AI feedback (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

MCKClaudi -> AI feedback (5/12/2004 7:48:24 PM)

As much as I love to read the great AARs here, I will mostly be playing this game solitaire. So feedback on the AI from the betatesters, would be much appriciated.

For example in UV the AI never used long-range cap. Does it use it now?



Iron Duke -> RE: AI feedback (5/12/2004 8:06:43 PM)

Hi,

Are any of the beta testers doing any games against the AI ? If they are can they post some AAR's or some brief overview of there experiences with/against the AI.

Cheers



siRkid -> RE: AI feedback (5/12/2004 11:31:23 PM)

I managed to get in about 50 turns against the Jap AI. I did not analyze every aspect of the game but I can give you my impressions.

First, I was very impressed with the management of air assets. The AI was aggressive in using its forward air bases and was constantly attacking my air bases where I was trying to re-group. I was forced back turn after turn.

Invasions, the AI did a fair job of covering its invasion forces with both air and sea assets. Occasionally I would catch an unprotected convoy.

ASW, the AI was ok at chasing down my subs but I was not too concerned.

Land combat, once again very aggressive but every now and then the AI had good odds and elected to bombard.

Overall I would rate the AI as very good during the first 50 turns. After that, I can't say.



MCKClaudi -> RE: AI feedback (5/12/2004 11:56:53 PM)

Thanks Kid. Looks promising. I tend to roleplay as much as I 'warplay' a game like WITP. That makes me a lousy PBEM player, so the AI has to make do. Thats my excuse anyway [8D]



Iron Duke -> RE: AI feedback (5/13/2004 12:38:15 AM)

Thanks Kid, are there any plans to further test the AI or are you/beta test team concentrating on PBEM play ?

Cheers



Damien Thorn -> RE: AI feedback (5/13/2004 5:12:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid
but every now and then the AI had good odds and elected to bombard.



I hope the AI get's to know the odds automatically. Afterall, it is only fair because we humans can determine the odds after the first bmbardment attack. I wouldn't mind a little AI cheating here to help level the playing field.



Nikademus -> RE: AI feedback (5/13/2004 7:15:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

Thanks Kid, are there any plans to further test the AI or are you/beta test team concentrating on PBEM play ?

Cheers


we are doing all three types....PBEM, Human vs AI....and AI vs AI



siRkid -> RE: AI feedback (5/13/2004 8:07:15 PM)

We are always testing the AI. The testers often report on moves by the AI that were not logical and those are acted on. We run a lot of AI vs. AI games (which save every turn) and analyze the results. However, I don't think anyone has finished the campaign against the AI.



byron13 -> RE: AI feedback (5/13/2004 9:10:21 PM)

In fact no one has completed a campaign period.

I think we all need to contribute to a pool for the first person to complete a campaign game. Of course, Mog would be the winner, but an accomplishment of such magnitude deserves some kind of reward. In my "great achievements" list, I rank finishing the campaign game just above the U.S.'s lunar program and just below finding the Holy Grail which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been accomplished yet either.



tiredoftryingnames -> RE: AI feedback (5/13/2004 9:33:01 PM)

I've gotten to 1943 but that was by playing 3 day turns and I wasn't as detailed in ordered giving as I normally would. I was just testing things and seeing how things developed. But while in alpha it wasn't long before we had to start over due to a change that invalidated saves. I hope to try again now that we're in beta.



barbarrossa -> RE: AI feedback (5/13/2004 9:43:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiredoftryingnames

I've gotten to 1943 but that was by playing 3 day turns and I wasn't as detailed in ordered giving as I normally would. I was just testing things and seeing how things developed. But while in alpha it wasn't long before we had to start over due to a change that invalidated saves. I hope to try again now that we're in beta.


No, no, everything's just fine[:)]

Let's go GOLD and ship![:D]



brisd -> RE: AI feedback (5/14/2004 12:43:47 AM)

What is the max turn settings (3 days?) for WITP? Perhaps someone can put game into fast play mode AI vs AI and let it play out war on a dedicated pc. Curious what kind of numbers and results come out.



barbarrossa -> RE: AI feedback (5/14/2004 1:00:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brisd

What is the max turn settings (3 days?) for WITP? Perhaps someone can put game into fast play mode AI vs AI and let it play out war on a dedicated pc. Curious what kind of numbers and results come out.



That's a really good idea!



Mike Wood -> RE: AI feedback (5/14/2004 2:04:38 AM)

Hello...

Joel Billings has been doing that for play balance and has finished a number of games. I haven't asked him how things turned out, though.

Bye...

Michael Wood


quote:

ORIGINAL: brisd

What is the max turn settings (3 days?) for WITP? Perhaps someone can put game into fast play mode AI vs AI and let it play out war on a dedicated pc. Curious what kind of numbers and results come out.



Mike Scholl -> RE: AI feedback (5/14/2004 3:39:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

I managed to get in about 50 turns against the Jap AI. I did not analyze every aspect of the game but I can give you my impressions.

First, I was very impressed with the management of air assets. The AI was aggressive in using its forward air bases and was constantly attacking my air bases where I was trying to re-group. I was forced back turn after turn.

Invasions, the AI did a fair job of covering its invasion forces with both air and sea assets. Occasionally I would catch an unprotected convoy.

ASW, the AI was ok at chasing down my subs but I was not too concerned.

Land combat, once again very aggressive but every now and then the AI had good odds and elected to bombard.

Overall I would rate the AI as very good during the first 50 turns. After that, I can't say.

KID This is quite re-assuring. If the AI couldn't handle the initial Japanese Attack in at
least a competant fashion, the rest of the game would be meaningless. Have you or
anyone else you know tried the reverse? Can the AI play the Allies effectively during
this period? Or does it just throw away it's assets in mindless aggression to give the
illusion of "resistance"? This was a problem in UV.



siRkid -> RE: AI feedback (5/14/2004 5:59:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

I managed to get in about 50 turns against the Jap AI. I did not analyze every aspect of the game but I can give you my impressions.

First, I was very impressed with the management of air assets. The AI was aggressive in using its forward air bases and was constantly attacking my air bases where I was trying to re-group. I was forced back turn after turn.

Invasions, the AI did a fair job of covering its invasion forces with both air and sea assets. Occasionally I would catch an unprotected convoy.

ASW, the AI was ok at chasing down my subs but I was not too concerned.

Land combat, once again very aggressive but every now and then the AI had good odds and elected to bombard.

Overall I would rate the AI as very good during the first 50 turns. After that, I can't say.

KID This is quite re-assuring. If the AI couldn't handle the initial Japanese Attack in at
least a competant fashion, the rest of the game would be meaningless. Have you or
anyone else you know tried the reverse? Can the AI play the Allies effectively during
this period? Or does it just throw away it's assets in mindless aggression to give the
illusion of "resistance"? This was a problem in UV.


In the two years I've been playing UV and the 1.5 years of WitP I have never once played the Japanese. As a retired navy man, I can't stand the thought of sinking American ships.[sm=00000116.gif]



brisd -> RE: AI feedback (5/14/2004 8:39:13 AM)

As a retired navy man, I've no problem sinking the vessels of ANY navy! One reason is I was playing wargames years before I became a sailor and I played all sides in those games. And the more I read about our former enemies, the more respect I gained for their individual valor and skill in the face of overwelming odds. I suppose I have a soft spot for tragic situations (I prefer the Trojans over the Greeks for example). I served on two WW2 veteran Navy ships and I have a deep respect for those who served in USN before me but I am a gamer too [;)].

I figured the designers had set up some tests to see how the AI did over the 4 year period. Does anyone else have an answer to how many days can be in a turn???



siRkid -> RE: AI feedback (5/14/2004 12:59:35 PM)

quote:

I figured the designers had set up some tests to see how the AI did over the 4 year period. Does anyone else have an answer to how many days can be in a turn???


Three



Damien Thorn -> RE: AI feedback (5/14/2004 10:07:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

quote:

I figured the designers had set up some tests to see how the AI did over the 4 year period. Does anyone else have an answer to how many days can be in a turn???


Three


I thought turns could be up to 7 days (not that anyone played that, but hey). It's been reduced down to three?



Nikademus -> RE: AI feedback (5/14/2004 10:10:29 PM)

It was determined through AAR test, that 3 day turns were pretty much the practical limit from a functionality basis. using three day turns was quite a challenge in that it required much planning ahead, reliance on your "subordinantes" (i.e. the tacAI) and a bit of luck.

Furthermore dont think there was ever anyone who played turns longer than 2-3 days per. Thus the decision was made to trim the turn variance from 1-7 + continuous to 1-3 days + continuous



brisd -> RE: AI feedback (5/15/2004 1:01:57 AM)

Thanks for the info guys!



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.5