|
Chickenboy -> RE: Very disappointed (10/10/2009 5:54:55 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JWE
quote:
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
quote:
ORIGINAL: stuman
quote:
ORIGINAL: Admiral Scott
Maybe playing on normal difficulty is the way to go.
How good of a game does the AI give you on normal?
I am playing Scen 2, historical and it has been fun so far. I just pulled up the Japanese side ( I am playing as the allies ) and there does not seem to be a bunch of bizarre things going on. Some bases are maybe uncovered, some bases do not have as much aviation support as I have to have, etc . But all in all I do not see any major issues.
Thanks, Stuman. I wonder if my initial settings or switch from initial settings may have caused most of the problems I've identified. I may check out historical settings post patch II.
I think that’s probably true Chickenboy.
It all depends on the degree of difficulty setting for the AI. A “harder” AI isn’t smarter, and it uses the same scripts. It just gets more “stuff” to do its thing with and is allowed to do certain things that a player is not: the harder the setting, the more stuff it gets. It’s just a way to keep it from running out of steam.
What does happen, though, is that once you play on ‘hard’ or ‘very hard’ for a while, you will get that extra “stuff”. Values (amounts) and positions (locations) are written into their datafields in the savegame, and so will still be there if/when you resume a game on the ‘historical’ setting.
Btw, I play in a CPX mode – mostly H2H, but with an open main menu so the umpire can turn on the AI and advance the game for a week or so of turns every now and then. We run into some of the same things, and normally don’t run the AI at anything over ‘historical’ difficulty.
You might try running turns on a schedule - 4-5 on 'historical', then 2-3 on 'hard' or even 'very hard', then back to 'historical'. That would limit the size and scope of the extra "stuff", but would still allow a zinger or two to make life interesting, perhaps.[;)]
Interesting idea-toggling back and forth. I'd never considered that...
I think my greatest disappointment with my findings of AI cheating isn't that the AI was cheating or the way it was cheating, but the fact that these cheats will limit my ability to play the game in a meaningful manner.
For example, I had hoped to, as IRL, use the allies superior production to force a war of attrition with the IJ. I CAN'T do that now. Where IRL malaria and supply issues eroded significant IJA strength throughout the SRA, that just won't happen here, leaving me to find a non-IRL workaround to succeed. My God, I don't even want to think about what will happen when the IJ AI gets limitless Kamikazes, even if they're trained in the 35% range.
Since the AI does not observe LCU HQs or zones, it is unlikely that I will be able to force any sort of land war in Burma early. It may just flood the area with 1000+ AV from the Manchuko garrison. It's not too worried about garrison requirements. About the only thing I can do is continue to swat away superfluous aircraft that shouldn't exist in the aim of furthering my survival in the DEI (particularly Java and Timor). As KB does not require torpedo or sortie replenishment, time to repair damaged airframes or fuel, it can hover for ridiculous amounts of time and pound away at whatever strikes its scripted fancy. There's a point at which I just cannot suspend my disbelief about the attempts to mimic a game. CVL Hermes is a one-shot wonder for torpedo loadout-1 sortie by its air group before torpedo reload is necessary. KB can sit offshore with limitless reserves and attack a port from the air for a week, set afire every ship within 8 hexes, bomb the burning hulks again, depth charge the hulks from the depths and sink them with gunfire.
It doesn't look like the AI gets supernumerary ships or 'made up' LCUs, so my only real chance of gaining victory is to sink large numbers of underescorted troopships and combatants or destroy LCUs in their entirety, to avoid them drawing replacements. While digitally drowning the little binary buggers does provide some satisfaction, it rings hollow.
The way to 'beat' the AI is different than one will 'beat' a human opponent. I had hoped that the path to victory would be somewhat similar. Now I see that that's not possible. Trying to 'out cheat' the AI isn't entertaining. That's my greatest disappointment.
I will reload the GC after patch II and play only the historical settings to see if the planned changes affect AI gameplay.
Thank you very much to all that have listened and commiserated. I appreciate the discussion and advice.
Andy Mac: I appreciate your efforts to make the AI *more* playable than it was with WiTP. It is-you've succeeded as far as I'm concerned. I hope you don't find my commentary here offensive or demeaning to your considerable efforts. You still have a lot of supporters out there that laud your efforts re: the AI. I can only imagine the time and labor that you've put into this beast...
Alright, 'nuff said already. Cheers and see you in the Opponents Wanted section.
|
|
|
|
