RE: Pearl Harbor and AI

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Pearl Harbor and AI

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/1/2009 1:24:00 AM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunnergoz

Well, guys, we are either talking about playing a "historical simulation" or a "historical game."� The simulation should turn things out pretty much as they did historically, IMO.� The game could take history and tweak it a bit here and there, not based upon little green men, but based upon concepts that might have been within the grasp of the historical participants, had they some more foresight...since we clearly have the benefit of hindsight.� I can live with calling this a well-researched historical game, that takes a liberty or two to better enable me to play it with more enjoyment, and for longer.� Yes, a grog can argue that a shortage of such and such type of bomb fuzes could totally negate this and that type of scenario from ever happening, but who is to say what might have happened historically with just a few changed events and conditions?� War is all about uncertainty.� Writing history is attempting to explain the uncertain.� Playing history games is all about enjoying the uncertainty and in some way pretending to be part of it, in your mind and imagination, at least.
Now if this were a War College simulation, I would have to agree, bomb inventories and fuel levels are indeed where it's at.� But Matrix is not selling to the US War College primarily, but to all the history and naval buffs out there.� And most of them want to enjoy cutting loose their imagination a bit.
That's my two bits, anyway.

Well said!

(in reply to gunnergoz)

Post #: 91

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/1/2009 1:31:07 AM

Vladd

Posts: 69
Joined: 10/24/2004
Status: offline

All the fuel info is public domain.

Distance from the Hitokappu Bay to Pearl - under 4000 miles.

Max cruising range for the shortest legged Japanese CV (Soryu) - over 8000 miles (Obviously, battle speed will reduce this, but the other CVs could go a fair bit further).

But then consider that the any one of the 8 tankers KB had in support could have refuelled Soryu twice over from dry.

Japanese logistic considerations related to stormy North Pacific weather making refuelling hazardous/impossible, not the quantity of fuel the supporting oilers could supply.

Anyone who still disagrees needs to explain why all the First Air Fleet and Combined Fleet staff members who desired / recommended repeat attacks at the time had managed to somehow miss this incredibly obvious point.

Personally, I think repeated hits on Pearl are entirely reasonable and historically feasable, and make for a far better game :)

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 92

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/1/2009 1:48:16 AM

Splinterhead

Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vladd

Anyone who still disagrees needs to explain why all the First Air Fleet and Combined Fleet staff members who desired / recommended repeat attacks at the time had managed to somehow miss this incredibly obvious point.

Weren't they in favor of a third wave on Dec 7? Do you have a source indicating that anybody urged a multi-day attack?

(in reply to Vladd)

Post #: 93

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/1/2009 2:06:14 AM

hgilmer3

Posts: 530
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

If you change the AI, I'm going to write a letter saying I'm very very angry with you. Then I'll write another telling you I'm very, very angry with you.

If people want it to be more like the historical PH attack, is there not an editor? Edit to your hearts content. From my lurking and sparsely posting on the original WITP, people were highly disappointed with how hard the AI was - that it was no challenge. Now we got it! Don't mess it up!

(in reply to Splinterhead)

Post #: 94

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/1/2009 2:18:42 AM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

We can use a little imagination here. Let's assume Yamamoto planned to have KB stick around and Tomonaga came up with the idea to overload the carriers with extra ammo. Yamamoto told the gutless Nagumo to grow a pair and gave explicit orders to destroy the US carriers or don't bother to come back. On the way to Pearl the flight decks had the first wave bombs and torpedoes stored on the decks and extra ammo was stored in the hangars.

They expected to have the element of surprise and Japan was still at peace with the US so the risk of overloading with ammo considered minimal.

On the way to Pearl they were refueled a few more times than was historically the case.

Just put that into the introduction and I'll be perfectly satisfied....

< Message edited by sfbaytf -- 8/1/2009 2:19:53 AM >

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 95

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/1/2009 2:20:29 AM

Falken

Posts: 242
Joined: 8/8/2007
From: ON, Canada
Status: offline

I'm with Hgilmer3,

Like ii've mentioned above, I love the new AE AI. From reading most of the posts in this thread, I think most would agree.

Andy, good job on the AI. Keep it mean and aggressive.

(in reply to hgilmer3)

Post #: 96

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/1/2009 2:36:03 AM

Avenger

Posts: 140
Joined: 6/8/2002
Status: offline

I haven't seen that much, but i have seen 3 DD's sink 5 to 6 transports. That was a night action. My groups that were patrolling Northern Borneo were in groups of 3 to 5, with force Z being a group of 15. I killed around 100 transports between there and the PI. Not all the groups are destroyers. I also have the Prince of Wales, the CVL Hermes, several corvettes, A few light cruisers, PT boats and HDML's. The British and Dutch forces that can be gathered for the defense of Borneo and the PI are quite formidable.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 97

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/1/2009 2:45:15 AM

morganbj

Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

Well, if it's easy enough, why not just put out one or two scenarios that tone down the agressiveness a tad. The current "historical scenario" can then be considered "tenacious." A new one could be with a less aggressive IJN approach with Pearl and maybe a few other areas.

I think the game is MUCH more exciting, and like the challenge, but perhaps a more "historically-minded" AI would be a welcome option.

Call it the "slightly less agressive AI."

BUT, DO NOT change the scenarios that we have, except to fix errors that have been found. I like them. The surprises are many, and make me wish I had done this or that. But, that said, I would also like to play occasionally against a script that was not quite so ...... "innovative" in its approach.

This is NOT a criticism of the game. I love this dang thing already and I'm just now getting into January '42 (well, after a couple of restarts resulting from gross stupidity). It's an absolutely magnificent game. No doubt the best I have ever seen. It's worth twice the price.

Not bad for a bunch of amatures.

(in reply to Falken)

Post #: 98

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/2/2009 4:43:18 AM

afspret

Posts: 851
Joined: 2/19/2004
From: Hanahan, SC
Status: offline

Run 6 turns so far and now KB is south of Midway moving west, so I guess chasing away with multiple subs helped keep the number of follow up attacks on PH after turn 1 to a total of two, which were small and did very little damage. Of course now Midway's getting hammered!

(in reply to morganbj)

Post #: 99

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/2/2009 2:25:14 PM

TAIL GUNNER

Posts: 1152
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: Los Osos, CA
Status: offline

Perhaps BigJ62 can rewire the editor so that the number of torpedos on a carrier at the start of a scenario can be modified accordingly.

ChadG

_____________________________

"If you want peace, prepare for war."

(in reply to afspret)

Post #: 100

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/2/2009 2:30:35 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

As far as I know, they have the historical torpedo supply. If they stick around for more than 2-3 days, they should be pretty much out of torpedos and more vulnerable to a counter strike.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to TAIL GUNNER)

Post #: 101

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/2/2009 2:47:47 PM

TAIL GUNNER

Posts: 1152
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: Los Osos, CA
Status: offline

I was going on what Splinterhead said...the Japs only had around 40 of the special torpedos that run in shallow water.

If you were able to edit the number of torps on a carrier, you could put your 40 on whatever carriers had them and perhaps get more realistic results.

But fixing that problem makes a new problem....now KB has no torps left for targets of opportunity on the way home...

Now I suddenly remember why I quit my programming major in college...

_____________________________

"If you want peace, prepare for war."

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 102

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/2/2009 2:59:04 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

As far as I know from what I was told by one of the people on the team:

"The data I've seen says there were over 100 "special" torpedos aboard KB as 100 were delivered to Kaga just prior to her sailing - also there were a few aboard prior to that that were part of the preliminary testing. So the 40 that were used historically did not represent the full load of such weapons. So people seem to think the 40 that were used - was the full load out - the data definitely indicates this perception is wrong."

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to TAIL GUNNER)

Post #: 103

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/2/2009 3:15:12 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

Interestingly, these special torpedos were also available and used by the Nettys that atacked PoW and Repulse, initialy the Japaense inteneded to atack them in Port at Singapore, in the end they were used on them at sea.

_____________________________

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 104

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/2/2009 3:35:21 PM

Splinterhead

Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline

That's interesting. Everything I've ever read on the subject indicated there were only 40-48 available for the task force, and I've always assumed the Kaga's late sailing was indicative that they were just barely able to complete the minimum number required in time. I'd love to know where that data came from.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 105

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/2/2009 3:50:33 PM

ChickenOfTheSea

Posts: 579
Joined: 6/7/2008
From: Virginia
Status: offline

Here's a report from the other side. I decided to play a training game of scenario 1 as Japan since I expect to be Japan in my first PBEM. I went with historic first turn. The KB sent 0 (that's right, zero) Kate's into Pearl Harbor. Battleships on fire from Val's but no major damage. In addition, Force Z went undetected. Thus I am entering turn 2, and the Allies have all capital ships intact. It is going to be interesting to see what the AI does with them.

It appears to me like that are an extraordinary number of outcomes for day 1. I could complain about my first turn not being historical, but I like the challenge and I'm going to have fun with it.

AI also unexpectedly sent B17's to bomb the 104th Div. in Canton. An unpredictable AI makes for a more fun game.

< Message edited by ChickenOfTheSea -- 8/2/2009 3:56:56 PM >

_____________________________

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is. - Manfred Eigen

(in reply to Splinterhead)

Post #: 106

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/2/2009 3:53:43 PM

Bluebook

Posts: 143
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I honestly just dont get it maybe its me but I dont we tried to make the AI play the game as hard as we could to make it interesting.

If thats not your cup of tea there is a scenario that starts 8th Dec which has a 100% historic approach or you can play the stock Ai which will faithfully recreate history and fall over in mid 42 at Rabaul when a player a historically reinforces

I guess it boils down to what do you want

1. Faithfull recreation of history where the Ai loses badly because you know its every move UNLESS you also follow history 100%
2. An AI that will try to do unpredictable things but while following the shape of history will try to do things I would do if I were playing PBEM against you.

If the majority honestly want 1. then I am not sure I haved provided what you want.

Andy

You have done a marvellous job on the AI. For the first time ever I am enjoying a game against the AI. You have made the right desicion to model the AI after how you would play in a PBEM. Dont listen to the nay-sayers, there will always be guys like that around. If they cant whine about the AI they would be whining about something else.

Thank you for a truly great gaming experience.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 107

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/2/2009 4:00:23 PM

Graymane

Posts: 520
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Bellevue, NE
Status: offline

Great job on the AI Andy Mac. Please don't consider changing anything for at least a few months. We have nothing but anecdotal evidence so far. We also have the option of HISTORICAL 1st turn and December 8th as well as house rules for PBEM. This is a very minor, non-critical issue with numerous work-a-rounds.

(in reply to Bluebook)

Post #: 108

RE: Pearl Harbor and AI - 8/2/2009 4:51:28 PM

NightFlyer

Posts: 68
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

I started to run out of torpedoes on day 2 of the PH attack (scenario 2), that and with rising fatigue and increasing A2A and flak losses made staying for more than 2 or 3 days counterproductive esp. with Malaya and the Philippines waiting. I think this debate may be a little overblown and may be more related to a visceral reaction to an evil AI

. Why not read a good book or watch a documentary if you want to review history exactly as it happened. BTW, I�m surprised no one mentioned the SSX midget subs and how unlikely they were to get hits, but some historians say a minisub did attack a BB at PH. The image below from US naval archives shows what some claim is a minisub, (green arrow) firing at what I think is the West Virginia (two torpedoes wakes marked with red arrow) the splashes behind the minisub are the propellers breaking the surface as the small craft bobs while launching. Just goes to show you how the improbable may sometimes occur. I must admit it�s still hard to look at the real pictures of PH though.