Strange AI behavior in 2.30 (Full Version)

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



Message

ADavidB -> Strange AI behavior in 2.30 (3/19/2003 7:39:39 AM)

I was playing a game of scenario 17 today against the AI. Mid-June, the AI was doing it's "Godzilla" routine with its carriers around NG, while I was sitting back, resting my pilots and waiting for a chance, when the AI's carrier TF wnet into the hex for PM!

Huh? I thought that GG wrote the code so that the AI wouldn't put carrier TFs in coastal and port hexes, let alone right in enemy controlled port hexes.

There was nothing much to shoot up, so the AI pulled back its carriers to rest them and repair the losses obtained against my air defenses. Then, with its carriers off north somewhere, the AI sent in bombardment TFs, followed by transport TFs. Unfortunately for it, I had lots of subs around the "corner" of NG, and my carrier TF parked 3 hexes southeast of PM.

I've never seen an Allied Air TF get so many hits on combat TFs - even the Devestators were going out time and again, and even getting hits while not getting shot down. And these were hits on BBs and CAs, not on "little stuff". I stayed out for 3 or 4 days, until all the AI's TFs sank or limped away, then sent my TF south for some well deserved R&R. Sure enough, at that point the AI came back with TWO Carrier TFs, which proceded to pound PM. I didn't take the bait, and within a couple of turns, one of the AI's Air TFs [U]again[/U] sailed into PM harbor, while the second Air TF sat outside.

For once my land-based tac bombers from Oz started to pester the AIs Air TFs, and they went back north. Then, the AI started to send big transport TFs toward PM again, again without air cover. Between my surface combat TFs, my LBA and my now rested carrier TF, I flamed dozens of ships and easily pushed into the sea the pitful few troops who landed, despite constant air bombardment of PM.

I still can't figure out why the AI's AC TFs went into PM harbor. I even think that the air attack it tried was at half strength, as is supposed to happen close to land.

This is an odd game at times, but still lots of fun.

Dave Baranyi



Leahi -> (3/19/2003 8:59:32 AM)

Yeah, I'm not real impressed by the AI either. PBEM is undoubtedly the way to get the best out of this excellent game.

I was playing sc.#17 as Japanese and the US AI managed to lose five of its CV's v. two of the IJN's CV's in the first couple of months. Then, inexplicably, the US sent a force of CA's right into Lunga (which I'd taken), even though it was defended by an IJN surface combat TF including BB's. The US ships not lost in that battle were picked off by IJN CV and LB air the next day. It's now late August and I have Guadalcanal, Luganville and Efate, five CV and CVL's, and wonder if it's worth playing on.

Kind of a mirror image of this happened with v2.2 when I played Allies v. Japanese AI. Not criticizing the game, since it must be nearly impossible to set up a good AI opponent in a game this massive. But, again, it does appear that PBEM -- as some of you already warned me -- is definitely the way to go.



Drex -> (3/19/2003 10:41:53 AM)

i just started a game with the AI (to fill in between pbem games) and sure enough the AI CV TF came right into PM but didn't accomplish anything as I had pulled out any ships. Why would even bother to enter the base hex?



bradfordkay -> (3/19/2003 12:24:27 PM)

Does any one here play with the computer controlling their subs? I recall my first game and it looked like they all had set courses straight for Rabaul and Truk. I didn't want my subs docking in their ports so I switched to human control and haven't looked back.

My point is that maybe the AI just sets course for a port and then returns. I have seen the CV TF entering PM before, but it was in concert with the invasion force (the Lex was crawling home while the Yorktown joined Davey Jones in his locker), so I didn't pay it much attention. Is it that most TFs are given orders to go to a port, whereupon they either return to base or receive fresh orders?



Leahi -> (3/19/2003 12:40:22 PM)

I've played a number of games vs. AI, both as Japanese and Americans, and I always leave the subs under computer control. I've been very pleased with the results in all cases.

In my current game as IJN vs. American computer (v. 2.30) I've been amazed at the Japanese sub successes. In previous games with 2.20, as Americans vs IJN computer, I also was pleased with computer-controlled sub warfare. That's why I'm afraid to take over the subs myself.

I haven't seen any indication that the subs just set course for any particular port and docked or returned. They seemed to disperse to good hunting grounds quite well.



bradfordkay -> (3/19/2003 12:50:05 PM)

Okay, that shoots that theory all to pieces... I honestly didn't think that they would dock, but it did look to me like they were headed into the port hexes. Probably they would have stopped one hex shy of the destination. I think I recall someone once saying that they are then given orders to head for another enemy port, ad nauseum until fuel or torps give out.



Drex -> (3/19/2003 9:59:34 PM)

I'vetried computer controlled subs but got tired of seeing them bypass juicy targets of opportunity so now I compromise and move them manually and if a target comes along I switch them to computer control becasue it seems it will follow the target better.



djoosten -> (3/21/2003 1:46:42 AM)

When you have subs going into port hexes its mostly to lay mines actually. I have watched mine doing this, and i left them computer controlled and the Japs have gotten 4 occations that they hit a MK10 mine, one hit a CV entering port for repairs, afterwards it sunk thanks to the finishing mine :D

And got CL and CA class hitting the mines they lay. This never happend when i played in 2.20, or very rare, but seems they finally do something good :)

Btw to get ride of the Bombard TF's just put mines into your own port and they will hit one or two and dont come back for at least a week or two and do it all over again!

If you got some P400's then based with Naval attack at 100 feet they will do some great damage to any CA, CL's from that TF ... i have had 7 of these fights and only lost 2 planes and put 5 CA's on heavy damage and 3 CL's ... talk about not figuring this out before, the mighty 37mm cannon seems to me stricking hard :)



panda124c -> (3/21/2003 8:11:58 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by djoosten
[B]
If you got some P400's then based with Naval attack at 100 feet they will do some great damage to any CA, CL's from that TF ... i have had 7 of these fights and only lost 2 planes and put 5 CA's on heavy damage and 3 CL's ... talk about not figuring this out before, the mighty 37mm cannon seems to me stricking hard :) [/B][/QUOTE]
The export version (bought by England only) of the P-39 (P-400) had the 37mm gun replaced with a 20mm. The US grabed about 200 P-400s (due to be shipped to England) at the time of Pearl Harbor to make up for the UAAF's shortage of aircraft.

Actually I believe that there are way to many P-400 squadrons in UV (they should be P-39s).

The 37mm should be real good against barges too.



Heeward -> P 400 (3/22/2003 8:55:15 AM)

The P-400 was the export version of the P-39 complete with the Hispano M1 20mm cannon with 60 rounds Two .50 MG in the nose and 4 .303 MG in the wings
The 20mm replaced the Oldsmobile 37mm.

In USAAC the .303 MG replaced were replaced by .30 MG.

Of a order of 675 Airacobra MKIl, 212 to USSR, 174 taken over by USAAC after Dec 7, 1941.

Of the remaining 289 Airacobra MK 1 a majority were shipped to Australia.



alphakilroy -> US CV under 2.30 (3/22/2003 3:04:52 PM)

I've had stupid CV activity under 2.30 also. Playing US vers AI I had a carrier task around Gili Gili around June 42 forget the exact date, but every time I set the CV T/F to patrol do not retire and clicked end turn the next turn it would be sailing right into Rabaul.



Leahi -> (3/22/2003 3:18:06 PM)

Setting the TF to "do not react to enemy" can prevent that, I believe.



ADavidB -> More strangeness (3/22/2003 9:19:01 PM)

I tried out the game in which the Japanese start out with all of NG and the Solomons, and the AI did the same thing - send out it's CV TFs, hang around the South Eastern side of NG, then sail into the PM hex during a turn. Of course, this time the AI owned PM, but that got me thinking that maybe it was mixing up possession in the other scenario.

BTW, for the kind commentator who mentioned about p-39/P-400 on naval attack at 100 feet - it's hard to do that when the AI is sailer "uber TFs" around with several hundred plane CAPs and hitting the airbase with several hundred bombers. But of course, the AI won't do what a PBEM player would do, and go down to kick the stuffing out of my Australian bases, so it doesn't really matter.

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi



dtx -> AI & Unpredictability (3/26/2003 3:57:22 AM)

The AI does unpredictable things at times - and not always the smartest thing - but it is reflective of how the war was actually conducted. Military leaders often do, what in retrospect looks stupid. The software could be hard coded to force the AI to only take limited actions and be much more linear in the actions it takes, but this would reduce much of the replayability of the game.

Some games against the Jap AI go remarkably easy, other times I've found I'm hanging on to PM by a thread. Unpredictability in the AI leads to non-linear game play and helps keep the game refreshing.

Getting AI to be unpredictable, yet still challenging, is probably one of the most difficult programming challenges. Quite a few years ago, I read that the more complicated the AI, the more difficult it was to make the AI aggressive. Is this (still) true?
Speculating - maybe pushing the AI to be aggressive causes the sometimes illogical actions?



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.328125