|
Rossj -> AE AI O (1/31/2011 12:43:49 AM)
|
I think this is an amazing game
I have played scenario #1 against the AI to conclusion twice, once as the allies and once as Japanese
The AI does a remarkable job, but it could be better in a few areas
#1 Air Raids--the AI will send unescourted bombers against well defended land and BG targets. This usually does not happen the first raid, but the second or third raid of the day may go unescourted. I think there should be a selection criteria (like the supply stockpile option for bases) that allows the human player to specify the minimum raid criteria which if not met, means the raid will not launch. Similarly, the AI opponent should not send such not routinely raids against the human player.
#2 Bombartment missions/amphibious raids--the AI IJN sends suicide raids deep into allied territory which are a great annoyance, but ultimately results in the sinking of many CAs and supporting units. The AI allied player sends bombardment missions against Rabaul, Singapore and other major bases. I am not talking about IJN BBs running the slot. The allied raids appear out of nowhere (I'll address that next), and are usually comprised of one BB, one CA/CL and a destroyer or two. Rabaul has 400+ mines, 200 bombers, and a dozen BBs and CAs. The outcome for the allies was not pretty. I can't imagine the allies planning such a raid in real life, but the AI did it four times in early '43.
#3 Air Search--Air search missions do not appear effective enough. For example, an allied BG bombardment raid came down the Straits of Malacca and attacked Singapore (with suicidal results). I never detected the approach of the raid, which seems preposterous given that I had 32 search aircraft in Singapore with a narrow search arc directly up the strait, another 36 in Georgetown and others on western Sumatra. This may be the most extreme example, but BGs seem to appear out of nowhere regadless of the search posture.
#4 Operational Losses--I know op losses were increased from the previous game, but it may have gone too far. For example, I have 13 Sally units with 362 aircraft. For the last several months they have been used predominantly on supply transport from well developed bases with plenty of support. After 16 month of war here's the loss breakout--637 total with 525 to op losses. Really! More than a plane a day to me seems absurdly high. I do not know what the op loss ratio per sortie is for the game, but I can't imagine that it was that high in real life. I have flown in both U.S. and JMSDF aircraft (albeit 40 years after the war) and I realize a peacetime op tempo and modern maitenance procedures do not serve as a practical measure for op losses in war, but again I say the ratio is far too high.
#5 BG Composition--related to #3--In a climactic battle around Guadalcanal in Fall 1942. the IJN CVBGs took out several US carriers. Ok, fine. There was another battle a few days later. It seemed too easy to take out the three carriers of the CVBG so I replayed the turn to see the allied CVBG composition, which was three fresh carriers and two destroyers. Why would the AI send such a poorly defended group into battle? A solution similar to that suggested in #3, could be used in that minimum requirements should be set for certain types of BGs.
|
|
|
|
