RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (Full Version)

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



Message

mjk428 -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/3/2009 9:23:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I strongly suspect you should wait for the next set orf AI builds and see how that does



Considering the complete lack of love the AI received in WitP this is most encouraging.


Thank you.



WingedIncubus -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/3/2009 9:24:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I strongly suspect you should wait for the next set orf AI builds and see how that does


Now I am scared. [X(]



Cap Mandrake -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/3/2009 9:41:55 PM)

re. the Jap AI and sub use (which seems almost prescient)....I have a suspicion they have a mole in Admiral King's office. [:)]

It may be the guy typing up the transport convoy orders.



Valgua -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/3/2009 10:14:17 PM)

quote:

Aborting is fine but what if the abort is PI ?

If there is a time to attack with insuffuicient force its early doors - iots not such a huge issue for the allies as they have so many DD's but Japan is ALWAYs short of them



Good point.



medicff -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/3/2009 10:21:53 PM)

AI definitely doesnt sit around like WITP and is much improved Andy. I agree a little aggressive without proper support. Needs to wait for air cover and expand in steps. Also I like the surface support ships come in to clear out landing area but then leave Amphibious ships to fend for themselves and move on to the next area. Sometimes the sit for a week or more awaiting arrival of landing tf.

I also like sub ops and mining ops for many surprises.

Still much more than previous and I anticipate your changes [:D]



John Lansford -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/3/2009 10:29:46 PM)

Yeah, I keep finding subs in places I never saw them in WitP, usually to my dismay.  I had a TF of 3 tankers leaving San Diego get sunk by one sub a few hexes out.  Had one shoot (and miss) at Enterprise as her TF went south to bomb the Canton Island invasion.  I've also seen them around Java and the usual ones on the east coast of Australia.  I may have hit a few with DC's but don't think I've sunk any yet.



Scott_USN -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/3/2009 10:33:01 PM)

The KB and a smaller second CVL force sat in the Java sea around Kendari and Balipakin(sp) for a week laying waste to everything that came near all the landing forces attacking several bases at the same time. Once Kendari was taken and the Mendano and those other smaller bases the KB vanished and landbased Betties Rule the area now.... Can't move anything without getting whacked they took out many of my precious TK's AO's... :(



Valgua -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/3/2009 10:37:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I strongly suspect you should wait for the next set orf AI builds and see how that does


This is what I call the right attitude!! [sm=happy0005.gif] There are no words to describe how much I appreciate your work. The new AI is really very good. The fact that you are still working to make it even stronger is very very promising.



Andy Mac -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/3/2009 10:47:55 PM)

Thanks guys the issue is Japan is really quite short of escorts and the AI (rightly) will not form heavy TF's without a screen - this places DD's at a premium.

If I suck in to many to small SCTF's the big boys dont form.

(Its one of the main reasons Scen 2 has extra jap DD's to help the AI form the right TF's)

Also you need to be aware of the fact that the if the AI is going to take insane risks early doors is the time to do it.

Anyway I have reworked 12/13 scripts to try and improve cover 1 more to do and they will be ready for testing pre going into patch 1.

Its achieving the balance (which to be fair tot he AI most players as Japan struggle with) of DD's to support small escort forces and DD's for the big boys.

Remember the AI will always struggle in this area if I allocate to many to SCTF's then KB wont form or the BB's wont be on the prowl.

If Japan had another 30 DD's and 10 CL's I could go through and increase the cover forces for all critical TF's from small/minimum and have a reasonable chance of them forming but Japan doesnt have another 30 DD's and 10 CL's (At least not until I get my Ironman mod out post patch 1 !!!!!) [:D][:D][:D]

Andy



Andy Mac -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/3/2009 10:48:24 PM)

p.s. it all comes down to DD's there are never enough of these types of ships



Swayin -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/3/2009 10:50:06 PM)

The tip of the spear always ends up getting snapped off sooner or later - but defense in depth seems to be a necessity with an enemy who will strike deeply and vigorously into your unprotected vitals ... even if those raids seems dangerous or even foolhardy, they make you have to prepare your defense a whole lot differently than you ever had to in stock, that's for sure.



Andy Mac -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/3/2009 10:51:38 PM)

Yup while you are worried about that early raid on Bombay you may leave Rangoon exposed - oops did I give that one away shocking...

Now does anyone actually believe me.......[:D][:D][:D][:D]



Jim D Burns -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/3/2009 10:56:28 PM)

Is there any way too just make the AI wait? I mean if the Philippine or Malaya ships will return in a week, why launch unsupported attacks against northern Borneo right away. I totally understand if it isn't possible, but perhaps another solution would be to set up troops for the AI to appear on specific dates later than historical.

That way the AI wouldn't be able to launch an attack with those troops until enough time has elapsed for escorts to return and be available. You could make it a vs. the AI scenario or something.

Jim



Andy Mac -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/3/2009 10:58:50 PM)

Oh I already fixed Borneo the happy hunting time is over as of patch 1 of that you can rest assured I is daft but not that daft I have been creating all new levels of sneakiness now I know how most of you play



Erik Rutins -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/3/2009 11:11:30 PM)

The problem is that speed is just as important as protection early on, Jim. If the Japanese AI lets the Allied player get setup and fortified in some places it will lose a lot more than one unescorted convoy in the long run. It's a tough balancing act though and Andy has his hands full tweaking and tuning "Annie". [8D]



jwilkerson -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/3/2009 11:56:25 PM)

Right, the aeAI is trying to "flood" the player with lots of quick landings - in the hopes that the player cannot stop all of them. A different AI could try to be more methodical, but we felt that players could "flood" a methodical AI out with their own immediate counter-attacks. Alternate AI strategies are certainly possible - and the supplier editor allows exploration of same. The aeAI team felt - based on their own player experience that a "fast and furious" attack would be harder to stop - hence we implmented same.




Andy Mac -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/3/2009 11:59:51 PM)

Yup but it does leave TF's exposed but I has a cunning plan !!!



stuman -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/4/2009 12:43:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

It's gone and landed an entire division basically on its own, completely unsupported at Koumac. It's nearest base to the action is Rabaul (!).


Sounds like John 3rd is in command.


That made me laugh out loud [:D]



wdolson -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/4/2009 12:48:39 AM)

One of the difficulties an AI designer has to face is 20/20 hindsight on the part of the human player.  The Allies didn't understand how important Rabaul was until it was too late.  With an AI that is running on a historic timeline, it's easy to reinforce Rabaul and make it unconquerable.  If the Japanese don't hold Rabaul, the entire Solomons and northern New Guinea becomes undefendable if the Japanese take them.

Other things are in there to keep the human player off balance.  If you're busy reacting to one crisis after another, you can't execute any major offensive plans.  I'm into February 1942 right now and all 4 of my available USN CVs are tied down fighting fires in the SW and South Pacific.  I'd love to be able to have them supporting the DEI campaign, but they are too busy where they are.

Bill



Feltan -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/4/2009 1:30:38 AM)

Expectations. I never expect the AI to be as good as a human player in a game like this. Situations present themselves that are just too dynamic for a reasonably good AI to cope with. What I do expect is some sort of plausible opening moves -- which this AI seems to accomplish in a very commendable fashion.

For me, I consider the AI a training tool for PBEM. It allows you to learn the game's mechanics, and explore basic tactics and strategy. It prepares you for a game with a human opponent.

If one is looking for an AI that acts like a wiley human opponent from '41 to the game's end -- I suggest you are expecting too much.

Regards,
Feltan



jazman -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/4/2009 2:36:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

t prepares you for a game with a human opponent.

If one is looking for an AI that acts like a wiley human opponent from '41 to the game's end -- I suggest you are expecting too much.



It'll be interesting to see how AI things go as people work their way through the war. I guess I could run an AI-AI game to see what happens, but more interesting is human-AI.



Scott_USN -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/4/2009 5:16:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Yup but it does leave TF's exposed but I has a cunning plan !!!



YEs it was because although I hurt them IJ now holds Baker, Canton and Lunganville and I have nothing to counter at the moment... time is on my side. They already landed at Talugi also and are spreading all over hard to contain. Hurt yes I have hurt them stopped .... no not even close yet


And the SUBS piss me off constantly!



Andy Mac -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/4/2009 8:36:17 AM)

OK played around with it it should now be better I am testing the new scripts ultimately its a lack of resources thats the real issue well duh the Japanese were short of assets !!!



AttuWatcher -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/4/2009 8:45:37 AM)

You are the man Andy!

Did you give the minelayers some 8' guns? [:D]



Andy Mac -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/4/2009 8:51:50 AM)

No I am not allowed to mess with core scenario data sets [:-][:-]

In my own persoanl mod though there will be substantial improvmenrts to hep the AI out but even scen 1 should be a good bit better when I get all the new scripts tested



Dixie -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/4/2009 9:23:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Yup while you are worried about that early raid on Bombay you may leave Rangoon exposed - oops did I give that one away shocking...

Now does anyone actually believe me.......[:D][:D][:D][:D]


Well, I have had reports of at least one IJN carrier heading into the Bay of Bengal already...[X(]



Andy Mac -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/4/2009 12:47:28 PM)

Ignore its fog of war I promise......never happend even I wouldnt send KB into the bay in Jan 42

Honest [:D][:D][:D][:D]



John Lansford -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/4/2009 12:48:43 PM)

In my game the KB swept past Balikpapan and into the Java Sea, south of Kendari and then headed north back towards Davao.  "Good", I thought, "they're withdrawing for resupply purposes".

No, they weren't.  The KB made a hard left turn and went into one of those bays created by the arms of Celebes Island, and hammered Balikpapan one more time with long range airstrikes.  They sank a sub and heavily hit my AD I had in the port for rearming PT boats, but missed the AS I had there.  A secondary strike sank an old USN DD I had sent towards Tarakan to disrupt the landing taking place.

Landings are taking place at Tarakan, all over the Philippines, Nauru and Tulagi.  Brunei and Miri have been taken and the British bases in NW Borneo are being threatened.  Unbeknownst to the AI, I've got a cruiser strike force in the Coral Sea headed for that Tulagi landing force, and two groups of PT boats headed for Tarakan and Jolo.

Subs are popping up all over the place.  There's at least two just west of Noumea just abusing my supply TF's from Sydney; I'm pushing base forces and construction teams down there but they're not there yet.  The Canton Island invasion is over and the New Zealanders are mopping up; I need to reembark them since I've got two regiments of USArmy troops plus a Marine defense unit headed there.  Queen Elizabeth is headed for Seattle to pick up the 41st Division, and Yorktown is on the way to Pearl, giving me 4 CV's to work with.

Right now the Allies are the ones short of ASW escorts in my game.  I don't have enough (with long enough range) to escort every supply TF, and if I put too many ships in a convoy then the TF is too big to dock anywhere.  I've moved dozens of ships from Darwin towards Sydney and Noumea, but LR Betty airstrikes from Rabaul are already hitting ships as far west as Horn Island, and I've got no escorts to help protect them right now.



Andy Mac -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/4/2009 12:51:16 PM)

This retaking of Canton after all the effort I went to to take it is realy not on - <note to self to do something about it>



Dixie -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/4/2009 12:53:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Ignore its fog of war I promise......never happend even I wouldnt send KB into the bay in Jan 42

Honest [:D][:D][:D][:D]


[:D] I know that at least 2 CVs are in the central Pacific and were supporting a main invasion. Now they've withdrawn the Japs have just been given a kicking [:D] I've had reports of carriers near New Guinea, Borneo, Sumatra, India...



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.15625