AI WAAAAY too passive?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

AI WAAAAY too passive?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/7/2008 8:38:29 PM

SetonHallPirate

Posts: 7
Joined: 11/6/2005
Status: offline

I'm playing an AI vs. AI game (just bought a computer that could run the game at a speed that wouldn't take longer than the real WWII to finish the game), and I happened to notice that the AI simply won't attack each other unless it's a near slam-dunk...I mean, it's the fall of 1943, and the Allies aren't even past Wewak, and aren't even trying to move troops forward to attack on that front! What gives?

Any help is greatly appreciated!

Post #: 1

RE: AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/7/2008 8:42:45 PM

marky

Posts: 5780
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

Ai wayyy too stupid

ill never play the AI again, just no challenge

once it brought Ryujo into PM harbor, where she was promptly sunk

and it keept bringing TKs in range of Wake, and they too were promptly sunk

and a short time later, it lost 4 big carriers to me as well

once u go PBEM, ull N E V E R go back

and ya can lead an AI to the front, but ya cant make it attack

_____________________________

(in reply to SetonHallPirate)

Post #: 2

RE: AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/7/2008 9:03:49 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SetonHallPirate

I'm playing an AI vs. AI game (just bought a computer that could run the game at a speed that wouldn't take longer than the real WWII to finish the game), and I happened to notice that the AI simply won't attack each other unless it's a near slam-dunk...I mean, it's the fall of 1943, and the Allies aren't even past Wewak, and aren't even trying to move troops forward to attack on that front! What gives?

Any help is greatly appreciated!

Truethfully, the AI is a "learning tool". When set up in the right position, it can give you a tussel for 5-9 months (depending on how aggressively you play). But as a real opponant, it's pathatically outmatched.
Watching it play itself is like watching cars rust. Something will happen eventually...

If you've brought the AI to a halt as the Allies, and beaten your way to the full defensive peremeter as the Japanese, you're probably ready to play a real game..., PBEM. Advertise for another relative "newbie", and define how "wild and wooley" you want the game to be, then get ready for a much more interesting experiance.

(in reply to SetonHallPirate)

Post #: 3

RE: AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/7/2008 9:58:22 PM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: SetonHallPirate

I'm playing an AI vs. AI game (just bought a computer that could run the game at a speed that wouldn't take longer than the real WWII to finish the game), and I happened to notice that the AI simply won't attack each other unless it's a near slam-dunk...I mean, it's the fall of 1943, and the Allies aren't even past Wewak, and aren't even trying to move troops forward to attack on that front! What gives?

Any help is greatly appreciated!

Truethfully, the AI is a "learning tool". When set up in the right position, it can give you a tussel for 5-9 months (depending on how aggressively you play). But as a real opponant, it's pathatically outmatched.
Watching it play itself is like watching cars rust. Something will happen eventually...

If you've brought the AI to a halt as the Allies, and beaten your way to the full defensive peremeter as the Japanese, you're probably ready to play a real game..., PBEM. Advertise for another relative "newbie", and define how "wild and wooley" you want the game to be, then get ready for a much more interesting experiance.

I agree. Further, I'm not sure that the AI was ever made to play itself.

I have an AI game going on the side and in March 42 I have the Japanese completely on the defensive. After Halsey sunk the KB it seems that the AI has just given up....come to think of it maybe the AI is more like a real player than we give it credit for.

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 4

RE: AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/8/2008 7:05:53 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SetonHallPirate

I'm playing an AI vs. AI game (just bought a computer that could run the game at a speed that wouldn't take longer than the real WWII to finish the game), and I happened to notice that the AI simply won't attack each other unless it's a near slam-dunk...I mean, it's the fall of 1943, and the Allies aren't even past Wewak, and aren't even trying to move troops forward to attack on that front! What gives?

Any help is greatly appreciated!

Why would the Allies be approaching Wewak in"fall 1943" (Wouldnt hurt to put an actual month in here would it!!)

The Allies were only cleaning up Buna/Gona in Jan 43, Lae in Sept 43, Wewak wasnt captured until May 1945

< Message edited by JeffK -- 4/8/2008 7:06:48 AM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to SetonHallPirate)

Post #: 5

RE: AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/8/2008 4:08:24 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

IMO the AI is schizophrenic. When it has carriers available it uses them very aggressively, but if they get lost or damaged suddenly the entire routine becomes very defensive and passive to the point of stupidity.

I've occupied Apamama, Makin and Nauru, along with Miri and several of the other outer Marshall Islands, providing good airfields for the leap to Eniwetok and Kwajalein. My naval search planes have spotted a HUGE accumulation of ships at Kwajalein, mostly AP's and warships (all the way up to BB's!), all just sitting at anchor. Even repeated port strikes by every 2E and 4E bomber I can pack onto Majuro, Mili and Makin Atolls haven't forced the AI to evacuate the harbor, so I sent in the bombardment TF's. Multiple nights of shelling by 3-5 BB's plus cruiser support didn't do it either. Carrier strikes from 4-5 CV's and an equal amount of CVL's didn't do it.

Now I've taken Maloelap from the AI, with it's already developed size 4 airfield only a short flight over to Kwajalein. The majority of these ships are STILL there, including valuable AS and AR auxiliaries and several subs, but it appears the BB's have left. Last turn my carriers sank Mogami in the harbor after repeated 1000 lb bomb and torpedo hits on her. Even an intelligent AI would have evacuated the harbor completely once the 4E bombers began hitting the port consistantly; there are also 21 (!!) LCU's there that I'm doing my best to isolate...

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 6

RE: AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/8/2008 4:33:23 PM

Gem35

Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

AI is what it is, as the manual states it will give a player a "moderate" challenge.
I know this, when I was first learning the game it was kicking my tail.
If you grow tired of it, play pbem, the way the game was designed.
I enjoy WitP against the AI for now. If you play against it and go all out, sure it is easy.
The AI can't react very well , it is more or less hard-coded.
Stop bashing the AI , it's like beating on your little brother.

_____________________________

It doesn't make any sense, Admiral. Were we better than the Japanese or just luckier?

Banner By Feurer Krieg

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 7

RE: AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/8/2008 5:26:11 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

No, it's like bashing your mentally deficient little brother. My little brother could play a good game of chess against me, although he lost most of the time the games were still challenging.

What's so hard about "if the port where all my ships are located is coming under repeated attack, move them somewhere out of range"? The AI did it when I began bombarding Rabaul but it's not doing it now that I'm after Kwajalein. If the AI doesn't react soon, either I'll sink them in the port or get them as they try and run after it's too late.

(in reply to Gem35)

Post #: 8

RE: AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/8/2008 5:37:43 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

No, it's like bashing your mentally deficient little brother.� My little brother could play a good game of chess against me, although he lost most of the time the games were still challenging.

What's so hard about "if the port where all my ships are located is coming under repeated attack, move them somewhere out of range"?� The AI did it when I began bombarding Rabaul but it's not doing it now that I'm after Kwajalein.� If the AI doesn't react soon, either I'll sink them in the port or get them as they try and run after it's too late.

Think about the implications of this: if you did this, anytime you wanted to break up an enemy offensive, you'd just have to bomb his port... away would flee all the ships there... able to be picked off at sea... Plus, the ships are better protected in port.

You want a tougher opponent - try AI on very hard...

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 9

RE: AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/8/2008 5:50:59 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

IRL how often did ships stay in ports that were within range of LBA? Unless they were loading/unloading something there, not very bloody often. They LEFT and got the heck out of there. Both Rabaul and Truk were abandoned when 4E bombers from airbases became commonplace overhead; same with Ulithi and Eniwetok. I'm not talking about advance bases here, but major anchorages that were behind the front lines; when they became within range of bombers, they lost their usefulness as assembly points or supply dumps, so everything had to relocate.

Right now Kwajalein has over 3 dozen ships in it, mostly AP's and auxiliaries; a few turns ago the main battle fleet of the IJN was there too (at least half a dozen BB's and half that many cruisers) until my Avengers began torpedoing their ships at anchor (payback for Pearl Harbor). I saw at least two BB's leave via sub reports, which is why I was surprised that Mogami was still there last night. Now she's there permanently.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 10

RE: AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/8/2008 11:03:18 PM

rockmedic109

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline

They may be staying there due to insufficient fuel to get anywhere else. Bombing the port will cause lots of fuel to be destroyed and damage the shipping in port. Enough fuel gets destroyed and the ships are not going anywhere. Does the AI look at the range of ships before it sends them out?

Another possible answer is that the AI my not send the ships out with damage. Continous bombing will keep the ships in a damaged state. I am not sure, but do repairs to ships stop if damage to the port gets above a certain level? That would keep the ships in a perpetually damaged state and keep the ships in port.

Also, the Japanese Damage Control is such that if there is any flooding, the AI needs to keep the ships in port. Lest progressive flooding sinks them anyway.

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 11

RE: AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/8/2008 11:21:10 PM

wild_Willie2

Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline

It's very hard to sink ships in truk's level 8-9 port by bombing alone....
They will just sit there at 99% damage until you get lucky enough to sink it after hitting it 100 or so times...

The AI is just to "stupid" to move ships out of threatend harbours, it's just not programmed to do so.....

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to rockmedic109)

Post #: 12

RE: AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/13/2008 3:11:02 AM

patrickl

Posts: 1530
Joined: 6/20/2002
From: Singapore
Status: offline

As mentioned by others, as long as you do not bash the AI hard at the beginning of the game - it will do a decent job. This is my CHS Scenario 159 game against AI set at very hard. It has taken all of the historical targets and now fighting in SW Pacific.

Pat

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by patrickl -- 4/13/2008 3:24:44 AM >

_____________________________

Banner designed by rogueusmc

(in reply to wild_Willie2)

Post #: 13

RE: AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/13/2008 4:10:47 AM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

It's not just passive, it is stupid AND passive. I could live with one or the other, but the two together, by mid-43, is turning the surface fleet of the IJN into just a target for my LBA and carrier airstrikes.

(in reply to patrickl)

Post #: 14

RE: AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/13/2008 4:40:00 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

It's not just passive, it is stupid AND passive.� I could live with one or the other, but the two together, by mid-43, is turning the surface fleet of the IJN into just a target for my LBA and carrier airstrikes.

Yep..., it's only really "scripted" for the first few months..., after that it flounders. The only reason not to go to PBEM is if you like kicking your little brother around the room.

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 15

RE: AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/13/2008 6:10:08 AM

dennishe

Posts: 1081
Joined: 9/22/2007
From: Leiden, the Netherlands
Status: offline

AI is very predictable and does not know what to do when you attack at "non-historical" locations. If you have taken Guadacanal, you only have to position KB in the hex next to it and the AI will send everything it has against it. You just have to wait and replenish. I will never play AI again. I'd rather play with both sides than versus AI. In that case my opponent is equally predictable

, but at least puts up a decent fight..........

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 16

RE: AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/13/2008 6:31:33 AM

patrickl

Posts: 1530
Joined: 6/20/2002
From: Singapore
Status: offline

AI is only good for the first year. I have not played AI historically and so I gave a try. PBEM is where the real fun is, provided you get comitted players. The players I played are certainly aggressive and committed.

Pat

_____________________________

Banner designed by rogueusmc

(in reply to dennishe)

Post #: 17

RE: AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/13/2008 8:46:28 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Yeah, but since I played the first year against the AI in five different versions of the game, I got a good three years of play out of it.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to patrickl)

Post #: 18

RE: AI WAAAAY too passive? - 4/14/2008 5:47:19 AM

Gem35

Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

I love playing against my little brother, I love him to death.

_____________________________

It doesn't make any sense, Admiral. Were we better than the Japanese or just luckier?

Banner By Feurer Krieg

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 19