AI a little /too/ aggressive?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
morganbj
Posts: 3472
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:36 am
Location: Mosquito Bite, Texas

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by morganbj »

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Just watch this space next time the AI will do better.

I have a cunning plan.
Yeah. The AI just sprang it on me. Dang it!. Persistent little buggars, aren't they? Well, they can take it (them), but they can't hold it (them).

Very clever, Andy Mac. Very clever, indeed.

(A little vagueness in my words to keep those who haven't had the pleasure of the surprise in the dark.)
Occasionally, and randomly, problems and solutions collide. The probability of these collisions is inversely related to the number of committees working on the solutions. -- Me.
Andy Mac
Posts: 12573
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by Andy Mac »

[:D][:D][:D][:D]
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by EUBanana »

ORIGINAL: langleyCV1

The AI seems to sent jap bombers out without an escort far too often in my eyes is anybody else seeing this!

MJT

Yeah. This is why the Dutch airforce was kicking ass until the western Borneo bases fell. Only very recently have Zeroes had the range to fly over Java... but that doesn't deter the flying zippo!
Image
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by John Lansford »

Is there a real point, though, to the AI assaulting bases that they've got no realistic way to hang onto for any length of time?  Canton is a good example; the AI landed a SNLF there and was more than enough to wipe out the base force, but nowhere enough to stand up to the force the Allies had available and fairly close by.  They kept it for roughly 10 days, never tried to bring in reinforcements (or evac the SNLF, which would have REALLY ticked me off), or resupply.  A few days bombardment by some cruisers, bombing by my CV's (not even all the DB's since I expected some naval intervention), and the two NZ brigades and it was all over.
 
Now, had the SNLF landed, wiped out my base force, had some way to destroy the facilities (returning Canton to its original condition, for example), and then left, simulating a raid on the base, now THAT would have been great.  It would force me to try and beef up all those isolated bases with garrisons or risk losing them with no way to 'get back' at the AI, and the AI doesn't lose anything in the process (assuming they evac successfully).
User avatar
viberpol
Posts: 838
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Gizycko, Poland, EU

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by viberpol »

ORIGINAL: Drakken
ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I will say the AI is doing a nice job with Subs so far.

Absolutely. In fact, I like the fact that the AI is more unpredictable and aggressive than in WITP. Surprise is a very nice element.

Now, if it could protect all its amphibious landing TFs with escorts or accompany them with SCTFs, even if it means slowing down the juggernaut schedule a bit, everything would be nigh-on perfect. [&o]

Yeah, aggressiveness and unpredictability... that's definetely something new in AE.
You have to screen not only the invasion TFs, but own "safe" ports as well!
I my test game against AI it sprinted from Singapore with 2 CLs & 4 DDs to attack... waters around Saigon [X(]
The day before cruisers were attacked by my Betties, but sinking one of them and 2 DDs didn't stop AI from obeying the GC's orders.
Next day:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Saigon at 60,73, Range 20,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
AO Notoro, Shell hits 15, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AK Kaga Maru, Shell hits 23, and is sunk
xAK Kaiko Maru, Shell hits 3, heavy fires
xAK Eihuku Maru, Shell hits 3
xAK Mikasa Maru, Shell hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Aso Maru, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Hakka Maru, Shell hits 13, and is sunk
xAKL Haguro Maru, Shell hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Kaika Maru, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Kaishi Maru, Shell hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAP Hakusan Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire
xAP Kobe Maru, Shell hits 13, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CL Danae, Shell hits 2
DD Vampire
DD Express

That's somehow confusing and... I like it, even if I lost several merchants [:D]
Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by EUBanana »

It may indeed surprise you, but I'm sure the Russians at Balaclava were surprised by the Light Brigade charging at them as well.

The Light Brigade pulled it off (they did reach the Russian batteries after all!) and these cruisers pulled it off, in that at least they sunk something. 

But still...  it may be magnificent, but is it war?
Image
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by John Lansford »

If the AI continues to be this aggressive in 1942, though, mounting losses both in transport and warships may cause a full collapse of the game by mid-43.  It's only January 1942 in my game, but already I've sunk three CA's and numerous DD's, for two Dutch CL's, some Dutch DD's and Houston.  The AI's invasion of Canton lost it a SNLF, and it's currently conducting yet another overextended invasion at xxxxx that I intend to break up very, very soon.  Landings at Menado, Macassar and Tarakan are also being conducted too, but they're barely supported.  The one LCU at Tarakan is already running low on supplies and is having trouble against the garrison and CD units stationed there; no resupply has been attempted even though there's plenty of ships at Jolo.
 
(New invasion site hidden so as to not spoil the surprise for others; let's just say it's a popular location in the SWPac region...)
TheOx
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:53 pm

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by TheOx »

The AI is throwing haymakers at me like a drunk. Sometimes even a drunk gets a punch in. I've been able to hold down the fort, so to speak, but damn if they don't have me scrambling to assemble SAGs every turn! FUN FUN FUN 
medicff
Posts: 710
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:53 pm
Location: WPB, Florida

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by medicff »

I agree that the AI is aggressive and is taking losses in securing bases but as Andy and Erik have pointed out they need to be aggressive to take the non reinforced bases in the first four months as a human player would. The only difference is a human would react better to unexpected encounters and have a reserve ready to reinforce/resupply a contested area. Hopefully once the AI does its expansion, it settles into a defensive build mode and secure its losses. This would make a good game and early losses would be offset by the rapid expansion of bases slowing the humans ability to respond and attack.

I plan on taking on scenario 2 in the next go around to give the AI a better chance and still allow me to use cunning attacks to prep for PBEM. This of course after some more learning curve and the first patch [:D]
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 39324
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by Erik Rutins »

Keep in mind that you guys haven't seen the AI through 1945 whereas we have. We'll see how it goes "in the wild" but we have some confidence. [8D] Andy is watching and tweaking where it seems appropriate as well.
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC


Image

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

Freedom is not Free.
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 11243
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by Sardaukar »

I am scratching my head how to stop IJ AI in 8 Dec scenario, late February. After losing Canton I. (I have INF regiment prepping to take it back), Baker I., Tulagi, Luganville, Efate, Milne Bay and Koumac, I am spread quite thin. Only substantial reinforcement I have gotten to SW Pacific is AUS 16th Brigade, which I think I have to ship to Noumea to keep at least that. Rest of the AUS 6th Div is on their way...from Aden...so looong way to go still.
 
Lack of APs is really really annoying! [8D]
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
fcam1387
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:09 am

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by fcam1387 »

Most people discuss the Japanese AI, but how does the Allied AI fair in the medium to long term? I'm playing a Jap grand campaign now and am wondering whether I should expect it to adopt an offensive posture by mid 1942/3.
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by Shark7 »

Subs it seems to do ok with, but those unescorted amphibs are liable to make the end game very boring. not much fun to steamroll into Japan because the AI lost all its combat units in 1942 due to unescorted amphibs.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by John Lansford »

If the AI is going after places like Koumac, I'd let them do so as long as it doesn't try and build up the base.  IIRC Koumac was hard to improve enough to put multiengine bombers on, and it would be very easy to interdict shipping going there from Noumea.  Efate and Luginville are another matter, but having Suva and Noumea nearby would make it simpler to retake those two as long as the forces are available.  There are three NZ brigades on Suva that can be used, and plenty of infantry in Hawaii if you use them judiciously.
 
If the AI pushes too fast, though, all those bases are just little unimproved islands that can't protect themselves and are outside the range of anywhere that could support them.  It's one reason I don't bother building up a base until I'm determined to keep it, and turn off all airbase construction in places I expect to lose (like the PI and DEI); you're just doing the AI's work for it in those areas.
Andy Mac
Posts: 12573
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by Andy Mac »

I am keeping an eye on the saves I recieve and trying to watch how things move around.
 
The new AI files 'seem' to be a lot better in my tests but the proof will be when you get them.
 
The more feedback I get the better.
 
 
Andy Mac
Posts: 12573
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by Andy Mac »

I guess my only question is do folks think the AI is giving them a reasonable game ? - we only promised no worse than stock - from what I am reading and seeing people seem to think its better which is good but there seems to be real concern that its going beyond history?
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by EUBanana »

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I guess my only question is do folks think the AI is giving them a reasonable game ? - we only promised no worse than stock - from what I am reading and seeing people seem to think its better which is good but there seems to be real concern that its going beyond history?

Its way better than stock, and its advancing quite far and keeping me on my toes - but it's also suffering huge losses, often from moves I think are crazy. It makes me worry about the end game.

Admittedly thats a long way off. I just hope that this "damn the torpedoes" stage of the game comes to an end while there is still an IJN...
Image
User avatar
WingedIncubus
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:17 am

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by WingedIncubus »

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I guess my only question is do folks think the AI is giving them a reasonable game ? - we only promised no worse than stock - from what I am reading and seeing people seem to think its better which is good but there seems to be real concern thats its almost to aggressive ?

IHMO, at the core it is definitely giving me a reasonable game compared to the straight-jacket AI in WITP.

My only worry, which may be totally unfounded, is that the current AI, by being too aggressive too early, is spreading out his forces too fast on conquering small, isolated bases with no immediate value (like going as far as Rabaul on December 10th, 1941, while having just started invading the Philippines and Malaya).

This, added to the lack of escorts for Amphi TFs, could lead to the Japanese AI overextending himself much too soon.
Andy Mac
Posts: 12573
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by Andy Mac »

Yup its an issue but the AI needs to stirke while the allies are weak or it may never manage it !!!
 
I will keep playing with it to try and get more cover
AttuWatcher
Posts: 489
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:15 pm
Location: Hex 181, 36

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by AttuWatcher »

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Yup its an issue but the AI needs to stirke while the allies are weak or it may never manage it !!!

I will keep playing with it to try and get more cover

I think the AI also has to take a big risk/unexpected attack to catch a human player off guard. It just isin't possible otherwise.
Image
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”