Stupid AI and a couple of questions (Full Version)

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



Message

Toast -> Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/9/2005 10:01:57 PM)

Just have to comment on the AI's strategic decisions or lack thereof (not that I was expecting much):

I started Scenario 13 (May 1, 1942 start) a month ago (my first full map scenario) as Japanese and after siezing Guadacanal and reinforming with infranty and artillery the AI invaded with the 1st USMC Division and Americal Division and in the attempt to supply them, I massacred his fleet (3 CV's, 6 battleships and large number of CA's and CL's sunk) and stopped his supply and was able to force the surrender of the two divisions (he was never able to supply his landing force after the initial invasion. Since then I have been reparing my ships and using PP's to build up an invasion force for Port Moseby. He has been using hit and run tactics with the Wasp (his only operational carrier) when he blundered it the KB off Guadacanal covering the shifting of experienced troops out to participate in the Port Moseby operation and replcing them with less experienced troops to defend. The first turn I did not spot him and he jumped on a desstroyer ASW TF but instead of retreating he hung around and the KB just massacred him. Nice opening to the Port Moseby operation. I am learning alot of the mechanics from this fist full map game but man, is the AI not challenging at all! I may be ready for a PBEM game.

My questions relate to scenario choice and what to do with a damaged ship:

First, in the battles of resupply, one of my Battleships got plastered (by a CA of all things) in a night surface engagement. It made it back to Truk and repaired all float damage but it's system damaged is st above 50 and being repaired slowing in Truk. At what point is it safe to sail her back to the Home Islands, system damage-wise?

Second, why is everyone enamored of the Dec 7 scenario? It seems to me it doesn't get interesting until mid-1942 anyway so why not start out then. Coral Sea and Midway were the first real big Japanese mistakes and this scenario allows you to correct those mistakes without having to go through all the house rules for the first turn surprise and all that controvesry and also get into real fighting to start out instead of watching the Japanese push all over the place without being able to do anything about it (or having much of a challenge for the Japanese. What is the attraction of the Dec 7th or even hte Dec 8th scenarios? Am I missing something?



Mr.Frag -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/9/2005 10:07:56 PM)

quote:

First, in the battles of resupply, one of my Battleships got plastered (by a CA of all things) in a night surface engagement. It made it back to Truk and repaired all float damage but it's system damaged is st above 50 and being repaired slowing in Truk. At what point is it safe to sail her back to the Home Islands, system damage-wise?


You can move any ship safely once it has no fire or floatation damage

quote:

What is the attraction of the Dec 7th or even hte Dec 8th scenarios? Am I missing something?


Yes, you are missing the very reason people play war games ... to start *before* the stupid mistakes and not make them! [;)]



DrewMatrix -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/9/2005 10:10:07 PM)

I like the Dec 8 scenario. It has as fait accompli the difficult to simulate surprise attacks of Dec 7 but otherwise gives you the start of the war.

I agree there is a lot to be said for starting in early 1942, but starting in Dec 1941 gives you the chance to (as the allies) play on the defense before going on the offense and vice versa for the Japanese (who have pretty much hit high water mark by 5 1942).

It also gives you control over training and upgrading units, and which bases to pour supplies and troops into. As the Allies for example I enjoy deciding where in Burma I will try to hold the line against the Japanese onslaught. Training pilots starting very early seems key to the Japanese, btw.

And (as the Allies) I like getting to pick which unit cadres I try to save from the DEI/PI. Those scraps (many taken out by submarine) eventually by Jan 1943 are full or substantial units.



tsimmonds -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/9/2005 10:10:39 PM)

quote:

Yes, you are missing the very reason people play war games ... to start *before* the stupid mistakes and not make them!

To avoid making the mistakes of history, and instead make all new ones!



mlees -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/9/2005 10:10:51 PM)

quote:

First, in the battles of resupply, one of my Battleships got plastered (by a CA of all things) in a night surface engagement. It made it back to Truk and repaired all float damage but it's system damaged is st above 50 and being repaired slowing in Truk. At what point is it safe to sail her back to the Home Islands, system damage-wise?

Once Float damage is down to 0 your safe to go. However, the more SYS damage a ship has, the slower it sails. Wait till it gets below fifty, or you'll be moving only one hex a day.

Second, why is everyone enamored of the Dec 7 scenario? It seems to me it doesn't get interesting until mid-1942 anyway so why not start out then. Coral Sea and Midway were the first real big Japanese mistakes and this scenario allows you to correct those mistakes without having to go through all the house rules for the first turn surprise and all that controvesry and also get into real fighting to start out instead of watching the Japanese push all over the place without being able to do anything about it (or having much of a challenge for the Japanese. What is the attraction of the Dec 7th or even hte Dec 8th scenarios? Am I missing something?

Allows for a greater variety of strategies and such like to be in motion by mid '42.



tsimmonds -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/9/2005 10:12:25 PM)

quote:

Wait till it gets below fifty, or you'll be moving only one hex a day.

You can always move at least two hexes per day (one per phase).



Toast -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/9/2005 10:14:11 PM)

The worst mistakes the Japanese made were after May 1st, 1942, so Scenario 13 gives you the chance to make all your own stupid mistakes without having to see if you can get Singapore and Manilla to surrender earlier than historically or the tedium of capturing all the DEI bases.

OK, OK, I know that is entirely opinionated and the fact that I play this game shows that I am more concerned with tedium and unimaginable detail than 99% of the human population. I guess I am more interested in the war mid-1942 on. That is where most of the intersting action is to me and I was wondering if there was anyone else who agreed.

Reading this over I should amend my statement, the worst mistakes the Japanese made after starting the war were made post May 1st, 1942. Starting the war at all and thinking they had any chance at all was the worst mistake of all.



mlees -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/9/2005 10:18:35 PM)

Day? Did I say day? Sigh. That comes from trying to be first with my posts.

Still, if he's close to fifty, waiting those few extra days will double his move rate.



Tristanjohn -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/9/2005 10:26:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

First, in the battles of resupply, one of my Battleships got plastered (by a CA of all things) in a night surface engagement. It made it back to Truk and repaired all float damage but it's system damaged is st above 50 and being repaired slowing in Truk. At what point is it safe to sail her back to the Home Islands, system damage-wise?


You can move any ship safely once it has no fire or floatation damage

quote:

What is the attraction of the Dec 7th or even hte Dec 8th scenarios? Am I missing something?


Yes, you are missing the very reason people play war games ... to start *before* the stupid mistakes and not make them! [;)]


No. Make others! [:D]



Mr.Frag -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/9/2005 10:27:34 PM)

quote:

Starting the war at all and thinking they had any chance at all was the worst mistake of all.


Remember that the war was forced onto Japan by an embargo to try and stop their aggression in China. There are two sides to every story. Someone just misjudged the effect of the embargo. [;)]



Tristanjohn -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/9/2005 10:30:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toast

The worst mistakes the Japanese made were after May 1st, 1942, so Scenario 13 gives you the chance to make all your own stupid mistakes without having to see if you can get Singapore and Manilla to surrender earlier than historically or the tedium of capturing all the DEI bases.

OK, OK, I know that is entirely opinionated and the fact that I play this game shows that I am more concerned with tedium and unimaginable detail than 99% of the human population. I guess I am more interested in the war mid-1942 on. That is where most of the intersting action is to me and I was wondering if there was anyone else who agreed.

Reading this over I should amend my statement, the worst mistakes the Japanese made after starting the war were made post May 1st, 1942. Starting the war at all and thinking they had any chance at all was the worst mistake of all.


Amen.



Toast -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/9/2005 10:36:46 PM)

Yeah and WWII in Europe was started by aggressive Polish soldiers threatening German territorial integrity by crossing the Polish-German border and attacking German border guards. I always forget about those. [:D]



Grotius -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/9/2005 10:48:17 PM)

I find the first six months of the war VERY interesting, at least as interesting as late 1942, when the tide is already turning. And more interesting than 1944 or 1945. More generally, I like the idea of playing a war with an ebb and flow: each side gets to play some offense and defense.

Don't knock the first six months til you try it! The campaign in the Phillipines is one that I'd never encountered in a wargame before, and I find challenges for both sides there; even if the ultimate outcome isn't in doubt, the cost and time required for Japanese conquest certainly is. The longer Japan takes, the worse its position elsewhere. Same with the DEI: taking the DEI efficiently, as Japan, against a good human PBEM player seems like a pretty good challenge to me. Yes, Japan will ordinarily prevail -- but *how* will it do so, and how fast? At what cost? You need the DEI, and rather quickly, to reverse the rather alarming decline in Japanese oil reserves, a decline that starts on turn 1.

I suspect another reason so many of us like the full-war scenario is that we're UV vets, and we've already played May 1942 thru 1943 to death.



Toast -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/9/2005 10:57:48 PM)

I didn't think about hte people who have been playing UV for so long. That does make a lot of sense, though.

I think I am about ready to start a PBEM game (can't start until after I take a road trip from Jacksonville, FL to Portland, OR starting next week though) and the Dec 7th scenario just has not looked that appealing to me and I was wondering if anyone else was playing this scenario and what the interest level would be. I think I would need to play a few months of the full war scenario before I would feel comfortable with it though and I was getting bored playing the AI. But I am willing to give it a try if the consensus is that it is worth it. I was just anxious to start playing a person soon.



DrewMatrix -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/9/2005 10:58:59 PM)

"Winning the Battle" isn't the only thing generals are called on to do. Sometimes "minimzing the disaster" is in the job description.

If you regard wargames as a test of your ability to be a real-life commander (that is what I like about them - a "be a commander" simulator) then skill at evacuating a few key units from the Phillippines and losing the Phillippines slowly enough to severely derange the Japanese schedule may be examples of superb generalship you can pull off.

An artful slow retreat can be as elegant as a planned invasion.



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/10/2005 5:12:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Starting the war at all and thinking they had any chance at all was the worst mistake of all.


Remember that the war was forced onto Japan by an embargo to try and stop their aggression in China...

"Forced onto"? Backed into a corner, maybe.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/10/2005 1:50:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Starting the war at all and thinking they had any chance at all was the worst mistake of all.


Remember that the war was forced onto Japan by an embargo to try and stop their aggression in China. There are two sides to every story. Someone just misjudged the effect of the embargo. [;)]


I get really tired of seeing this nonsense....The War was forced onto Japan by her own
army deciding it wanted to conquer China back in 1937.....Japan had no "right" to the
output of US Factories, mines, or wells....and the US had every right to restrict the flow
of it's goods to the Japanese while they were engaged in the "China Adventure"---es-
pecially after the pictures of the Rape of Nanking and other attrocities got around.



freeboy -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/10/2005 3:41:12 PM)

Political nuances aside Japan did bring the war to her doorstep by attacking China and alienating the west... and rightly saw the US/Brits as former colonial expansionist powers
and JUSTIFIED, at least to themselves these attrocities, wars and conquests, by this view.. ie "they did this so we can too"



Mr.Frag -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/10/2005 4:50:56 PM)

quote:

and the US had every right to restrict the flow
of it's goods to the Japanese while they were engaged in the "China Adventure"---es-
pecially after the pictures of the Rape of Nanking and other attrocities got around.


Ah, but it was perfectly ok for the USA to stand by and do nothing as Europe was trashed? Lets not play the morale card when it comes to USA actions during WWII. [;)]



erstad -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/10/2005 4:58:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Ah, but it was perfectly ok for the USA to stand by and do nothing as Europe was trashed? Lets not play the morale card when it comes to USA actions during WWII. [;)]


I think you meant "moral card" not "morale card"

The "morale card" is where the US had to roll the die to see the number of crisis spots where it invervened would be reduced by 25%. [:D]



rtrapasso -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/10/2005 5:03:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

and the US had every right to restrict the flow
of it's goods to the Japanese while they were engaged in the "China Adventure"---es-
pecially after the pictures of the Rape of Nanking and other attrocities got around.


Ah, but it was perfectly ok for the USA to stand by and do nothing as Europe was trashed? Lets not play the morale card when it comes to USA actions during WWII. [;)]



Actually, i think the USA was conducting an undeclared naval war on Germany before Dec 7, 1941. The American public was kept in the dark about this at the time, except when someone on our side got killed/sunk a la Reuben James.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/10/2005 5:09:43 PM)

quote:

I think you meant "moral card" not "morale card"


Typos are not fatal ... good thing eh? [:D]



freeboy -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/10/2005 5:16:16 PM)

quote:

Ah, but it was perfectly ok for the USA to stand by and do nothing as Europe was trashed? Lets not play the morale card when it comes to USA actions during WWII.


OK, your anti USA bias is leaking... The us did send aid to the Brits... and was as involved as posible without a declaration of war... the US did not sell strategic materials to Gerany or Japan in the immediate years prior to WW2, the point about the US in the Asian sphere is one that can be debated, what was the intent.. to help the Chinese or to hinder the JAps.. either way the US was not about to be complacent after the public atrocities at Nanking... if we only knew about Stalins atrocities we probably would never had had Lend lease....



Mr.Frag -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/10/2005 5:29:55 PM)

quote:

OK, your anti USA bias is leaking...


Not anti USA ... I love my buddies to the south ... but history does not paint away the happenings in WW II that simple. How many Canadians and Brits and even Ozzies and Dutch and Poles and French (well, we better leave them out these days although i find that whole thing rather amusing) died because the USA decided to sit by the sidelines and not commit until the great *publicity* event of PH?

As far as *selling* aid to the Brits under the condition they give up their hold on their colonies, that is not exactly what one would call *aid* ... Rumor has it it took until this recent Iraq invasion for the USA to forgive the Brit's debt that has been getting paid for 50+ years.

I don't bias anything, I just look at it all with no bias towards anyone ... realistically, WW II was preordained to happen based on what was done when WW I ended ... It is a very good thing that we learned from that mistake and rebuilt the loosers after WW II instead of setting the stage for WW III [;)]



Toast -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/10/2005 5:34:09 PM)

Morality aside, I think the actions of both governments could be considered irresponsible, although the Japanese government's actions certainly seem much more so.

Why did the Japanses government start a war that they had no chance of winning? There were enough Japanese in high places who had been to America and know about the resources and the attitudes of its people to know that they would never "negotiate' a peace treaty under unfavorable circumstances and they could not be beaten.

To play devil's advocate here and argue against my own point, most of the Japanese decision making was based on the assumption that the Germans would beat the Russians in 1941/1942 and that the Western Powers would have to face the full might of the German armed forces alone. But if that was so, it still begs the question, why did they just not wait until Russia was defeated to make sure.

For the US, why did the US enbark on a policy of confrontation with Japan when they had no military forces to back up the threat. It just made the Japanese think the US was poisitioning for a better negotiating position or just ut and out bluffing.

To play devil's advocate here, the US knew in the long run that Japan could never win a war against the US so never imagined it was "bluffing" even if temporarily the Japanese had the military advantage. But still, for the protection of your own forces, you do not provoke a military response unless you are prepared to meet it.



rtrapasso -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/10/2005 5:45:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

OK, your anti USA bias is leaking...


Not anti USA ... I love my buddies to the south ... but history does not paint away the happenings in WW II that simple. How many Canadians and Brits and even Ozzies and Dutch and Poles and French (well, we better leave them out these days although i find that whole thing rather amusing) died because the USA decided to sit by the sidelines and not commit until the great *publicity* event of PH?

As far as *selling* aid to the Brits under the condition they give up their hold on their colonies, that is not exactly what one would call *aid* ... Rumor has it it took until this recent Iraq invasion for the USA to forgive the Brit's debt that has been getting paid for 50+ years.

I don't bias anything, I just look at it all with no bias towards anyone ... realistically, WW II was preordained to happen based on what was done when WW I ended ... It is a very good thing that we learned from that mistake and rebuilt the loosers after WW II instead of setting the stage for WW III [;)]


I am NOT claiming that the US was lilly-white in their conduct of the war - they did things that i think were horrible, but...:

There WERE US serviceman (and merchant marine) fighting and dying on the high seas long before PH.

Let us also NOT forget that the US tried to scuttle the retribution plans that the Allies (esp. the Brits and French) that were imposed on the Germans after WWI. The US public was in no mood to shed a lot more blood on what they saw was a European problem caused by Europeans.

As for "selling them aid on the condition that they give up their colonies" - don't think there is great evidence for that. THe US gave a lot of assistance to France, Britain, to try to help hold onto stuff after the war (witness Vietnam) - but it was like trying to hold back the tide at that point.

The fact that the Aussies, Canadians, New Zealanders, South Africans etc. got dragged in was due to the British Commonwealth system. Did they really ask the citizens of those countries whether they wanted to participate - or was it a command performance?

I do see the Dutch, Belgians, etc. as victims in all this. Citizens in certain African and Asian countries might see it as divine retribution, though.



freeboy -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/10/2005 6:19:41 PM)

I agree in part re the issue of WW2 stemming from WW1, either forgive the party .. or enforce your will to the point they cannot do anything about it.. ie after ww2 we stationed troops in Germany and Japan, as well as rebuilt them.. and I do not think either USSR or British ever repaid the aid that was given them, I think the LOan in lend lease and all was to get around the US congress, but I do not have the figures in front of me...



tsimmonds -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/10/2005 6:29:01 PM)

quote:

and I do not think teither USSR or British ever repaid the aid that was given them,

I'd say the USA came out on the good end of that deal. Britian lost her Empire and the USSR lost the lives of 20 million of her citizens, and all our support of them cost us was a few million trucks, tanks and aircraft, all of which we were quite happy to build in any case.



freeboy -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/10/2005 7:21:30 PM)

OK, comparissions of population losses are not relivent imo, but the USSR suffered tremendous losses, almost as much as in the pre war years under Stalin where as many as 35 million poeple died...
Just saw how in the Rwanda massacres, inpiring the film Hotel Rwanda, nearly 800k died, and in Cambodia something like 1000K.. or 18% of the population died under the brutal KMer Ruge.. sp??????
We need to look at why this is ok... and it is happening agian in the Sudan, I think it is that we do not veiw others aes EQUAL to ourselves, for racial or ethnic reasons...
At what point do we as a powerful nation, the US.. or the nations of NATO, or the EU take a stand for those who cannot? I realize on the heals of Iraq anyone advocating a policy of intervening in other countries is asking for a backlash...



OK, maybe the Japanese directly caused WW2 in the Pacific, but could the US actually have stayed out?... if we would have continued to give JApan strategic material, wouldn't it have been a matter of time before they went to war regardless of the impossibility of winning?



Mr.Frag -> RE: Stupid AI and a couple of questions (2/10/2005 7:26:44 PM)

quote:

At what point do we as a powerful nation, the US.. or the nations of NATO, or the EU take a stand for those who cannot? I realize on the heals of Iraq anyone advocating a policy of intervening in other countries is asking for a backlash...


Nation states go to war to gain something ... lets no kid ourselves into thinking there is some higher moral ground being taken.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625