Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >>

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 8/8/2002 8:58:03 PM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]Actually, the AI is taking quite a bit of computer time. In UV it's still not too bad, but in WitP, it can take several minutes for the computer to get through calculating its move. In fact, it takes so long that our test games of AI vs. AI are pretty slow. At this point, the AI could not be made significantly better without virtually a total rewrite. Gary spent several extra months trying to adjust the AI based on test results that I fed him, but in most areas, every time he made a change to improve one thing, it threw something else out of whack. More time was spent coding and testing the UV AI than on any previous AI in a Grigsby game. I'm afraid that what we have is all we're ever likely to have, at least in UV. [/B][/QUOTE]

The AI is one of the better ones that I have seen. So it must be a bug or a clever heretofore unrevealed plan when the AI parks its ships at Lae for months and lets me bomb them into the sea.;)

The news that the AI does some heavy "thinking" in WitP is good news indeed. The more the better. I am not opposed in the least to haveing to wait a few minutes if the AI can give me a good whuppin without cheating.:)

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 31

The Transport Massacre problem - 8/8/2002 10:14:07 PM

JohnK

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

IMHO by far the single greatest failing of the AI; hopefully improved in WITP. Everything else about my current #17 vs. Allied computer "feels" right about what the AI has done, except that. Have massacred dozens and dozens of transprots.

It's not that the computer TRIES to send transports through areas with the threat of Japanese attack; it SHOULD do that.

It's that it does it in such a feeble way.

Typically, when the computer sends a US task force to PM or somewhere where I've got a lot of air coverage or can mount CV attacks, the AI "convoy" is 3-4 APs escorted by a couple PCs. And a new one turns up every couple of days or so, and each one gets massacred.

Actually, even if the escort wasn't increased, if they just waited and sent 18 AP convoys every other week, with the same escort, more would get through because more targets would come through at any one time and more would survive. The current system presents exactly the amount of targets that can be totally annihilated every other day.

The AI should AT LEAST wait to form a big convoy of a dozen APs or so and escort with DESTROYERS.

Having played 17 as the Allies, I know that after the first 1-2 months the Allies have more destroyers than they know what to do with. Yet the computer seems to keep running these routine convoy routines and escorting with PCs, while the DDs rust in port.

Also, it seems that the AI never tries to run convoys covered by CVs; they'll use CVs just to dash out and attack a land base, or cover an invasion.

The AI will never wait to mount a big RESUPPLY operation with 2 or 3 dozen APs escorted by destroyers and covered by CVs.

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 32

Malta - 8/8/2002 10:16:57 PM

JohnK

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

A good example of what the AI should try (particularly for the Allies) to resupply a beleagured PM or Lunga is Malta.

The British DIDN't send 3-4 transports escorted by a couple corvettes every other day from Gibraltar and Alexandria to Malta; every last one of them would have been completely wiped out.

They waited and got a dozen or so transports and got a massive escort force (often 3-4 times large than the # of transports) every month or every couple months.

They took huge losses but still got transports through.

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 33

- 8/8/2002 11:42:47 PM

juliet7bravo

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline

Evidently, when they did away with displayed AZOC's, they didn't leave any way for the AI to know what is controlled by enemy air and what isn't. Can't blame the AI for a design flaw.

The IJN logistics is even more handicapped than in real life since the barges can't be used as they were historically. The small Sea Trucks aren't included either, forcing the IJN to use AP's in forward areas for supply.

Same for the problems with supplying and rotating troops...it gives the human player fits because of the troops + supply glitch. Causes the AI even more problems.

Ditto for the problems with AK/AP refueling out of the forward bases when dropping supplies. It's even harder for the AI to deal with, since the game has problems with routine/CS convoys including AO's or TK's.

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 34

informal poll on AI - 8/10/2002 5:22:00 AM

CommC

Posts: 467
Joined: 8/3/2002
From: Michigan, USA
Status: offline

I'ld like to see an informal poll on the AI performance. Please reply and post here on the following:

Do you typically, when playing against the AI on its most difficult setting:

a) always win
b) mostly win
c) win about half the time
d) sometimes win
e) rarely win
f) never win

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 35

the "low B" category - 8/10/2002 5:47:39 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

In addition to PBEM, I like to keep two sc17 AI games going, one as IJN, one as Allies. I win most of the time as the Allies, but have a hell of a time breaking better than even as the Japanese. I have a tendency to get popped in one big, surprise carrier battle in early '43, and from then on, it's "Sadie, bar the door."

I think I need to go back into a huddle with myself and decide on a consistent, long-term strategy with the IJN side. Your goals are pretty much self-defining early on (neutralize or take Port Moresby and, when the opportunity presents itself, move through Lunga toward Noumea). After achieving these early objectives, I tend to lose direction, sensing that my material advantages are slowly slipping away in the face of the Allied buildup. I hate to prepare for defense. Mea culpa.

I remember back in the good old days of the original WITSP (which I still have for my C64 emulator) waiting for that giant meatball symbol to come boogying south, indicating that the IJN had finally amassed its 11 carriers and was coming to cut off my head. I am ashamed to have taken advantage so many times of the AI's ignorance and disbanded my carriers in Noumea, waiting for morning when the IJN supergroup is within range of my LBA and hitting them with everything I have, while helping protect my CVs under an umbrella of 100 or so LB fighters (the WITSP AI could not see ships in port, and so, proceeded as though there was nothing there).

I was also guilty of putting my subs on computer control and keeping an eye on where the Japanese carriers were by checking those submarines' destination from time to time (especially just before springing my ambush).

The other thing that worked particularly well was to stay on the four hour turn cycle. After you got in an especially damaging strike, you could disband your CV group and - presto - those hundreds of Zekes, Vals, and Kates had nothing to shoot at, because they had been sent out with orders to attack a task force and you were invisible when in port.

<> Sometimes cheatin' was kinda fun (and I AIN'T talkin' about my extramarital activities, neither).

-------------------------------

I will now proceed to entangle the entire area

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 36