AI cheats? (Full Version)

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



Message

plasticpanzers -> AI cheats? (9/30/2005 7:48:35 AM)

Just a question on how the AI works when it is playing
the Japanese side. I note when i carefully train and
rest my allied fighters and build up Port Moresby early
in the game while the Japanese are daily pounding it by
air and sea (of whom my aircraft never seem to attack at all, they would rather strike ships in Rabul then
the ships hitting them at Moresby!). When i suddenly
shift all my fighters out of Australia into a very
much enlarged Morseby airbase suddenly Japanese attacks
cease entirely! This goes on for days nomatter the
weather. They do not attack again until naval units
pound the airbase or they have almost 100 fighters.
This with no air recon over my base to see what is there. makes me suspect the AI is sneaking a free
peek at my airbase and deciding not to attack.
Tim (plasticpanzers)



wobbly -> RE: AI cheats? (9/30/2005 8:32:42 AM)

High Plastic panzers

It isn't cheating as such, it is following morale rules. Does however, do this without any recon so it does appear to do it by magic or cheating.

Basically the AI checks to see the defensive strength of fighters above a target base. If the strength is too great for the morale of the crews then they wont go.
This behaviour is not restricted to the AI or the Japanese side.
So what is happening is the bombers will attack when you have no fighters defending the base because they are passing their morale check. When you move a tonne of fighters back in they fail and hence your trap does as well. This behaviour is to stop unescorted bombing missions from being absolutely gutted. This is considered more game affecting than your base taking damage.
What you can do to combat this is to return the complement with your own heavy bombers. Now that PM is big enough, fly high level B-17s and B-24s against Rabaul. Because his bombers are not flying they are on the deck and can be destroyed.

As to naval targeting, the AI chooses targets of greatest value to hit first if they are in range. In order to hit Rabaul from PM you are obviously using long range level bombers like B-17s, B-24s or Hudsons. These planes are not terribly good in the anti-shipping roll unless: a) they are of high experience b) the target is very slow c) they are at very low level - warning using them thus will incur large morale penalties.

So the answer is to use such planes as the dauntless, Avenger and Beaufort. if they get closer use P-39s at 100ft - they are great at this!

Also make sure the weather over your closer target is clear.

Another thing you might find is that your land based planes refuse to hit the carriers right off the coast. In this instance the same problem with defending fighters is occuring - they pilots are failing morale. The way to offset this working against you now is to make sure you have an Air HQ in the base and that you have alot of fighters on escort orders.

Hope this helps



plasticpanzers -> RE: AI cheats? (9/30/2005 11:18:48 AM)

cannot be entirely accurate as i may have 90 or so
allied fighters on the base and 100 plus medium bombers
and fighterbombers. they go and attack any merchant
ship and have escorts of dozens of allied fighters but
no attacks on carriers or seperate bombardment naval
TFs that pound PM. easily the equivilent to 1-2 US
carriers in attacking. In this the morale part of the
UV fails. I cannot recall a battle where massed allied
units failed to attack enemy units because their morale
"failed". This is a weak point in the air rules. i do
not remember ever reading in any of over 200 books
on the pacific war were allied air units did not attack
because of morale problems. single or small groups
might break off but "hell no..i we won't go" never did
occur in any measurable number in the Pacific air war. Using this theory as in the game no US air unit
on Midway would ever attack the Japanese fleet at
the battle. They would all have gone looking for
a transport to bomb.
Tim (plasticpanzers)



Zulu -> RE: AI cheats? (9/30/2005 4:06:51 PM)

Hi Plasticpanzers,

I think you have to look at this game in a different way. In UV you really do not issue orders, but you rather issue strategic directives. Your local commanders keep your directives in mind, but then issue their own operational orders.

These orders may, in some cases, differ significantly from your initial directives for a number of reasons: "morale" is only one of them. By the way, I think you have to look at "morale" in more abstract sense: in the game, failing a morale check, does not mean to chicken out or to be coward. It usually means that the local commander has decided that it is safer to preserve the existing assets rather than risking them in a raid. This may happen because he is less aggressive than his superior (you) or because he is an idiot or for a number of other reasons between these two extremes. In fact, some players have often expressed frustration at the fact that they cannot change the local commanders at their discretion (especially in air groups). But again, are we sure that is highly unrealistic? When you are heading a very large organization, it often happens that you would like to replace a subordinate or two, but you cannot. Or, if you can, it takes a lot of time and effort. Why? I can think of many reasons: red tape, or the subordinate is the son or relative of some high brass at the pentagon. These are just two, but there may be many others.

I think that the game does really a good job in representing the randomness and the complexity of managing a large organization. Granted, there are some instances where the game behavior is really very very weird (bugs?), but overall I don't find that this detracts much from the gaming experience.

Basically, you as supreme commander give an input, then there is a lot of muddling and tinkering in middle and low sections of your organization and something happens at the end. Especially at the beginning, it is often the case that what happens is not what you wanted. By the way, this matches closely what I see happening in large organizations in real life.

As a general commander, you must be a manager as much as a warrior and, over time, you must try to allocate your assets and people and design your strategy in such a way that you get as close as possible to achieve the results you are looking for.

Oh, well: this is only my opinion and it is worth what it costs [;)] but this is how I read the game and why I like it. It is definitely not a game for the impatient, but I think that even Nimitz, McArthur and Halsey could not really afford to be very impatient at that time...

Cheers,

Zulu



plasticpanzers -> RE: AI cheats? (9/30/2005 11:42:57 PM)

Air ops points would be more effect than "morale" then.
I am not really an impatient gamer (played Pacwar all
the way thru years back and still do as well as board
games such as DNO and Europa). I am quite expierenced
in gaming. I only have exception when i feel the game
system could be better. I never complain about bad
games, thats a waste. this game is great but could
have been better.
Just last night i was continuing my PM/GiliGili battles
(which are the most important of the game, far more
than Guadalcanal) when a Japanese TF sits just 2 hexes
east of GiliGili to strike at PM (and does so over and
over). Well within range of about every naval attack
aircraft i have at PM and Cooktown and they have NO
air cap. Do mine attack them? nope.
Tim (plasticpanzers)



CMDRMCTOAST -> RE: AI cheats? (10/2/2005 2:43:50 AM)

Base a couple of carrier squadrons there and that
will get the others attacking, I will usually have a
couple of TBF'S, 1 SBD and a pair of Wildcats at the front
the other aircraft will jon in and take the brunt of the japanese
force and the carrier planes genarally get thru to the convoy..
also if you set your carriers SBD'S to 16,000 feet they will come in
in one large attack force as apposed to several small ones.
I will usually set half my carriers SBD'S to 16,000 feet and the other half
somewhat lower to not have them all attacking a CV group that has been pounded.
THE squadrons do get better with time and usually you will see better results later
in 42 - early 43.




plasticpanzers -> RE: AI cheats? (10/3/2005 10:06:32 AM)

It is cheatin alright. just finished another test.
flew b17s over Rabaul every turn @ 25000ft. 60+ enemy
zeros intercepted every turn both "green" and "white"
zeros as well as floatplanes. i had no fighters at
PM. I flew in 100 fighters all trained and rested into
PM and continued my week long bombing of Rabaul by the
b17s. Immediatly on the turn i flew my fighters in the
attacks on my b17s stopped and the japanese escorts of
10-15 zeros jumped to 100 or so. my fighters dropped
like rain, warning radar evidently useless, and AAA
fire from 3 shipped in AAA battalions had no more effect from that point on than without them. Also
when i put a naval cruiser/dd force to intercept the
japanese bombardment force at PM every japanese plane
in the pacific seemed to hit them. my carrier task
force which was 3 hexes from the japanese bb/ca force
decided to attack the empty airbase at buna with 112
sbds even tho the japanese force was repeatidly
spotted. i can only react to enemy forces noted on
a following turn. the computer can see AND act on
the same turn. very poor idea.
Tim



LoBaron -> RE: AI cheats? (10/26/2005 12:19:02 PM)

no post long time...
thx for waking me up plastic...
there are some things to mention:

1) if you set the game difficulty to anything more than "historical" the AI cheats. that means the values for AI combat effectiveness are higher than your own. the plane values are better (not totally sure bout that)and fighting has less impact on fatigue.

2) if you play historical or less and get these results you are plainly doing something wrong. or you dont grasp how the game is working at all.
you have many options to fine tune the way your squadrons are reacting to enemy action.
since you are the in-teatre commander you cant order each plane to commence an assigned mission. this is up to the squadron commander and not up to you.
the AI isnt cheating and i can tell you how it works (even if im a bit annoyed by the way you whine about cheating while you simply dont understand how to issue correct orders... [8|] )
just an example on you last complaint: this happened to you because the AI sets its fighters to "escort" without designating a target. so the decision which bomber to escort and how many planes to use on this mission is up to the squadron commander. before the japanese attack starts the recon phase evaluates the CAP over the enemy base and by these values the squad commander assigns the needed ammount on planes for escort duty. so when you ran your 100 fighter CAP over PM (with crappy outdated planes, the US has nothing to stand up against well trained zero pilots in ´42) 3-4 squadron commanders of 3-4 first line zero units in raboul decided to whack you out of the sky. [:D]
thats not cheating my friend thats proper planning. and if you knew how it works you could do the same.

3) this forum is full of experienced UV fans that surely are willing to help if you have questions about game mechanics or why all these bad things happen to you (even if many of them left for WitP recently) and i can assure you their motivation to help you developing proper tactics will definitely improve if you simply ask questions and stop making complaints about cheating AI´s which only displays your lack of understanding. just cause you know other strategy games it doesnt mean you understand how UV works.

4) welcome, stop whining, start asking questions the right way and youll maybe start to understand why im playing this game since it was released.

regards LoBaron

Edit: i suggest you reinstall UV and start a game with v2.30 if you updated to 2.41. (newer versions have some improvements but are also bugged



plasticpanzers -> RE: AI cheats? (10/26/2005 9:13:28 PM)

LoBaron, I usually do not accept gaming advice from bad
mannered children like yourself. And if, by chance, you are an adult then I certainly do not accept advice
from a bad mannered adult who has to add the two digits
of his IQ together to have a three digit IQ.
You might think a bit on the effects of time/distance
(not a subject I belive shown on Seseme Street so go
ask an adult about it) on air operations over the long
distances involved in combat between Rabaul and Port
Morseby.
The sum of the problem I mention is that that Japanese
aircraft on fighter sweep are defacto escorts as the
system operates now. If this is too much for you to
understand then go back to your crayons and coloring
books and leave gaming analysis to the adults who
understand concepts beyond your ill-mannered attempt
at it.

Tim (plasticpanzers)



Ursa MAior -> RE: AI cheats? (10/26/2005 9:38:40 PM)

When was it exactly, which date? Which fighters were you using? P-39 and 9-400 are much worse than the zeros especially over 10k-15k feet. p-40 is only somewhat better. What was the weather like? And the morale / fatigue of your units?

No offense just asking.





LoBaron -> RE: AI cheats? (10/27/2005 12:25:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: plasticpanzers

LoBaron, I usually do not accept gaming advice from bad
mannered children like yourself. And if, by chance, you are an adult then I certainly do not accept advice
from a bad mannered adult who has to add the two digits
of his IQ together to have a three digit IQ.
You might think a bit on the effects of time/distance
(not a subject I belive shown on Seseme Street so go
ask an adult about it) on air operations over the long
distances involved in combat between Rabaul and Port
Morseby.
The sum of the problem I mention is that that Japanese
aircraft on fighter sweep are defacto escorts as the
system operates now. If this is too much for you to
understand then go back to your crayons and coloring
books and leave gaming analysis to the adults who
understand concepts beyond your ill-mannered attempt
at it.

Tim (plasticpanzers)


since you just disqualified yourself regarding manners i dont have to add anything to that... [>:]
seems like you dont learn much from your posts over at the IL2 forums.


goodby and have a nice life. [8|]



plasticpanzers -> RE: AI cheats? (10/27/2005 12:53:24 AM)

LOL! Don't worry Ursa, its just clowns like ze baron
that irk people! I've been playing wargames for over
40 years and Gary's since they were on C64s and AppleII
systems so i am really firmilar with how his games work.
On my tactics I will hold back units in Australia in
training and send over 3-8 squadrons (depends on level
of airbase). I know that the P39 and especially the
P400 are no match for the Zero early on in the war but
they should not die in the dozens vs 0-1 Zero losses
especially since the pilots in the Allied aircraft are
flying for less than an hour usually and the Japanese
aircraft for many hours to get to Morsby!
I fly groups of 1-2 squadrons at different levels with
the P39/400 at 10,000 or less (most Japanese bombers
fly at 7000 ft to bomb). When i get P40s and F4Fs i
will have them hover at 10-15,000 ft. I attempt to
break up the escorts but i notice that even when i
do this there is no difference in how my aircraft
engage the escort plus sweep fighters. Allied AC
engage all japanese fighters and i notice that even
when it says japanese fighters are breaking off they
do not and continue in combat.
in between battles when my Allied groups are resting
i transfer them back to Australia to get reinforced
back up to strength and also train them. Although
my aircraft are now in the mid to high 70 in exp they
still fall in droves, far above any historical basis.
Its has always been the one weakness in Gary's air
to air system. far too many losses, more aircraft
should break off or not engage. Also fighter sweeps
from Rabaul are defacto escorts for bombers as they
arrive at the same time and fight as escorts. if
they were a fighter sweep they would arrive before
and engage the CAP and try to sweep the sky before
the bombers and their acutal escorts arrive or come
after to engage what is left in the CAP.
Thanks for asking. Appreciate the input and i hope
you understand my points even tho you may not agree
with them.
Tim (plasticpanzers)



TAIL GUNNER -> RE: AI cheats? (10/27/2005 6:07:51 AM)

quote:

Allied AC
engage all japanese fighters and i notice that even
when it says japanese fighters are breaking off they
do not and continue in combat.


That's a freakin' bug (it affects both sides, whoever is the attacker).

Was supposed to be fixed in 2.4x......

But it wasn't......[:(]



Ursa MAior -> RE: AI cheats? (10/28/2005 10:17:07 AM)

I see. Well I have never digged myself so deep into air-to-air combat. But I think it is reasonable in a game of such dimsensions not to handle these kind of details.



LoBaron -> RE: AI cheats? (10/30/2005 3:18:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Juggalo

That's a freakin' bug (it affects both sides, whoever is the attacker).

Was supposed to be fixed in 2.4x......

But it wasn't......[:(]


the bug is that that the number of planes turning back isnt reduced from the total number in the combat animation screen.
for combat calculation the planes breaking off are not used.

so its only a "visual" bug. :)



TAIL GUNNER -> RE: AI cheats? (10/31/2005 12:47:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: Juggalo

That's a freakin' bug (it affects both sides, whoever is the attacker).

Was supposed to be fixed in 2.4x......

But it wasn't......[:(]


the bug is that that the number of planes turning back isnt reduced from the total number in the combat animation screen.
for combat calculation the planes breaking off are not used.

so its only a "visual" bug. :)



And you're positively, absolutely 100% sure of that?[;)]



LoBaron -> RE: AI cheats? (10/31/2005 11:33:25 AM)

id say 99% for 2.4x

i stopped upgrading with 2.30 because its the most stable (and bug-free) version -except a small bug concerning plane transfers from carriers- and there im sure that its just visual.
2.4x versions have some feature improvements but since much of the matrix worktime has been transferred to perfecting WitP theres also the problem of more bugs (disappearing planes is one of the most annoying).
i ran some tests back then (attacking with high/low moral in fighter squads) and they all came to the same result that planes turning back are not included in dogfighting calculations.
also it sometimes happens that air to air kills are counted more than once (you notice when you get e.g. a "A6M2 zero attacks P-39 airacobra from behind range 2" message -> then 1 kill and then another kill (or more) without an additional attack message. the planes are substracted "visually" but for calculations these planes continue to fight (proof is that you somtimes get attack messages from squads with 0 planes after that happened) and only the first of these kills gets logged in the combat report.
i tend to see this as exaggerated kill counts made by the pilots... [;)]



LouieDee -> RE: AI cheats? (4/13/2006 8:36:38 PM)

my take is that the AI does cheat at the harder levels, It is like inverse MAGIC, I play the USN for the most part.

For PM and GG, I had two CV whacked one out for 6 months one sunk at Coral Sea, these planes transfered to PB and GG, I've found that with Wildcats and P-40 my guys can start getting way up the in experience and when the 3 CV IJN taksforce comes in for the conter invasion at GG or Buna or even PM, I'm getting 2:1 kill ratios on the escourt Zeros and even have had my LBA hit a CV all this in July to Aug 42. Still hurts to lose CV but these guys are great and aggrsive on land and when they attack ships, the bring the rest of the army air along, when normally the army would just stay on the ground. Like my B-17 I can't get them to bomb GC no matter what.



DEB -> RE: AI cheats? (4/13/2006 11:07:17 PM)


quote:

i stopped upgrading with 2.30 because its the most stable (and bug-free) version -except a small bug concerning plane transfers from carriers- and there im sure that its just visual.
2.4x versions have some feature improvements but since much of the matrix worktime has been transferred to perfecting WitP theres also the problem of more bugs (disappearing planes is one of the most annoying).


A very sane decision - I only hope they will get around to a new patch soon. I'ts been a long wait now. [>:][>:][>:]
Last real news was 9th Dec 05.[:@]

quote:

also it sometimes happens that air to air kills are counted more than once (you notice when you get e.g. a "A6M2 zero attacks P-39 airacobra from behind range 2" message -> then 1 kill and then another kill (or more) without an additional attack message. the planes are substracted "visually" but for calculations these planes continue to fight (proof is that you somtimes get attack messages from squads with 0 planes after that happened) and only the first of these kills gets logged in the combat report.
i tend to see this as exaggerated kill counts made by the pilots... [;)]


The rules do suggust that this happens. ( Possible multiple damage reports & ( ? ) possible multiple kills on just 1 aircraft.[X(][;)]



Desertmole -> RE: AI cheats? (6/21/2006 8:32:08 PM)

I've noticed that in all of Gary's games (the old GNBs anyway, plus UV) there is a bit of bias against allied fighters (or perhaps a bias toward Zeros).  I think this is particularly true against F4Fs.  I am currently re-reading The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign and the losses against Zeros seems way out of wack.  Even in the darkest days of the campaign (around the time of the Battle of Santa Cruz) when the Guadalcanal Fighter Command morale was low, they were killing Zeros at a 1-1 ratio or better.  Granted, they occasionally had bad days, but not EVERY day for several months as occurs while playing.

Another thing I noticed a while back while playing the allies (scenarios 17 and 19) was that when Japanese fighter remnants fly off the sinking carriers and become land-based, they continue to get reinforced, while the allies wither away.  I end up facing bomber attacks (many times 10 or less bombers) with escorts of 200+ A6M2s and A6M3s.  Am I the only one encountering this?

Finally, is there a way to tweak the reinforcement pools to a more realistic level?  In playing scenarios 17 and 19, the Zero numbers seem a little high and the Kate numbers are way off.  There were only 52 Kates built from 1 June to 31 Dec 1942 (source Shattered Sword).  Some of the allied numbers are high in some cases and low in others as well. 

Thanks.



DEB -> RE: AI cheats? (6/23/2006 3:34:33 AM)

No info , views or experience re first two paragraphs to either agree or disagree with the game system or anyone elses info/experiences.

Re para 3.
Some of the rarer Allied ( British ) aircraft are shown at a nil replacement level, whereas
a minimum of one would appear to be more reasonable. This has been commented on before, but without any response from Matrix.
Re Kates, my source says that 1,149 were built between 1936 & 1943; 480 during 1942/3. This would equate to 120 per six months for 1942/3, compared to approx. 70 per six months for 1936-1943. However these are only total production figs. over large time frames. Zero's for April 42 to March 43 were 1,689 per my source; although it admits that "conflicting production figures have been reported" by the two manufacturers and various Government agencies,and it shows those that "appear" the most accurate.

It appears therefore that Zero fig's will always be a "best guess" and Kate figs. may be higher than your source suggests by +100%.

( My source is Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War by René J. Francillon ( Putnam ) 1979. )

Not aware of any way to adjust the replacement pool info. - sorry.



Desertmole -> Kates (6/23/2006 8:32:42 AM)

Shame on me for quoting from memory.  I went back and checked Shattered Sword to be sure.  The actual number of Kates produced in ALL of 1942 was 56.  It seems that Nakajima had stopped production at the beginning of '42 to gear up for production of the B6N Tenzan, but was asked to restart B5N production when the B6N was not ready.  There were apparently other problems as well.  (Source:  Parshall & Tully, Shattered Sword, pg 89.  Footnote indicates their source as the USSBS 22, Nav 50 and Japanese Munitions Ministry reports)  Clearly Nakajima increased production significantly in 1943 and on, until the B6N went into production.  I realize some of the numbers were probably tweaked for playability purposes.



DEB -> RE: Kates (6/25/2006 1:54:41 AM)

Hmmm.

That's some detail level !

Not sure how different the Replacements chart is from Scenario to Scenario; or if it changes during the game on say a month to month or quarterly basis.
( This was something I considered some time ago. )
This would be more realistic than a single chart per Scenario ( or whatever ),
but might have been difficult to do/achieve.

Can anyone advise ? ( Matrix ?? )



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9375