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

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



Message

Sardaukar -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/7/2009 1:08:05 PM)

Lack of fuel, maybe?



Dixie -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/7/2009 1:11:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Lack of fuel, maybe?


Maybe, but Midway isn't far from several major IJN bases. If they can haul from Tokyo down to PH and hang around for a few days before wandering back to Truk/Kwaj/Wherever they shouldn't be burning fuel too much.



Andy Mac -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/7/2009 2:10:25 PM)

Let me take a look at it does anyone have a save ?



Dixie -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/7/2009 2:14:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Let me take a look at it does anyone have a save ?


'fraid not [:(] The damn KB has turned up at Midway again though, so I might have one soon.



oldman45 -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/7/2009 2:33:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I guess my only question is do folks think the AI is giving them a reasonable game ? - we only promised no worse than stock - from what I am reading and seeing people seem to think its better which is good but there seems to be real concern that its going beyond history?


I am liking it. Sure there are things that would make a great game perfect but that kind of computer is not invented yet. [:)]

I like the moves the computer is making, and with the new search routines they tend to pop up when you least expect it [:@]

Can the program tell when its time to call off an attack?



John Lansford -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/7/2009 2:54:31 PM)

Andy,

I think the intentions of the AI are good, but the execution of the plans is where it's lacking.  I've had multiple landings take place in the South Pacific in the last few turns, none with covering forces and all with such light forces that removing them will not be a huge problem (other than the sheer number of landings).  Already one of my cruiser TF's has destroyed a landing TF composed of a PB and an AK.  None of the bases had Allied troops or were developed to the point they could support planes, so basically the LCU's were sent to die on a barren island.

If I'm planning an invasion in an area I expect resistance, and the base needs building up (but isn't occupied), I would bring in a base force or engineer unit, CD units, a combat LCU and a lot of supply, plus covering forces.  That size force would be what I figure is the minimum to sustain itself and force the enemy to build a serious counterinvasion force to evice me.  The landings the AI is conducting right now are just nuisances and 'live fire exercises' for my NZ and US troops.



Andy Mac -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/7/2009 3:01:37 PM)

OK I understand but its not that easy to make the AI do that if I include av support in the initial attack the AI has a nasty habit of forgettign the combat forces.

Let me have a look at it and I will see what I can do



Andy Mac -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/7/2009 3:57:20 PM)

its uite good actually gys it sounds like the bulk of these problems are CENTPAC and SOPAC in which case I should be able to fix them - keep it coming !!!



Laxplayer -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/7/2009 6:05:19 PM)

Turn save sent to you Andy.




Valgua -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/7/2009 8:57:28 PM)

Andy, if you manage to fix these few issues I will have a monument in my home honoring you. [&o]



Andy Mac -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/7/2009 9:15:16 PM)

I am trying we shall wait and see



morganbj -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/8/2009 6:34:22 AM)

Well, I had the pasting at PH, too. But, I managed to send out a destroyer TF a few times to attack the KB, causing small damage. I was simply trying to goad them into using a number of sorties attacking my destroyers, and not PH. They never took the bait. Eventually, I got a few good hits, just before my three CAGs arrived neaby. Clearly, they were nearly out of sorties, and fuel might have been running low. My destroyers had already run into an AO convoy a couple of hexes away on Dec 9, I think it was, and sent four to the bottom. That had to hurt. The KB then decided to pull back, but they left a CV and a CVL limping behind with a small escort. Those two vessels and their escorts made a down payment for what they did to PH. Eventually, the nukes will collect the balance due in about four years, if the USN doesn't get it done before that.

So, it is a little annoying to have the BB stick around until December 12th, hammering PH every day, twice a day (and there's not much that PH can do about it either). But, I only lost two BB's and about a dozen other ships (no CAs) when it was all said and done. There's A LOT of damage, though. But I managed to take out 1/3 of the KB and got quite a few hits on a couple of the others. Lots of pilots met their maker, too. I think that's why the KB bailed out early IRL. I have a hard time believing that the Japs would have ever done this.

I think the pasting strategy is ok for a single script or maybe two, but I think it's too much to encounter in every game. A few scripts have to be a little closer to military understandings of the time, not what we know to be true now. I hope that's the case, as I'm only in my second game and have had the pasting twice, now. Just my opinion.



Valgua -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/8/2009 7:12:12 AM)

The PH thing actually happened to me only once and I cannot really consider it an issue. After all the AI is probably doing what Nagumo should have. My concern is its tendency to not cover its invasion forces properly. Once this problem is solved a great AI will be perfect.



Laxplayer -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/8/2009 8:23:03 AM)

KB didn't stick around in my game. Gone the next day, and not a single BB sunk at Pearl (until a month later when I tried to sail the Tennessee--and others--to SF with too much floatation dmg and she sunk). So it's definitely not happening in "every game."



Andy Mac -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/8/2009 9:47:02 AM)

It is a small random chance that KB will stick around its not set in stone by any stretch and the 3 or 4 day return is very very low just to build some uncertainty



Andy Mac -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/8/2009 9:48:19 AM)

Solving the uncovered TF's thing is a lot more difficult the AI does not think I think I have it better whether its good enough I wont know until you lot get the new scripts



John Lansford -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/8/2009 1:21:27 PM)

Andy,

I've had landings at Baker, Canton and three or four locations in the South Pacific.  The ones in SoPac appear to have been a couple of companies and were on uncontested landings.  The one at Baker appeared to have been 'for real', as it had a couple of units including a defense battalion.  IMO the AI is 'jumping the gun' with the smaller, uncontested landings; had it taken Baker first and then Canton, my response would have taken longer and the AI would have been able to get more troops/supplies to the base.  This time, since I'd just taken and reinforced Canton, when the Baker landings took place I already had plenty of forces available to dispose of the larger units.  The resupply efforts came to nought when my 2 CV TF discovered them, and a followup strike on Tarawa, Mili and other Marshall Islands discovered that Makin is undefended.  I've diverted a base force and some infantry to take the island and we'll see what the AI does when it is put on defense...



wpurdom -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/8/2009 3:16:23 PM)

Andy - the Jap AI may have a particular problem in the overly good early Allied signal intelligence. I don't know if I'm typical but I knew where a lot of the landings were going to be from signint. And in the future how do I ignore knowing that Makin, Tarawa, etc are early targets - unless you find a way to ambush our overly confident reaction forces some of the time!

You don't have to cover every force necessarily, if you can hurt us half the time.



Andy Mac -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/8/2009 4:03:32 PM)

Yup and don't assume the same tactics......I have been substantially playing with the AI files



Buck Beach -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/8/2009 4:26:31 PM)

I am joining this a little late so excuse me if I am just repeating someone else has already surfaced of pointed out.

One WITP modder radically rewrote the Japanese scripts to aggressively expand in a couple of different scenarios (including into the South Pacific) . The initial expansions were exciting but the results were that after depositing the initial landing (and supplying) troops. The party was over unless the bases where a part of the historical and original expansion. That is there was no follow-up to supply, reinforce, or to build up the different bases.

I have not started the game yet as I am waiting for at least the first patch (that's another story), however, I am sure hoping your rewrite of the AI can/will adapt to the newly created or captured bases.



Erik Rutins -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/8/2009 4:34:04 PM)

The AEAI is a LOT more advanced than the original WITP AI and far more capable. We created the AEAI specifically because the original WITP AI could not be improved enough regardless of what we did with its scripts. With that said, this is obviously the first test of the AEAI "in the wild" (as well as AE itself) and while we work to address any reported issues with the game, we are also tweaking and improving the AI.

I'm playing the release version as the Allies against the AI in Scenario #2 on Hard and having a great time, so there's no reason to really wait to play, but AE will definitely improve with each update as well.



Buck Beach -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/8/2009 5:10:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The AEAI is a LOT more advanced than the original WITP AI and far more capable. We created the AEAI specifically because the original WITP AI could not be improved enough regardless of what we did with its scripts. With that said, this is obviously the first test of the AEAI "in the wild" (as well as AE itself) and while we work to address any reported issues with the game, we are also tweaking and improving the AI.

I'm playing the release version as the Allies against the AI in Scenario #2 on Hard and having a great time, so there's no reason to really wait to play, but AE will definitely improve with each update as well.



Thanks for your reply. Sounds like your way ahead of me with my concerns and as a matter of fact what the hell did I think the new game would include with a rewrite of the AI.

I just might take you up on idea to try Scenario #2, there is only so much you can learn just from the manual and the forum.



morganbj -> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? (8/9/2009 5:33:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

It is a small random chance that KB will stick around its not set in stone by any stretch and the 3 or 4 day return is very very low just to build some uncertainty

How about a six day pasting? That's what I saw. A bit much, I think. But, we'll see what it means long term. After all, I sank 2 KV's because they were so damned perisitent. Let's see if that matters in the long run. At any rate, I can't wait for 1945. Nuke early, nuke often, I say. No Toyota Tundras in 1995.





Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9199219