AE my conclusion

[sermil]

After four runs as the Japanese in the Guadalcanal scenario (even at Historical level) I've come to the conclusion that this game was designed with the IJN being complete idiots. You won't be hearing any more from me.
Regards.

[Crimguy]

Sorry to hear that. Haven't tried the smaller scenarios yet. Did you try the grand campaign?

[Erik Rutins]

Sermil,

It's a shame we won't hear more, since the comment you made is completely unhelpful given the nature of the game and the fact that the Guadalcanal scenario is a fairly unique creation. Is this a game balance complaint, an AI complaint, an OOB complaint? I have no idea. But I also think that to judge AE, you have to at least try to play the grand campaign.

Regards,

- Erik

[bradfordkay]

Erik, the problem is that most "gamers" don't have the patience for a grand campaign, and so will be unfairly reviewing WITP and AE based upon the smaller scenarios. So sad...

[sermil]

My considerations are based on the AI's performance. By AI I mean what control of the game you don't have yourself. I won't go into the details because there are far too many things that I've found inconsistent. I don't have the impression that playing the Grand Campaign is going to change how the AI performs in Naval, Carrier and air combat. Unless you tell me that the scenario itself is flawed and that the AI is actually different in the Grand Campaign, then I would give it a try. But my impression here is that I've been playing roulette, not a computer Wargame.

[Terminus]

Well, it's very convenient that he "won't go into details", isn't it? Still, his loss.

[Erik Rutins]

Sermil,

ORIGINAL: sermil
My considerations are based on the AI's performance. By AI I mean what control of the game you don't have yourself. I won't go into the details because there are far too many things that I've found inconsistent. I don't have the impression that playing the Grand Campaign is going to change how the AI performs in Naval, Carrier and air combat. Unless you tell me that the scenario itself is flawed and that the AI is actually different in the Grand Campaign, then I would give it a try. But my impression here is that I've been playing roulette, not a computer Wargame.

The AI is indeed different in the smaller scenarios like GC vs. the Grand Campaign. However, I can't say if it would be different enough without a little more info from you. Can you at least give me a couple of specific points for comparison?

Note also that the AI is being improved as I type, in response to various points of feedback from customers and we will continue to do so, so the more specifics you can give us, the better a chance we have of addressing the things that are bugging you. Note that our goal with respect to the AI was to make sure we could double the size of the game over WITP without making the AI any dumber. From what I've seen in my vs. AI play with the release version in Scenario #2, we achieved far more than that goal, but your mileage may vary with the Guadalcanal scenario.

In any case, the more specific feedback you can give us, the better.

Regards,

- Erik

[SteveD64]

I've been playing the Guadalcanal scenario recently and would be interested in specific examples to see if your experience matched up with mine.

[jjax]

You can not help someone who does not want to be help.

It looks like he made up his mind,assuming he actually owns the game.

[mjk428]

From other thread:

Then there's the AI. I thought I would see some more sensible decisions being made. But here's what I see: playing the Allies I've damaged two Japanese carriers off the Salomons, but instead of retreating they end up in naval combat in Lunga?
To conclude there was one improvement I wanted to see in the game: when a carrier task force is being attacked by kates and vals, the main focus of sorties should be the ennemy carriers. Instead the sorties are still wasted on nearby freight ships. This doesn't make good sense to me.
Final thought, this is scenario related: how am I to acquire new sorties for my carriers? (haven't read thoroughly the manual for this one).

tm.asp?m=2194725&mpage=1&key=&#2194725

[khyberbill]

After four runs as the Japanese in the Guadalcanal scenario (even at Historical level) I've come to the conclusion that this game was designed with the IJN being complete idiots. You won't be hearing any more from me.
Regards.

Interesting observation. I have seen just the opposite. The Japanese AI has given me a run for my money as well as my human opponent who just sank the Wasp and put the Saratoga in the yards for a few months. ymmv

[sermil]

Ok then here we go:
1) as an aside I'm not sure the program itself isn't corrupted since I've been having the Betty's image on the map again while playing (see my previous bug report).
2) You will probably give an explanation to these points but:
Carrier to carrier combat, I play the Japanese. I send about 60 vals and kates from my four carriers, plus 45 escorts (I didn't keep the results to show you I'm sorry). The escorts make it through more or less (seems like my pilots are in a bad shape). But then the vals and kates attack. They get four good hits off a BB and a destroyer (maybe they didn't find the carriers, do I have to increase search to 100%?)although they did try to hit the Enterprise a few times. This left me with minus 3 carriers.
3) This is more weird: the USN sends a few ships on a suicide mission near Rabaul. My Bettys sink all the ships save a destroyer. As my carrier head for Lunga to meet the USN, they send 45 zeroes (you've heard me) on something that looks like an attack on this one destroyer. Now that was kinda funny...
4) Since the carrier combat is a no-no, I've tried to be clever and use a tactic against the AI as I did on a previous game: I send a surface combat TF to Shortlands and keep my carriers out of reach but close enough so the AI doesn't really know where to clobber me. Then next turn I send the Surface combat TF to Tessarafonga to sink the ennemy transports (which as you know are not escorted) overnight. They do successfully sink a few transports, but from what I gather, the latter managed to break out, so my TF remained until after dawn looking for them? You can easily imagine the result of that, with the USN carriers 2 hexes away. Note I did leave the "retreat" option on default for this TF. Minus 7 ships.
5) I have a few other weird things I've noticed while playing but I haven't noted all of them down, so I can't recall them now.

Thank you for your attention.

[sermil]

Mr. Rutins can easily check that I own the game. Sorry...

[CV Zuikaku]

Well, I am JFB, been playing GC, and didn't noticed so far that IJN or Zeroes are hendicaped in any way. Had few night combats and IJN was victorios. Losses were realistic. Zeroes got 4:1 kill rate in their favour. But yes, there have to be much more planning and preparations then in WITP. AE is a true gem in the world of "games". Can't wait for the few bugs being fixed- then AE will be perfect [:)] [&o]

[Tazo]

 
You know sermil, this game takes time to master. If your TF do not opperate as you planed them for, this is certainly that you miss some point,
as everybody during this kind of never ending learning process. For instance, to make you surface TF knock the convoy and come back, just
use a full move of 10 hexes (5+5) with a waypoint, the encounter has some chance to take place during the night half turn surface phase
with your TF + the convoy in the same hex. Likewise, if your carrier clash occured during stormy or very overcast weather then it may
happen that the CVs are hidden under a cloud (it was the case several time to escape raiders, only the protecting BB/CA can be attacked,
they are always around in close protection to take torpedoes in place of the big guys and providing side AA). With such a massive raid,
save you turn after orders and settings then try to run it several times, I'm sure that very often you will severly hurt the CVs. Note also
that if several TFs are in the same hex then depending on the coordination of your attacking groups they can very well spot only one TF
and attack this one believing it is the right one... even if no CVs can be find eventually. Stacking TFs without merging is a good defensice
attitude (but the strikes back are not well coordinated and often are lost).
 
This is to say you that the "AI executing your orders" is not deterministic and driven by circumstances and inspiration of your leaders,
not only your wishes. You are not giving the tactical orders as a fleet commander. And thus you need to experience many desappointing
situations before fully mastering the right "settings/orders" to be given to your units to obtain the organization and reactions you want to.
This is the flavor of this game, to give good directives to the right units (to be well known, strengh and weaknesses) given a FOWed situation,
then look at what really happens as a spectator. Different players will give you different advises and have many tricks and tactics. Find your
own way but be aware that what will happen is not fully explained but most of us find it very realistic, so just imagine the modeled truth, and
then adapt you commands - or repeat the same phases or beginning of scenarii to learn more by practicing the outcomes.
 
Mastering Guadacanal from the oppening move to the last one is not an easy task. And if we play together and move our masterpieces carriers 
facing each other, neither you or me will do the decision as players, this tactical encounter will be managed by the AI with respect to leaders,
weather, hundred parameters among which our respective settings. But, say, I win the clash. Well, nothing decisive right now, the final decision
will depend on my reaction and your subsequent plans... One right decision can be not rewarded enough. But hundred bad decisions can not be
always rewarded. Imagine you try to clean the aera in an overconfident way, then I can trap your carriers in another way. We both have 99%
other small things/units to do/use and maybe I prepared a when timed invasion you have not spotted now. What I mean is that after 5 months
of thousands orders this first clash, even desappointed for me and rewardful or you, will be really forgotten... This game is about long and mid
term planning and reaction to unexpectedly bad news. BUT what you're talking about is the initial step of the short term tactical management of
units in front line, in the way you want to see them act, and this can only be learned by understanding your mistakes and what was modeled by
the game in each of your desappointing situations. Most of the threads are to ask others what can have happened reading such or such report.
Sometimes there are answers explaining what should have been done before reaching the situation...
 
Good luck with your learning of tactical short term management. But remenber that after this necessary step the heart of the game is still something
else, the way you plan a mid term operation... of course in avoiding tactical unaccurate ways. I've to start my fourth Guadalcanal campaign - I've
seen a lot of actions, many no-no encounters, each easilly explainable and exiting for the next step (abort or insist ? withdraw the convoy ?...), and
very few yes-no clearly decisive compared to the long trend to maintain optimal rythm and high/low intensity and risk.
 
Regards, TZ

[Tazo]

Please read "But, say, you win the clash. "
TZ

[spence]

Losses were realistic. Zeroes got 4:1 kill rate in their favour.

Just out of curiosity, what planet did this take place on?

[SteveD64]

In Guadalcanal, the Japanese have two carriers (the Ryujo is terrible with not so good pilots) to stand up against three US carriers.  They cannot go toe to toe against the whole US carrier fleet.  It's not advisable to gamble with them on carrier battles.

[Titanwarrior89]

What ever Tazo said...........[X(][:D]

ORIGINAL: Tazo

 
You know sermil, this game takes time to master. If your TF do not opperate as you planed them for, this is certainly that you miss some point,
as everybody during this kind of never ending learning process. For instance, to make you surface TF knock the convoy and come back, just
use a full move of 10 hexes (5+5) with a waypoint, the encounter has some chance to take place during the night half turn surface phase
with your TF + the convoy in the same hex. Likewise, if your carrier clash occured during stormy or very overcast weather then it may
happen that the CVs are hidden under a cloud (it was the case several time to escape raiders, only the protecting BB/CA can be attacked,
they are always around in close protection to take torpedoes in place of the big guys and providing side AA). With such a massive raid,
save you turn after orders and settings then try to run it several times, I'm sure that very often you will severly hurt the CVs. Note also
that if several TFs are in the same hex then depending on the coordination of your attacking groups they can very well spot only one TF
and attack this one believing it is the right one... even if no CVs can be find eventually. Stacking TFs without merging is a good defensice
attitude (but the strikes back are not well coordinated and often are lost).

This is to say you that the "AI executing your orders" is not deterministic and driven by circumstances and inspiration of your leaders,
not only your wishes. You are not giving the tactical orders as a fleet commander. And thus you need to experience many desappointing
situations before fully mastering the right "settings/orders" to be given to your units to obtain the organization and reactions you want to.
This is the flavor of this game, to give good directives to the right units (to be well known, strengh and weaknesses) given a FOWed situation,
then look at what really happens as a spectator. Different players will give you different advises and have many tricks and tactics. Find your
own way but be aware that what will happen is not fully explained but most of us find it very realistic, so just imagine the modeled truth, and
then adapt you commands - or repeat the same phases or beginning of scenarii to learn more by practicing the outcomes.

Mastering Guadacanal from the oppening move to the last one is not an easy task. And if we play together and move our masterpieces carriers 
facing each other, neither you or me will do the decision as players, this tactical encounter will be managed by the AI with respect to leaders,
weather, hundred parameters among which our respective settings. But, say, I win the clash. Well, nothing decisive right now, the final decision
will depend on my reaction and your subsequent plans... One right decision can be not rewarded enough. But hundred bad decisions can not be
always rewarded. Imagine you try to clean the aera in an overconfident way, then I can trap your carriers in another way. We both have 99%
other small things/units to do/use and maybe I prepared a when timed invasion you have not spotted now. What I mean is that after 5 months
of thousands orders this first clash, even desappointed for me and rewardful or you, will be really forgotten... This game is about long and mid
term planning and reaction to unexpectedly bad news. BUT what you're talking about is the initial step of the short term tactical management of
units in front line, in the way you want to see them act, and this can only be learned by understanding your mistakes and what was modeled by
the game in each of your desappointing situations. Most of the threads are to ask others what can have happened reading such or such report.
Sometimes there are answers explaining what should have been done before reaching the situation...

Good luck with your learning of tactical short term management. But remenber that after this necessary step the heart of the game is still something
else, the way you plan a mid term operation... of course in avoiding tactical unaccurate ways. I've to start my fourth Guadalcanal campaign - I've
seen a lot of actions, many no-no encounters, each easilly explainable and exiting for the next step (abort or insist ? withdraw the convoy ?...), and
very few yes-no clearly decisive compared to the long trend to maintain optimal rythm and high/low intensity and risk.

Regards, TZ

[Erik Rutins]

Hi Sermil,

Thank you.

ORIGINAL: sermil
1) as an aside I'm not sure the program itself isn't corrupted since I've been having the Betty's image on the map again while playing (see my previous bug report).

Is this in Windowed or Full Screen mode? Are you using any command-line switches?

2) You will probably give an explanation to these points but:
Carrier to carrier combat, I play the Japanese. I send about 60 vals and kates from my four carriers, plus 45 escorts (I didn't keep the results to show you I'm sorry). The escorts make it through more or less (seems like my pilots are in a bad shape). But then the vals and kates attack. They get four good hits off a BB and a destroyer (maybe they didn't find the carriers, do I have to increase search to 100%?)although they did try to hit the Enterprise a few times. This left me with minus 3 carriers.

So if I understand you correctly, the strike did not actually hit a single US carrier, although it tried to hit the Enterprise? Now it's true that "anything can happen" but that seems like very much a "statistical outlier" result. If you have a save of the turn of this combat we'd be happy to investigate to make sure it was just bad luck. In my experience they do target carriers well.

3) This is more weird: the USN sends a few ships on a suicide mission near Rabaul. My Bettys sink all the ships save a destroyer. As my carrier head for Lunga to meet the USN, they send 45 zeroes (you've heard me) on something that looks like an attack on this one destroyer. Now that was kinda funny...

The zeros were actually bombing the Destroyer? No Kates or Vals involved? It would be interesting to see how that happened if you have a save.

4) Since the carrier combat is a no-no, I've tried to be clever and use a tactic against the AI as I did on a previous game: I send a surface combat TF to Shortlands and keep my carriers out of reach but close enough so the AI doesn't really know where to clobber me. Then next turn I send the Surface combat TF to Tessarafonga to sink the ennemy transports (which as you know are not escorted) overnight. They do successfully sink a few transports, but from what I gather, the latter managed to break out, so my TF remained until after dawn looking for them? You can easily imagine the result of that, with the USN carriers 2 hexes away. Note I did leave the "retreat" option on default for this TF. Minus 7 ships.

Assuming all TF settings were correct, this sounds like it could be a few things at work. First, there was a "dash in/dash out" bug in the release version (already fixed for the first update) that could sometimes cause such TFs to stay around in daylight. The only other possibility is that the amount of time your ships spent in combat did not allow them to spend much time sailing back out, but in that case I would have expected to see them still retreating, just not as far. I'm guessing this was due to the bug, but if you have a save we'd be happy to look at this as well.

Then there's the AI. I thought I would see some more sensible decisions being made. But here's what I see: playing the Allies I've damaged two Japanese carriers off the Salomons, but instead of retreating they end up in naval combat in Lunga?

This is a bit too vague for me to fully figure out. The Japanese AI carriers moved into combat at Lunga? Was Lunga still Japanese-controlled when this happened?

To conclude there was one improvement I wanted to see in the game: when a carrier task force is being attacked by kates and vals, the main focus of sorties should be the ennemy carriers. Instead the sorties are still wasted on nearby freight ships. This doesn't make good sense to me.

My experience has been that they absolutely focus on the enemy carriers as long as they have detected them. I think this one is just due to either bad luck and/or low detection. I would not expect you to see a lot of this.

- Erik