RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (Full Version)

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



Message

Erik Rutins -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/3/2009 3:46:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Top Cat
Been playing campaign against Allied AI on normal difficulty and noticed that his air force seemed very resilient to say the least.
So I had a quick peek and noticed that by late Jan. 1942 he'd taken over 800 P40E replacements and 100's of B17 and other bomber replacements.


We don't see anything that should cause this in the code. While the AI does get some production assistance, it's slight, not even in the ballpark of what you're seeing. We're wondering if it's a display bug of some kind, or another bug. It would be helpful if you would zip up and e-mail to me at erikr@matrixgames.com some save files that show this in action. Thanks.

Regards,

- Erik



Erik Rutins -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/3/2009 3:47:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Time Traveller
I have to agree with the above statement. It is a cop-out to have such a high degree of AI cheating to make up for a poor game engine and AI. Historical game play was completely tossed out the window with this AE version, in favor of giving hardcore players more of a 'challenge' against an uber-cheating AI. I'm passing this one up.


I see a lot of jumping to conclusions in this thread.



Terminus -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/3/2009 3:51:55 PM)

Wonder how he came to those conclusions, when he doesn't have the game.



BigJ62 -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/3/2009 3:54:58 PM)

Just ran a test on allied build planes for us army p-40e during all 12 months and I'm not seeing a build rate of 400 per month in fact on normal level the ai gets a minor cheat which equals 40 p-40e's per month or 480 per year so I don't know where the 400 per month value is coming from but it is not coming from production. You'll notice that its pool is zero so if the ai actually used 800 and built 400 to date, that there would be some excess and also if its building 400 per month its going to have to build a lot more than 2 per day. The columns that look correct are ‘in pool’, ‘this turn’, ‘replace rate’, ‘production rate’ and ‘available’ the other two are obviously bugged.

This looks to be a bug but what kind of bug is the question, is it a display bug or did the ai get 800 planes and if so how did it get them and where did they go because the math of this does not add up so, I’m going to need to see a save before those two erroneous columns went berserk and also a current save posted in tech support.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Top Cat

Been playing campaign against Allied AI on normal difficulty and noticed that his air force seemed very resilient to say the least.

So I had a quick peek and noticed that by late Jan. 1942 he'd taken over 800 P40E replacements and 100's of B17 and other bomber replacements.

Is my game screwed up or is it working as designed?

Cheers
Top Cat



[image]local://upfiles/7480/8A0AF938FA1648628C9971B9A32A533D.jpg[/image]




Walloc -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/3/2009 4:19:41 PM)

I know only a save will really help, so just pointing out what Top cat previously wrote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62
This looks to be a bug but what kind of bug is the question, is it a display bug or did the ai get 800 planes and if so how did it get them and where did they go because the math of this does not add up so, I’m going to need to see a save before those two erroneous columns went berserk and also a current save posted in tech support.
[image]local://upfiles/7480/8A0AF938FA1648628C9971B9A32A533D.jpg[/image]



quote:

ORIGINAL: Top Cat

Yep. Just playing on "default" or normal difficulty level.

The Allied AI has about 25 squadrons of P40E's all at full strength.

Cheers
Top Cat


25*25 = 625. Assuming the AI lost some too. So 800 recieved isnt necesarry out of the question. At leased alot more than the 35+40 bonus times 1.5 month = 110ish

Just pointing out in regards to bug hunt.

Kind regards,

Rasmus



Erik Rutins -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/3/2009 4:37:51 PM)

I thought I should repeat here what I wrote to Time Traveler in another forum, just so people understand that while we may not comment much on the AI, we are paying attention.

-----

You are jumping to conclusions. Player assumptions about cheating are not the same as developer confirmation. One of our policies has been to investigate player reports but not confirm or deny what the AI does because we don't want folks figuring out how to "game" it.

With that said, while some of the cheats do exist, most of the reports I've seen are either incorrect assumptions or significant exaggerations or bugs. Making further assumptions from the sidelines (you don't have WITP AE and have not played it, as I understand it) may be an entertaining pastime for you, but it's not appreciated, especially when you start posting it to other forums as well. Please keep your discussion on the WITP AE AI in the AE forum and until you've played it, please avoid assuming that you know how it works. Feel free to ask questions and comment, but please don't jump to conclusions.

As a side note, you may be shocked to realize that AI is not really "Artificial Intelligence" and the vast majority of games do require some crutches for the AI to have any hope of keeping up with a human player. Unlike WITP, most of these do not allow you to "switch sides" and peek to see what the AI is doing, so the crutches go unnoticed. Even so, the AE AI is much improved from a planning and execution standpoint, without any cheat assistance, over the original WITP AI.

Regards,

- Erik



Time Traveller -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/3/2009 5:26:38 PM)

Hi Erik. Thanks for the explanation. I'm not trying to trash the AE version. Heck, I enjoy playing WITP. I am trying to find out as much as I can before making another purchase. I am not trying to figure out how the AI works as to 'game it'. I just want to know if it cheats (teleporting, god intelligence, etc) or gets massive bonuses even on the historical difficulty setting. It seems that no one who developed this game can or will give a straight answer. Based on what many AE players here have reported, I am beginning to have my doubts. You say that most of those reports are just bugs, overly-exaggerated, or just plain wrong. I want to believe this, but somehow I don't. I do realize that most AI in strategy games get some kind of 'help' to create more challenges for the player. I was asking about this in the other forum because I was curious after Terminus' snide remark that all games cheat, and we had better wake up and accept it. It appears that some games' AI　cheat more than others. But I am impressed at the reports of a more aggressive AI in AE. But perhaps the AI crutches and bonuses were beefed up in this version to support the more aggressive AI? [;)]



Erik Rutins -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/3/2009 7:11:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Time Traveller
I want to believe this, but somehow I don't. I do realize that most AI in strategy games get some kind of 'help' to create more challenges for the player. I was asking about this in the other forum because I was curious after Terminus' snide remark that all games cheat, and we had better wake up and accept it. It appears that some games' AI　cheat more than others. But I am impressed at the reports of a more aggressive AI in AE. But perhaps the AI crutches and bonuses were beefed up in this version to support the more aggressive AI? [;)]


I'm sorry you won't believe us - we really don't want to go into details, because every detail will help someone "game" the AI. However, the list you've been posting contains a lot of errors and exaggerations. The AI does get some cheats, and it did in WITP as well. There are also some new cheats that help the AE AI. However, by and large there are many realistic limitations on these cheats and our overall goal is to help the AI in areas where it cannot think like a human can. Our goal is not to turn the AI into some kind of ahistorical uber-player that gets everything for free and has no limits. When you seem claims of that kind, you can be pretty sure they are either false, based on exaggerated assumptions or the result of a bug.

Regards,

- Erik



Admiral Scott -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/3/2009 7:43:12 PM)

Does the AI actually try to ship resources and supply to and from bases?

Because if the AI doesnt, or does just a little, that would make for very few targets for allied subs to encounter and attack.



Andy Mac -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/3/2009 8:28:44 PM)

Yes and production will cease if resources or fuel do not reach the HI.




Admiral Scott -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/3/2009 8:30:50 PM)

Ok, thanks Andy



RHoenig -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/3/2009 8:54:57 PM)

Erik, thank you for your explanation, even if I don´t like what you are saying.

The reason why I don´t like it:

I admit, I am an AI player [:)]. Someday, I might jump into a PBEM, but as of now, I won´t.

So I am playing a strategy game against the AI.

This means to me, the challenge is in formulating a strategy to beat the AI.
In order to do this, I simply _have_ to know the rules.

Can an AI-Japan get resources/Oil... without the use of frighters or an AI-Allies get supplies teleported to island garrisons?
If yes, a blockade strategy goes out the window.

Does the AI get lots and lots of planes for free?
If yes, there is no sense to initiat an attrition air war strategy

A strategy game, where the AI not only does not abide by the rules, but I, as a player, don´t even know which rules applay to the AI and which not, is not a game at all (well, ok, it´s a guessing game)

There were a whole lot of things the allies/japan lacked knowledge of during the real thing, but the basics were very clear:

If you want to get ammo from the factory to the front, you better organize some form of transport.
If you want to replace a shot down plane, a new one has to be build, using various resources.
If you lost the pilot too, you have to have a trained one ready or better start training new pilots pronto!

Without those rules, what´s the point?

(Yes, I am exagerating a bit, but you get my meaning)

As for someone ´playing´ the AI:

All I can say is: So what?

If a customer gets a kick out of playing the AI, what´s the harm in this? He is, after all, only playing the AI, it´s not going to happen in PBEM and if he tries those tricks there, I am sure he will get his behind handed to him




Erik Rutins -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/3/2009 9:06:14 PM)

Hi RHoenig,

I'm not the AI expert on the team, but I can speak to general goals. Our goal is that at least on the Historical level, all the strategies that could work historically and that work against a human player will work against the AI. Where the AI gets help, the aim is to overcome a weakness that it simply can't overcome otherwise (without becoming as smart as a human) and the end result should be to put it on par with a good human player, not in a different category.

It looks like there may be an issue with air replacements that is making an attrition-based strategy difficult now and we are investigating and discussing that, but apart from that I don't think there is another problem area in terms of effects on strategy. I would caution against jumping to conclusions or making assumptions, we really did try to keep the AI cheats to the minimum required and I believe that historical strategies will work in the vast majority of cases against the AI.

Regards,

- Erik



NAVMAN -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/3/2009 10:47:06 PM)

Erik,
Since I purchased UV back in 2002, I have seen discussions like this, principally dealing
with air-to-sea combat results, as they pertain to human(allied) player vs Jap(ai) and
some really bizarre results. Most of the time, players have observed, and supplied,
screen shots, to document their frustration at the poor,seemingly twightlightish zone
results, US carrier aviation obtains. I have refrained from commenting because of the
endless rationalizations which come forth explaing these surreal results. Last night,
I played a WITP game and also an AE game. I attacked w/ well over 100 bombers
from PM in WIPT and a large number of cv based planes in AE. I averaged three(3)
hits. I don't know the code, but something does not seem "kosher" here. Can you put
this one to rest by telling us:1)does the human(allied) player get a "built-in" degradation
of capability regardless of the quality of his forces, and 2)If not, why these results
which seem more than just "one-off" happenings.
Thx



Erik Rutins -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/3/2009 10:51:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NAVMAN
from PM in WIPT and a large number of cv based planes in AE. I averaged three(3)
hits. I don't know the code, but something does not seem "kosher" here. Can you put
this one to rest by telling us:1)does the human(allied) player get a "built-in" degradation
of capability regardless of the quality of his forces, and 2)If not, why these results
which seem more than just "one-off" happenings.


The AI uses the same combat code as the human player. I believe on the harder levels it may get some combat bonuses, which is the same as it was in WITP, so nothing changed there as far as I know.



NAVMAN -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/3/2009 11:15:20 PM)

Erik,
Thx for a prompt and concise reply.

navman



John Lansford -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/3/2009 11:50:22 PM)

I've got subs watching Palembang, Miri, Balikpapan and the other oil producing bases captured by the AI.  I've parked the subs in those bases to insure I find any tankers loading oil at those locations.

It is late March 42; some of these bases have been occupied by the AI since January.  I have yet to see more than one or two tankers in these ports, total, and haven't found any TF's headed for those bases by my sea based subs or by Intel.

As I pointed out earlier, right now there is an "11th Division" sitting in Koumac, just north of Noumea, obviously not in the Chinese Theater.  I continually see full strength carrier strikes against land based targets, repeatedly for over a week, against some fairly heavy AA defenses, yet the # of planes never seem to drop.  When I launched a 3 CV ground support airstrike missions against a single SNLF at Makin, my carriers were soon out of fighters after just a few days of combat.

I disagree on the AI knowing where the fighter escorts are; I just moved a fighter squadron to Horn Island after Bettys from Rabaul had hit the base over a week.  The next turn the Bettys returned and were mauled by the fighters; they returned the next day and got hit hard some more, and the third day after as well.  Meanwhile PM has had nearly all its fighters withdrawn yet the Bettys aren't going there.

I can accept a few tweaks and perks given the AI since I expect it to be not nearly as creative and imaginative as a human opponent, but at the same time I want to play a campaign with historic limitations and benefits ON BOTH SIDES to see how my running of the war differs from what actually happened.  If there's too big an advantage (high plane production, no need for oil shipments, etc), what I consider a traditional strategy simply won't work.



Time Traveller -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/4/2009 1:56:53 AM)

Erik, thank you very much for the clear replies. That's all I was asking for. I don't like all this secretive garbage. It's hard to know what to believe unless someone from Matrix clarifies. Before I shell out another $60, I want some straight answers about AI cheats/bonuses. According to you, It appears that the AI high aircraft replacement numbers may be a bug.  It also sounds like on historical difficulty levels the AI gets no major advantages. Based on these statements, I may yet purchase WITP AE. [:)]



Time Traveller -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/4/2009 2:03:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Yes and production will cease if resources or fuel do not reach the HI.




This is great to know. An important feature indeed. Thank you very much for clarifying. [:)]



oldman45 -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/4/2009 3:59:35 AM)

I restarted since the patch, and frankly I have seen great changes in the AI. Of course Andy needs to be burned in effigy for the script that I am now up against......[;)] I digress.

It was hard to restart, because 42 sucks playing against the AI waiting for troops and ships to arrive from the UK/US. Once things start rolling its good, but its a long wait. I think the AI gives a good fight, and it has tricks up its sleeve that have kept me off balance.

For those of you concerned about its(AI) bottomless supply of aircraft, I played to nov 43 prior to the patch and I learned two things, as the Allied pilots get more exp and better planes, the Japanese start loosing planes in droves. Why you ask? The training program for the Japanese cannot keep up and it shows in a huge way. You can tell when you run into a squadron that moved from china and has exp pilots. Also, getting the heavy bombers doing night time raids on the major airfields will eventually shut them down or allow you to switch to daytime raids, then the game is over for that field and you can do an invasion and secure it.

Sound strategies do work, isolate where you plan to invade, pound it with planes and ships, drop the troops and move on to the next location. (wait till you can do an APA/AKA invasion) [X(]

In closing, just have fun with the game!



BigJ62 -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/4/2009 4:50:06 AM)

Maybe you are looking in the wrong place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I've got subs watching Palembang, Miri, Balikpapan and the other oil producing bases captured by the AI.  I've parked the subs in those bases to insure I find any tankers loading oil at those locations.

It is late March 42; some of these bases have been occupied by the AI since January.  I have yet to see more than one or two tankers in these ports, total, and haven't found any TF's headed for those bases by my sea based subs or by Intel.

As I pointed out earlier, right now there is an "11th Division" sitting in Koumac, just north of Noumea, obviously not in the Chinese Theater.  I continually see full strength carrier strikes against land based targets, repeatedly for over a week, against some fairly heavy AA defenses, yet the # of planes never seem to drop.  When I launched a 3 CV ground support airstrike missions against a single SNLF at Makin, my carriers were soon out of fighters after just a few days of combat.

I disagree on the AI knowing where the fighter escorts are; I just moved a fighter squadron to Horn Island after Bettys from Rabaul had hit the base over a week.  The next turn the Bettys returned and were mauled by the fighters; they returned the next day and got hit hard some more, and the third day after as well.  Meanwhile PM has had nearly all its fighters withdrawn yet the Bettys aren't going there.

I can accept a few tweaks and perks given the AI since I expect it to be not nearly as creative and imaginative as a human opponent, but at the same time I want to play a campaign with historic limitations and benefits ON BOTH SIDES to see how my running of the war differs from what actually happened.  If there's too big an advantage (high plane production, no need for oil shipments, etc), what I consider a traditional strategy simply won't work.





[image]local://upfiles/8241/6E10773FAFCE4BE0812E1752F3BDF365.jpg[/image]



Andy Mac -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/4/2009 5:29:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RHoenig

Can an AI-Japan get resources/Oil... without the use of frighters or an AI-Allies get supplies teleported to island garrisons?
If yes, a blockade strategy goes out the window.

No some key nodal bases get small amounts of supply and fuel but not Oil or Resources and this is the same as stock btw

Does the AI get lots and lots of planes for free?
If yes, there is no sense to initiat an attrition air war strategy

The Ai does get boosts to aircraft production at higer difficulty levels but tied to factories i.e. a factory may produce 2 planes on very hard where it only produces 1 on historical - cut off oil/resources HI etc and it produces 0 on all difficulty levels.

There is another situation where the AI can get free aircraft but that should be limited and we are investigating why it appears out of kilter but we all need to take a deep breath and realise we added a lot of new aircraft and added a lot of complexity to aircraft upgrade paths and the AI is a moron and needs some help to make it all work

.






Top Cat -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/4/2009 8:00:57 AM)

Just sent my save file to you Erik.

Don't think it's just a display thing as the AI actually has about 25 squadrons of P40E's at full strength, B17 squadrons have recovered most of their strength etc.

Pearl Harbor is defended by about 200+ fighters.

Glad it's not WAD!


Cheers
Top Cat



BigJ62 -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/4/2009 9:02:54 AM)

It's an upgrade bug not a production bug.



Valgua -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (10/6/2009 9:24:54 AM)

Thank you Erik for the clarification. 



Top Cat -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (12/8/2009 9:20:22 PM)

Did this bug get fixed in the v1.00.95 patch?

Like to get back into my AI game soon!

Cheers
Top Cat



Kwik E Mart -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (12/8/2009 10:25:18 PM)

darn....too bad the dev's squashed the idea of the AI cheating excessively....i was ready to rename it Tiger Woods!



BigJ62 -> RE: AI Cheating Or A Bug? (12/8/2009 11:32:10 PM)

yes


quote:

ORIGINAL: Top Cat

Did this bug get fixed in the v1.00.95 patch?

Like to get back into my AI game soon!

Cheers
Top Cat




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6875