Question relating to CAIO game

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design and the game editor for WITP.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
Buck Beach
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Upland,CA,USA

Question relating to CAIO game

Post by Buck Beach »

For AI players or of course Sid. I'm not sure if explained I will understand the answer, BUT, what is it about the River-port of Harbin in China (base #367 at 63-29) that the Japanese computer player continues to set their major TFs home port at that location. Maybe if it is known why, it will disclose some sort of secret as to how to manipulate some of the computer's dumb actions. I have a save game file if anyone would like to see it.


I am also continually dismayed that AI task forces do not have sufficient endurance to reach their assigned destination. To this uneducated computer user, it would seem this would be a rather simple computer augment/decision.
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: Question relating to CAIO game

Post by m10bob »

For my 2 cents, the rivers connecting to the ocean can be left out, if this is causing this kind of action. I too have experienced a Japanese putting entirely too much emphasis (naval presence) on the Yangtze. I have sunk the DD Kagero halfway to Chungking, apparently(LOL).
If land supply is operating from the coastline ports sufficiently, I am for scrapping the Chinese rivers in that it was likely blockaded (ala Sand Pebbles) anyway, at some point?
I too am a pure AI player and converted to the CHS family when Andrew released it.

BTW, I have been play-testing RHS as long as any human player, and have re-started easily 100 times.
I think it is time to complete a game.
Others might find something here and there, but the game is NOT broken that I can tell (now that Allied planes are being produced,) so knowing the decision to add further upgrades is MY decision, I now intend to dive into a game, (to see how far I can get this time, and will report anything I find amiss,(long ways down the road, this time, I hope)..[8D]
Image

Buck Beach
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Upland,CA,USA

RE: Question relating to CAIO game

Post by Buck Beach »

ORIGINAL: m10bob

For my 2 cents, the rivers connecting to the ocean can be left out, if this is causing this kind of action. I too have experienced a Japanese putting entirely too much emphasis (naval presence) on the Yangtze. I have sunk the DD Kagero halfway to Chungking, apparently(LOL).
If land supply is operating from the coastline ports sufficiently, I am for scrapping the Chinese rivers in that it was likely blockaded (ala Sand Pebbles) anyway, at some point?
I too am a pure AI player and converted to the CHS family when Andrew released it.

BTW, I have been play-testing RHS as long as any human player, and have re-started easily 100 times.
I think it is time to complete a game.
Others might find something here and there, but the game is NOT broken that I can tell (now that Allied planes are being produced,) so knowing the decision to add further upgrades is MY decision, I now intend to dive into a game, (to see how far I can get this time, and will report anything I find amiss,(long ways down the road, this time, I hope)..[8D]

The rivers are closed for the most part. Where the problem comes in is when there is a river-port on a closed system. In CVO this is a major, major problem. Much of the Japanese shipping will set their destinations and home ports in theses ports. In AIO & CAIO all the inland riverports/bases are disabled except for a few that historically had deep channels (I do not know this but is what is reported). However, what I have experienced is that there seems always a couple that slip through the cracks.

Having said that it appears that the new update has been corrected from that standpoint (no promises).

I am going to check some more before starting again.
el cid again
Posts: 16980
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Question relating to CAIO game

Post by el cid again »

To start at the end, the rivers are important, and it is now so well recognized that AE will include them - with a new field - so shallow and deep are possible to control. Without the Yantze you will never get a major offensive going deep in China - and that is also right: it was the most important LOC in country. The other major one - the Yellow River - was messed up deliberately just before our war scenarios begin. The third - the Pearl River - is also present and never is a problem (being short). Anyway - they should not be left out- and will be part of stock from now on - although no doubt in different forms in terms of exactly what you get.

AI is truly stupid - and so AIO and CAIO may not haved ports on rivers NOT connected to the sea. That is - "interior river systems" do not exist in AIO and CAIO - and Harbin should not have a port value nor be set as a base (rather an airfield). Checking.
el cid again
Posts: 16980
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Question relating to CAIO game

Post by el cid again »

I checked. Harbin is an airfield in both AIO and CAIO. So you do NOT have the current and correct location file in your SCEN folder.

Having reviewed this just last night I was pretty sure it was right. And it is.

I do - however - have some revised air groups for AIO and CAIO - to help poor AI out even more - and if / when we do an update - AIO and CAIO will get slightly more intelligent. Problem: AI will NOT let an air unit (other than floatplane or flying boat) stay set for ASW - so I cannot make an ASW air unit do its job more than one day - YOU must reset EVERY ASW unit every day - or it won't do ASW. Sorry. I never said AIO or CAIO were going to overcome AI problems of this sort - they are only intended to give you a really stupid opponent - because only hard code can fix AI - and it isn't going to be fixed for AE either.
el cid again
Posts: 16980
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Question relating to CAIO game

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
ORIGINAL: m10bob

For my 2 cents, the rivers connecting to the ocean can be left out, if this is causing this kind of action. I too have experienced a Japanese putting entirely too much emphasis (naval presence) on the Yangtze. I have sunk the DD Kagero halfway to Chungking, apparently(LOL).
If land supply is operating from the coastline ports sufficiently, I am for scrapping the Chinese rivers in that it was likely blockaded (ala Sand Pebbles) anyway, at some point?
I too am a pure AI player and converted to the CHS family when Andrew released it.

BTW, I have been play-testing RHS as long as any human player, and have re-started easily 100 times.
I think it is time to complete a game.
Others might find something here and there, but the game is NOT broken that I can tell (now that Allied planes are being produced,) so knowing the decision to add further upgrades is MY decision, I now intend to dive into a game, (to see how far I can get this time, and will report anything I find amiss,(long ways down the road, this time, I hope)..[8D]

The rivers are closed for the most part. Where the problem comes in is when there is a river-port on a closed system. In CVO this is a major, major problem. Much of the Japanese shipping will set their destinations and home ports in theses ports. In AIO & CAIO all the inland riverports/bases are disabled except for a few that historically had deep channels (I do not know this but is what is reported). However, what I have experienced is that there seems always a couple that slip through the cracks.

Having said that it appears that the new update has been corrected from that standpoint (no promises).

I am going to check some more before starting again.

I disagree that

a) most river's are interior - most are exterior

b) interior rivers are a "problem" in CVO. IF you do not play vs AI - which CVO is NOT able to do - it is not a problem at all. Rather it is a vital opportunity. The Ganges/Bhramaputra river system in India and the Amur river system in Russia are particularly vital - the former logistically permitting faster movement and some actual supply control for the Allies - the latter permitting the (historical) invasion route where there are no roads or rail lines - and a potential for an interesting micro naval war. Yet another case - Burma - is more difficult (equally historical) - but possible to exploit - especially now you have a pwhex file that gives you control of the "gate" to the sea.

Note that we will now issue an RHS installer/switcher giving easier install and pwhex switching control to players - as soon as we verify the files can be included in it because they are stable.
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”