay, ran turn 2 again and this time KB moved off to the west and was near French Frigate Shoals when it launched two attacks in the AM, a small attack against Lihue and single air attack against PH consisting of 57 Kates & 22 Zeros. Damage from this attack was minimal and no other attacks were launched the rest of the turn.

Splinterhead -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (8/1/2009 12:18:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac I honestly just dont get it maybe its me but I dont we tried to make the AI play the game as hard as we could to make it interesting. If thats not your cup of tea there is a scenario that starts 8th Dec which has a 100% historic approach or you can play the stock Ai which will faithfully recreate history and fall over in mid 42 at Rabaul when a player a historically reinforces I guess it boils down to what do you want 1. Faithfull recreation of history where the Ai loses badly because you know its every move UNLESS you also follow history 100% I don't understand why you think that's what we want. It's not exactly like your AI falls apart the 50% of the time KB doesn't hang around. quote: 2. An AI that will try to do unpredictable things but while following the shape of history will try to do things I would do if I were playing PBEM against you. One of my non negotiable rules for PBEM is no port attacks by Kates if KB stays a second day. quote: If the majority honestly want 1. then I am not sure I haved provided what you want. I think you have a no win situation. A lot of people seem ecstatic with your current version, so unless you plan to do a "no linger" version of scen 1 in addition to the current one, I'd say just ignore us. We do have Dec 8th, after all.

Mozo -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (8/1/2009 12:23:40 AM)
OMG - forget the complaining - I LOVE the surprises! I want as much of a challenge as possible. Andy, you made it sound like there are % chances. Does that mean you should get a significantly different game each time (to some degree at least)? I had an early raid on PM by a surface fleet that just decimated my resupply ships - awesome! I feel like I have to stay on my toes with everything I do! Subs all over are making me pay dearly for unescorted ships. Other than the Midway weak invasion we discussed, my only other observation is lack of support for the landings near Rabaul, New Guinea. I sent my carriers down there and they've been eating up transports for lunch every day. Actually a squadron of Dive Bombers at PM sinks about 2 a turn. I just expected them to pull back like I do if I start losing lots of ships. Of course, I'm not sure that is possible. Of course I'm only up to Jan 30, '42 but I'm loving it so far. Thanks for all your hard work! Mozo

DW -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (8/1/2009 12:50:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac I honestly just dont get it maybe its me but I dont we tried to make the AI play the game as hard as we could to make it interesting. If thats not your cup of tea there is a scenario that starts 8th Dec which has a 100% historic approach or you can play the stock Ai which will faithfully recreate history and fall over in mid 42 at Rabaul when a player a historically reinforces I guess it boils down to what do you want 1. Faithfull recreation of history where the Ai loses badly because you know its every move UNLESS you also follow history 100% 2. An AI that will try to do unpredictable things but while following the shape of history will try to do things I would do if I were playing PBEM against you. If the majority honestly want 1. then I am not sure I haved provided what you want. Andy You got it right as far as I'm concerned. I bought WITP, and played through the full war a grand total of one time. By the time I captured Tokyo in mid 1944 I was so bored with the game that I've never played another round. As far as I'm concerned, there is no way I should have been able to achieve such a decisive victory on my first time out. I thought the AI flopped around like a dying whale and would have been happier that s**t if it had done something that surprised me, damaged my forces or upset my plans from time to time. As it was, there was virtually no strategic or tactical challenge. So, remember... For everyone who is displeased with the changes to the AI you made, there are probably a half dozen of us who will be very satisfied.

pad152 -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (8/1/2009 12:59:08 AM)
If somebody playing Japan in PBEM game, camped out and hit Pearl Harbor for a week, that person would be banned from PBEM games, no one would play them again! So is it too much to ask that the AI not do things that would be considered gamey in PBEM games, I don't think so. I have no problems with AI doing things that are non-historic such as invading Midway or Dutch Harbor on Dec 7th. I do wish the AI would cover invasion forces with more escorts and with carriers, it's too easy for a couple of DD's to destroy an invasion force. Just put one or two allied DD's to guard the ports in Sarawak and northern Borneo and they will destroy most of the invasion forces. I wonder if ships are just too fragile in AE? I have seen it twice where a single DD sank 6 to 8 ships in one battle. No this wasn't FOW, all the ships were reported sunk. Allied subs now sinking a lot of ships with their guns because their torpedoes failed, just doesn't seem right.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI (8/1/2009 1:17:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 I have seen it twice where a single DD sank 6 to 8 ships in one battle. No this wasn't FOW, all the ships were reported sunk. Under what circumstances? I'll bet they were quite favorable to the DD..., as in a night action (or limited visability) against a poorly escorted group of transports caught unloading. 30-knot DD with Naval fire control and gun crews at close range facing transports trying to raise steam and anchors. Sounds like a recipe for a one-sided slaughter to me...

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.203125