Dumb AI Base defense

Dumb AI Base defense (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support

Message

EricLarsen -> Dumb AI Base defense (11/12/2002 11:30:12 PM)
After making quite a few successful invasions against the AI I've noticed one really glaring stupid thing the AI always does, it bombards every turn! On the first turn or two or three the AI actually may cause more casualties than it receives, but I've noticed that most times after a few days the AI starts losing more troops due to it's own bombardment than the enemy does. But the reason this is really stupid AI behavior is that it gives the human player exact info on what troops are defending the base and their current strength. Even recon doesn't give a player this kind of detailed combat strength info, it just reveals unit names and if not many units are there an approximate troop, gun, and vehicle count. But bombarding with base troops reveals just how strong or weak that force really is and gives away too much information for the limited results gained. Another fault I've noticed with base defense is that there is no way to attack the invaders on the beaches on the first day of an invasion - ie no Rommel rule! There should be a setting to allow forces defending a base to attack the beaches on the first day. I certainly wouldn't want to see this game system used to recreate the Normandy invasion as there would be no way to eumulate a possible Rommel defense of the beaches on the first day. It would make the AI play much better if the AI was precluded from performing any land bombardment attacks. Making the AI do something for the sake of making it look busy just doesn't cut it for making the AI a better opponent. In the case of defending a base being invaded it would be much better to let it sit tight and play defense only. That way a human player would have to guess how strong the AI is at a base when making land attacks and wouldn't be given room service by having the AI reveal it's true combat strength beforehand and allowng the human player a much easier time of guessing when the time's ripe to start attacking. Eric Larsen

Yamamoto -> (11/13/2002 2:19:42 AM)
Even if the AI didn't bombard, you the player could bombard one day and get the same intelligence info. Yamamoto

John Lansford -> (11/13/2002 6:05:25 AM)
The invading troops can't attack until the day after they have landed either, so I guess there's no harm in keeping the defenders from fighting on Day One. There's no way to conduct a Tarawa-like invasion right now; the invaders land, then once they are on the beach they conduct an attack. There should be some option that allows an attack on the first day, as well as an active defense for that matter.

EricLarsen -> Another fly in the ointment (11/13/2002 10:03:50 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto [B]Even if the AI didn't bombard, you the player could bombard one day and get the same intelligence info. Yamamoto [/B] Yamamoto, After I posted that I realized that I could also do it with my bombardment attack. I didn't realize we had smart precision weapons with tv cameras onbaord back in WW2. That's an aweful lot of "intel" one can gather from a bombardment attack and that is wrong as well. While it's appropriate for actual attacks to get such detailed combat strength and unit identity intel, it sure stretches the imagination that a bombardment attack would give such insight into enemy dispositions. The ground part of the game still needs improvement as far as making ground combats more realistic. Eric Larsen

Widi -> (11/13/2002 10:12:46 PM)
Hell, everything could be improved to be more "realistic". But realism is not exactly the issue here. The issue is what game comes closest to the real thing while remaining fun to play. IMHO . . . UV > most games And certainly UV > ALL for the conflict represented (time period and theater of operations).

EricLarsen -> More realistic invasions (11/13/2002 10:13:08 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Lansford [B]The invading troops can't attack until the day after they have landed either, so I guess there's no harm in keeping the defenders from fighting on Day One. There's no way to conduct a Tarawa-like invasion right now; the invaders land, then once they are on the beach they conduct an attack. There should be some option that allows an attack on the first day, as well as an active defense for that matter. [/B] John, I sure hope someone on the UV team reads these comments and takes them to heart, and hopefully into improving the ground combat for UV and especially WitP. I mean there's absolutely no fight for the beaches on the first day, every invasion is a guaranteed success on the first vulnerable day. Invading troops should have to fight their way onto the beaches on the first day to see if they make a successful landing or not. Defenders should have an ability to strike back that first day as well, though it shouldn't be with the whole garrison since it wouldn't be realistic to expect that all defenders could make it to the invasion beach the first day. The main thing is that programming the AI to always make bombardment attacks so it looks busy is bad programming. They could improve the AI base defense a whole bunch by making it sit tight if it doesn't have the strength to conduct a good deliberate attack. I had one case where I had 1 regiment march into Lae, held by no less than 15 regiments, and on the second turn the AI conducted a deliberate attack. Had I not had 2 more regiments and a tank battalion march in that second day my first regiment would have been defeated and most likely retreated. That was a case of a good try by the AI to make a ground attack to defend the base when it did have the numbers at the time it decided to make the attack. Eric Larsen

Sonny -> (11/13/2002 10:18:18 PM)
This goes along with the "TF retreating from enemy carriers" information which should not be shown to either side (and of course your TF should not retreat from enemy carriers unless you have spotted one). Also you can figure the makeup of a TF you have spotted sometimes if you see CA CA BB CA DD DD DD you know that is not how the information would be shown if the BB was really there because it would be at the beginning of the list. Seems like we should see less of some information (as stated above and in previous posts) and more of some other kinds of information (approx direction & speed of spotted TFs etc.).:)

EricLarsen -> Info problems (11/14/2002 5:21:16 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny [B]This goes along with the "TF retreating from enemy carriers" information which should not be shown to either side (and of course your TF should not retreat from enemy carriers unless you have spotted one). Also you can figure the makeup of a TF you have spotted sometimes if you see CA CA BB CA DD DD DD you know that is not how the information would be shown if the BB was really there because it would be at the beginning of the list. Seems like we should see less of some information (as stated above and in previous posts) and more of some other kinds of information (approx direction & speed of spotted TFs etc.).:) [/B] Sonny, Yeah getting the intel right is a tough nut to crack, but it really makes a gmae if it's done right. I agree we should be seeing something regarding speed and direction since that was also info passed along with sighting reports and yet we don't get this historical kind of info in our search reports. Also if we can see some approximate listing of ground units you'd think that a recon flight over a port would give us some kind of approximate listing of ships in port, even if it's compressed like planes to show say warships-transports-auxiliaries. When naval search pilots get shot down and killed the program reveals the base it flew from, and in some cases it reveals an unspotted taskforce where the spotting reports don't show it on the map yet the little white circle goes right to the hex where the "unspotted" tf is located. I had that save my behind once when that revealed that I was being spotted from an apparantly empty hex, and on the next turn I was ready to intercept and sink several carriers where had I not seen it I would not have known I had unexpected dinner guests approaching and would have been base bombing while I was being bombed myself by carriers. I guess the shot down naval search boys are radioing the enemy where they came from, huh? But being able to see the enemy dispositions and strength in such detail from an enemy ground bombardment is a bit much. Certainly it would reveal some artillery locations for counterbattery fire but it wouldn't reveal all the ground troops and their strengths, not even today with our precision smart artillery shells. Eric Larsen

strollen -> (11/15/2002 7:41:04 PM)
Eric has identified 3 of my 5 biggest beefs in the fog of war. 1. Ground combat gives way to much information. 2. Port recon gives way to little information. 3. The spotting order allows a human to know there was misidentification. 4. The opposing side shouldn't see message about mine attacks 5. Unspotted ships in surface combat should remain unspotted in the combat reports.

EricLarsen -> Don't forget search plane shootdown (11/19/2002 10:53:32 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by strollen [B]Eric has identified 3 of my 5 biggest beefs in the fog of war. 1. Ground combat gives way to much information. 2. Port recon gives way to little information. 3. The spotting order allows a human to know there was misidentification. 4. The opposing side shouldn't see message about mine attacks 5. Unspotted ships in surface combat should remain unspotted in the combat reports. [/B] strollen, Don't forget how the program shows us where search planes come from when they're shot down. Most of the time they launch from a ground base and it's not too revealing, but on occasion I have noted that unspotted tf's that launch search planes that get shot down have the hex the unspotted tf is in highlighted. That gives away too much info. If the program shows where search planes come from when they're shot down why not show where every plane comes from that gets shot down? Please get rid of this unseemly showing of where search planes come from when they get shot down as it is just way too much intel for the situation. Eric Larsen

Wilhammer -> (11/20/2002 3:36:09 AM)
My understanding is that the DEFENSE has a big advantage in Invasions in UV in that it CAN order an attack on the first day on invaders. How? Simply take your force and order a deliberate attack, even if no enemy is in the hex, and when they do invade, you got 'em, and they can't shoot back!

EricLarsen -> First day attack clarification (11/20/2002 11:12:58 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer [B]My understanding is that the DEFENSE has a big advantage in Invasions in UV in that it CAN order an attack on the first day on invaders. How? Simply take your force and order a deliberate attack, even if no enemy is in the hex, and when they do invade, you got 'em, and they can't shoot back! [/B] Wilhammer, I think your understanding needs a little work. The offense has a big advantage in an invasion because on the first day of landing troops the base defender can not set his units to attack. The function is grayed out until after the attacker lands units on the base. That means on the first day of invasion all the defender can do is sit tight and do nothing. On the first day AFTER enemy troops are landed at a base the defender can finally order an attack which is usually too late. There is no way to set base defenders to "Attack" prior to a landing so that the defenders attack on the first day that invaders land. There must be an enemy unit in the hex at the beginning of the turn before the attack option becomes functional! Eric Larsen

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.65625