Ironman scenarios

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

Chris21wen
Posts: 6948
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Cottesmore, Rutland

Ironman scenarios

Post by Chris21wen »

Not sure what others think about Ironman scenarios but I don't think they work. In my last (now three ironman) there's been attempted invasions to Diego Garcia and Canton Is, raids to PH and the E. Coast of Aus or the sending of two, sometimes one, carriers on raids within 4-6 hexes of a port without surface support. (E.g. Java, Pago and E. Aus). All of these have ended in disaster of the Japanese AI especially the CV ops when I've simply formed a surface TF and sunk the CVs. With the raids I've used CV TF to sink heavies.

I know the AI is not very bright so designers do these thing to try and overcome the problem. My thoughts are there don't work, in fact they make the problem worse. There maybe other advantages for the AI that I do not know about during the designing, if so I'd like too know what.

I'd like to know the thoughts of others.

User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by HansBolter »

Yes the AI continues to do stupid things in the Ironman scenarios.

The up side is it gets way more units to lose so it can remain semi-viable for a lot longer than a stock scenario.

AndyMac continues to work on the AI.

His focus now is on some new later start date scenarios and revamping the AI in the stock scenarios.

Those of us that play the AI hope he will eventually get freed up form these tasks and tackle improving the AI in the Ironman scenarios.

I'm currently playing his Ironman Ported to Babes scenario (#40).

While I haven't yet tried it I believe it's scenario #60 that is the furthest over the top with a beefed up Japanese side.

Might want to give that one a spin.
Hans

User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Not sure what others think about Ironman scenarios but I don't think they work. In my last (now three ironman) there's been attempted invasions to Diego Garcia and Canton Is, raids to PH and the E. Coast of Aus or the sending of two, sometimes one, carriers on raids within 4-6 hexes of a port without surface support. (E.g. Java, Pago and E. Aus). All of these have ended in disaster of the Japanese AI especially the CV ops when I've simply formed a surface TF and sunk the CVs. With the raids I've used CV TF to sink heavies.

I know the AI is not very bright so designers do these thing to try and overcome the problem. My thoughts are there don't work, in fact they make the problem worse. There maybe other advantages for the AI that I do not know about during the designing, if so I'd like too know what.

I'd like to know the thoughts of others.


Invading DG is often done in PBEM games. It's not always a dumb move, not always smart.

Ditto Canton. Most PBEM games see Canton Japanese for a time, or at least a strong landing attempt.

For any raids, you as the human have the option of leaving them alone. You don't have to pound the AI every chance you get. If you don't you'll see the late game, which is fun.

The Moose
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by PaxMondo »

Well, playing Ironman almost exclusively, Nasty, Nasty version modded to be a bit more ...

I've played the allied side only a couple of times for testing purposes. Few tips:

1. Play on Hard (or very hard). It will keep you honest.
2. Don't setup the AI for failure. Once a script fires, it is on until its conditions are met. But restarting from a save several turns earlier seems to often (but not always by any means) put the script to sleep. So, if it is trying to invade Canton fruitlessly, go back several turns, play H2H, and get the AI out of its rut. You'll likely have to run ~3 turns H2H. If it works, great. If not, don't pound the AI unless you want a short game. Just ignore it and focus elsewhere.
3. No deep passes. Be methodical on offense. Don't do a deep end around and surprise the AI. You won't like the results.

Search the forum for other advice ... been given 100's of times ...
Pax
Chris21wen
Posts: 6948
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Cottesmore, Rutland

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by Chris21wen »


ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Yes the AI continues to do stupid things in the Ironman scenarios.

The up side is it gets way more units to lose so it can remain semi-viable for a lot longer than a stock scenario.

AndyMac continues to work on the AI.

His focus now is on some new later start date scenarios and revamping the AI in the stock scenarios.

Those of us that play the AI hope he will eventually get freed up form these tasks and tackle improving the AI in the Ironman scenarios.

I'm currently playing his Ironman Ported to Babes scenario (#40).

While I haven't yet tried it I believe it's scenario #60 that is the furthest over the top with a beefed up Japanese side.

Might want to give that one a spin.

I did try that or think I did. A Japanese invasion of Canada or somewhere on the W Coast immediately turned me off. I like my games to me realistic or as realistic as it's possible to get. I'm currently playing #30 DaBabes Ironman B. What's #40 like?

I was hoping there's was a scenario that concentrated on more historic lines but with a beefed up Japanese side. I'm tempted to try myself but never even considered it before and have no idea where to start.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Invading DG is often done in PBEM games. It's not always a dumb move, not always smart.

Ditto Canton. Most PBEM games see Canton Japanese for a time, or at least a strong landing attempt.

For any raids, you as the human have the option of leaving them alone. You don't have to pound the AI every chance you get. If you don't you'll see the late game, which is fun.



Invading is not a bad idea, invading without support is. That is what happened in my latest. I did attempt to let them do there thing by going back a turn and moving my ships/aircraft away but I could do nothing about my Inf already at Diego or Canton.

The most disastrous one for the Japanese was the loss off Kaga and Agaki when they moved within 8 hexes of Batavia. I had no idea what was there at the time. Repulse and Prince of Whales had escape with minor damage and had been sitting in Batavia along with two US CA/CL and some DD. I formed a surface TF gave it an aggressive commander, pointed them in the general direction of the TF movement and said go kill. Contact was made 6 hexes away. Scratch two CV and one CA with minor damage. too myself. As far as I can make out there was one other CA and one CL present.

Retrospectively I should have reloaded and run away as they loss has really screwed the game.
paradigmblue
Posts: 784
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:44 pm
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by paradigmblue »

As others have said, while Andy continues to do a great job with the tools that the game engine has, the fact is that the "AI"... isn't. The computer opponent will attempt to fulfill scripted objectives, regardless of the tactical or strategic situation.

Do you have a strait completely locked down with hundreds of dive-bombers. Doesn't matter - if the scripted objective is past that strait, the computer will try and run it.

Do you have the allied death-star with hundreds of planes ready to pounce on a surface TF? Doesn't matter - if Japan is scripted to sail there, it will.

Because the AI can't read the strategic and tactical situation, it will always blunder into situations that it shouldn't, simply because of the nature of the system. To counter this - and to make your game last a bit longer - withdraw your forces from areas that were part of Japan's historical high-water mark in territorial gains, and don't contest them. To speed this up you can let the game run continuously for a couple hours after you've made your major withdrawals. By the middle of 42, the scripted AI will have taken most of its goals and you can then begin playing again. I like to go a step further and wait until 43 before I step back in.

Even then, you'll find that the AI is simply no substitute for a human opponent. I thought I was "good" at WitP:AE until I played my first game vs a human opponent - how wrong I was. However, your successes vs a human are that much more thrilling than any play you can make vs the AI.
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by HansBolter »

40 is the scenario where the AI invades Coal Harbor on the first turn.

It also invades Midway, Johnston and Hilo on the first turn.

It starts with infiltrators in Malaya and Burma.

Yes, it is a decidedly ahistorical start, but I have played so many historical starts that I have a pat strategy I employ that has gotten stale so I'm finding the ahistorical start refreshing.

In most historical start games I can easily prevent the fall of Burma and keep China supplied which allows me to liberate all of China by the end of '42.

In this current game with infiltrators starting in Burma and a beefed up Japanese force coming at me aggressively I have been unable to use my pat strategy for retaining Burma.

I now have a completely new experience lining up ahead of me that I am thoroughly enjoying.
Hans

User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by PaxMondo »

So, to counter some of this, and in contrast to many, I think the AI plays much better as the allies. Why? I think it plays better defense than offense. Rare for me to encounter some weird unit off on safari. instead, I face lethal defenses that can really surprise. And since it is an Ironman series, the AI can suffer several set backs on defense and still put up a good game.

Pax
Numdydar
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by Numdydar »

Well I can definitely attest that Allied AI is even worse than the Japanese one [:(] At least in stock.

In post 42 of this thread, it is early '44 and I am playing stock Scenario 1 as Japan against the Allied AI. I just wish my PBEM games as Japan went this well [:D]

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3893082&mpage=2&key=
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by PaxMondo »

Stock? Neither side is any challenge even at VH. You've been around here far too long to be playing stock. Early '44, I assume you are landing in NA at this point? [;)]
Pax
Numdydar
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by Numdydar »

No. Actually running out of troops [X(] Plus the Ai is finally making inroads at Tarawa and points north. Also Burma has become a real dog fight as well.

So I think I will not even make to Hawaii which was my original plan. Japanese troops have a hard time fighting '44 Allied INF so they need a lot more numbers to be able to do anything.

So even with a brain dead Al as the Allies, they can still do well. It just takes a lot longer [:)]
Chris21wen
Posts: 6948
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Cottesmore, Rutland

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by Chris21wen »

The more I read and from my experience playing against the AI I still don't think an aggressive AI is beneficial and, as ironman scenarios are based on aggression, they are not any better than stock/none ironman scenarios.
 
I stopped the ironman game and have started AndyMac new May 42 Scenario.  It's a work in progress but hopefully it won't do anything stupid but we shall see.
Andy Mac
Posts: 12573
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by Andy Mac »

Sorry you are disaapointed I simply dont have the time to do everything I would like to

Right now I am focused on

1. Re writing the 'core' scen 1 AI but not getting much feedback so thats on a back burner - and yes it is intended to be less aggressive
2. May 42 and 43 scenarios.

BUT I am pretty much one person trying to do it all with limited tester support so it takes time and being blunt I have a life as well.....

I will keep going I have a hopper of jobs to do that is huge.

In addition to above

Rewrite AI fior Ironman Allied and Japan
Update all small map scenarios
A long list of requested new small map scenarios
etc etc

there are only so many hours in the day for a game that we released a long time ago !!!
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by Macclan5 »

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Sorry you are disaapointed ..

1. Re writing the 'core' scen 1 AI but not getting much feedback so thats on a back burner - and yes it is intended to be less aggressive

In addition to above

Rewrite AI for Ironman Allied and Japan
Update all small map scenarios
A long list of requested new small map scenarios
etc etc


..snip..

Thank you Sir Mac -

From one to another [:D]

I hardly think anyone is disappointed in you or your work effort / scenarios... loose words... probably not my Cup of Tea is better.

I think it is hugely unfair to call the AI borked / stupid albeit I am a newbie.

Rather the AI is Linear rather than Dynamic in its thinking. It targets a base..it devotes a reasonable amount of resources and combat units to take it.. if it fails it tries again.... Linear. Above all it would be nearly impossible (in my humble opinion) to create a dynamic AI that can think on multiple levels and plan 3 years into the future.

1) Less aggressive Scen 1.0

If this is helpful... (or even possible)

I think / opine that Scen 1 appeals to those players that mostly crave the historical 're-creation' aspect of the game as opposed to 'what if' ; that is an assumption on my part but I think it is valid from reading many threads by many people not just this one.

A few minor upgrades that I might suggest would be:

1) Unescorted off map convoys have a random (die roll) chance of being targeted by Uboats. The bigger the convoy the more chances the computer AI gets i.e. 1 roll for every 5 ships.

This would simulate the war in the Atlantic somewhat (especially in the early war) and force Allied Players to devote some escort resources to such resource management movement.

2) Enhanced spotting for the AI on target hexes (only) - almost zero FOW

Perhaps this exists already.

I assume the AI looks at the AV / DB levels of a target hex and then runs a script to calculate sufficient odds to win its objective. This is my experience at least in the 'siege points' such as Port Moresby. I would further assume that if the AI had near perfect spotting of any target hex for multiple turns it would then better calculate sufficient resources to take that objective in step 1 as opposed to landing with insufficient forces.

While the human Player can react and rush in additional troops and supplies it would still be a close thing and/or it puts the player into reactionary mode as opposed to initiative mode.

3) A script that 'min sum' capital ship and especially air craft carrier task forces.

Whether Japan or the Allies if a 'min sum' script triggered to ensure there were never less than 3 aircraft carriers (CV CVL CVE) in any Air Combat Task force for example. Perhaps 4 even ... Further 'min sum' that any Air Combat TF contains 3 CV 2 CA 2 CL and at least 7 DD ...1 DD for every capital ship.

'Min sum' a surface combat task force as well so there is never less than 2 BB 2 CA 2 CL and 6 DD ... 1 DD for every capital ship.

DE / CM / DM / DMS would qualify but PB / MTB / PT would not.

I would think the effects of 'min sum' concentration if possible would better mimic a winning strategy.

It will NOT prevent Midway 2.0 (or its reverse) but then that is also historic.

If less than 'min sum' exists then Capital ships TF would necessarily "retire to homefront".

In Japans case it means defending home islands. In the Allies case it means retreating to home front until industry kicks out enough ships to meet the min sum requirement.

4) Bonus supply in retreat mode only where TOE < 25% (or AV < 25%) - seek nearest base / maximum terrain advantage.

I think that many of the enhanced AI provides the AI with bonus supplies at the base level.

When defeated LCU retreat it would be interesting if the AI would determine that TOE / AV < 25% and then: (a) gives bonus supply to the unit level and (b) orders unit to retreat to nearest base or best defensive terrain.

5) If target base NOT executed in 2X or > 30 days / turns then retreat as above.


--

All of this perhaps exist and my newbie-ness is of no value.

Perhaps its not even possible.

However I think these type of enhancements would really appeal to the historical gamer Scen 1 player.





A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
Alpha77
Posts: 2149
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:38 am

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by Alpha77 »

My impression from 2 AI campaign and 1 small scenario PBM, is that perhaps the task is to huge to build a "good" AI for such a massive games. Now if we take eg. other games that can be considered huge too, but still not on the AE scale - there the AI mostly sucks. Eg. the HOI series (I only know the first 2) but the AI would do the same things there like landing in France in early 43 with only 3-6 divs or my fav send Italian torpedo bombers to the east front [:D] And the italian fleet would in every game make suicide raids and be finished off quite early. As examples...

...the same seems to be a habit of the AE AI, it sends "raids" to far in enemy territory. It may get away with this early in the game as Japanese vs. the Allies as they do not have much anti shipping bombers. But the Allied AI does the same - now these raids my pose a danger ofc to your shipping. But if you have good enough search you can re-route your convois. It is a hassle but mostly will end in disaster for the AI as recently the US sent BB Washington plus 2 CAs in direction Truk. I thought they would try a bombardement there, but seems their target is somewhere up further north. As they sailed 5-6 hexes away from Truk. However they have no air cover.. Truk has only 4 air units and no dedicated anti ship one, but the Mavis search planes put 3-4 torps into the mad BB as well Oscars on 100ft hit it with some 250kg bombs as well damaged one of the CAs. However the CAs continued on their way up north and seem to be out of reach from Truk. I wonder where they will go... guess next stop Tokio ? [:D]

The AI did some other raid with British carriers and even managed to sink some small tankers cause I was so surprised and had notmuch search in the area (only asw patrol)..the AI only lost Hermes on this raid. I left it alone to see what it target would be. But finally they turned around and set sail to Indian waters....[;)]

Another more succesful AI raid was a bombardement of Rabaul with 2 BBs plus smaller ships. They came in so fast and I was kind of asleep as not much seemed to happen in the area (not even subs around Rabaul or Kavieng). So did not detect them, they bombed port and airfield. AI also put an arty spotter up, so they destroyed ca. 30 planes plus another 30-40 damaged or so and even damaged some small ships. The port and airfield suffered quite a bit too. Then retired on their way back sunk some AKs. Quite succesfull for the AI [&o] However one of the BBs (the newest one I believe North Carolina) was hit by some bombs later on.. still they managed to esacape. If everyone is in alert however such a raid seems quite risky if the Japanese like me has a lot of planes at Rabaul and Shortlands ( I believe ca. 500 )...

In an earlier Allied game the IJ AI would send eg. 2 or 3 CVs down to the Sidney area. This was quite alarming because not much to counter them. A lot of shipping sunk - but not really dangerous as you get so many ship starting in 43 as the Allied......Later in the war such raids would be more suicide however. Ah and also the AI would send some surface raid to PH. This was 4 years or so ago when I played the Allies game. But seems this behavious has not changed much judging from the actual Japan game I play.
Andy Mac
Posts: 12573
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by Andy Mac »


[/quote]


1) Less aggressive Scen 1.0

If this is helpful... (or even possible)

I think / opine that Scen 1 appeals to those players that mostly crave the historical 're-creation' aspect of the game as opposed to 'what if' ; that is an assumption on my part but I think it is valid from reading many threads by many people not just this one.

THIS IS WHAT THE NEW SCEN1 AI IS TRYING TO DO SO ITS IN PLAN

A few minor upgrades that I might suggest would be:

1) Unescorted off map convoys have a random (die roll) chance of being targeted by Uboats. The bigger the convoy the more chances the computer AI gets i.e. 1 roll for every 5 ships.

This would simulate the war in the Atlantic somewhat (especially in the early war) and force Allied Players to devote some escort resources to such resource management movement.

CODE SO NOT FIXABLE BY ME

2) Enhanced spotting for the AI on target hexes (only) - almost zero FOW

Perhaps this exists already.

I assume the AI looks at the AV / DB levels of a target hex and then runs a script to calculate sufficient odds to win its objective. This is my experience at least in the 'siege points' such as Port Moresby. I would further assume that if the AI had near perfect spotting of any target hex for multiple turns it would then better calculate sufficient resources to take that objective in step 1 as opposed to landing with insufficient forces.

While the human Player can react and rush in additional troops and supplies it would still be a close thing and/or it puts the player into reactionary mode as opposed to initiative mode.

CODE AGAIN

3) A script that 'min sum' capital ship and especially air craft carrier task forces.

Whether Japan or the Allies if a 'min sum' script triggered to ensure there were never less than 3 aircraft carriers (CV CVL CVE) in any Air Combat Task force for example. Perhaps 4 even ... Further 'min sum' that any Air Combat TF contains 3 CV 2 CA 2 CL and at least 7 DD ...1 DD for every capital ship.

'Min sum' a surface combat task force as well so there is never less than 2 BB 2 CA 2 CL and 6 DD ... 1 DD for every capital ship.

DE / CM / DM / DMS would qualify but PB / MTB / PT would not.

I would think the effects of 'min sum' concentration if possible would better mimic a winning strategy.

It will NOT prevent Midway 2.0 (or its reverse) but then that is also historic.

If less than 'min sum' exists then Capital ships TF would necessarily "retire to homefront".

In Japans case it means defending home islands. In the Allies case it means retreating to home front until industry kicks out enough ships to meet the min sum requirement.

CODE AGAIN I CANNOT FIX GOOD IDEA I SUGGESTED SAME 7 YEARS AGO BUT ITS CODE

4) Bonus supply in retreat mode only where TOE < 25% (or AV < 25%) - seek nearest base / maximum terrain advantage.

I think that many of the enhanced AI provides the AI with bonus supplies at the base level.

When defeated LCU retreat it would be interesting if the AI would determine that TOE / AV < 25% and then: (a) gives bonus supply to the unit level and (b) orders unit to retreat to nearest base or best defensive terrain.

AGAIN CODE WOULD LOVE TO BUT CANNOT ALBEIT HARD DIFFICULTY DOES SOME OF THIS

5) If target base NOT executed in 2X or > 30 days / turns then retreat as above.


CODE AGAIN I ASKED FOR SOM WHAT IF GATES IN AI SCRIPTING BUT WASNT ABLE TO GET THEM IN TIME

--

All of this perhaps exist and my newbie-ness is of no value.

Perhaps its not even possible.

However I think these type of enhancements would really appeal to the historical gamer Scen 1 player.






[/quote]

GOOD IDEAS WOULD LOVE TO IMPLEMENT BUT NO CODING SUPPORT TO DO THEM
Alpha77
Posts: 2149
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:38 am

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by Alpha77 »

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

No. Actually running out of troops [X(] Plus the Ai is finally making inroads at Tarawa and points north. Also Burma has become a real dog fight as well.

So I think I will not even make to Hawaii which was my original plan. Japanese troops have a hard time fighting '44 Allied INF so they need a lot more numbers to be able to do anything.

So even with a brain dead Al as the Allies, they can still do well. It just takes a lot longer [:)]


Well I took also China (only some smaller cities far away or in the mountains remain) as well north Australia and east OZ down to Brisbane. Also ca. 1/4 of India. I am sure if I had put more troops in (as well bought out those from China not needed anymore) I could take the whole of India and Australia. However this makes no sense, when you have all these areas. Also would take a lot of time and micromanament. Realized this seems to confuse too much also. So pulled back from Australia only kept a portion around Townsville and also in India back to Calcutta area and keep this chunk. The AI is very slow to re-capture all the bases now empty, in OZ it has not retaken a single city but bombs it´s own people and industry in Brisbane where not a single Japanese is left [:D] I finally put the game to H2H and send some Allied stuff on the way to capture the places. Also re.organized some of their air as they put to many small squadrons on too small fields (so they get an org hit). Seems the AI will not dissolve very weak air units to put the planes and pilots to pool to re-build others. I did that too for them. Now it is 10 turns ago I "helped" the AI and still they have not re-taken the OZ cities. But some in India at least [8|] But this is a "small babes" scen not Ironman.

It is a must btw. that ppl. play a scenario where cargo capacity is reduced imo. Otherwise you won´t run out of ships for neither side even if many sunk. Reduced ranges and cargo space for AKs will make it a bit more realistic imo.
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by Macclan5 »

Drat the code [:D]

Thank you Andy.

I am not surprised and I assume many of my suggestions have possibly been "around here" for many years by many experienced gamers.

I am new and hardly the first in this conversation.

Some of my suggestions can actually be implemented via house rules (i.e. off map convoys) anyway.

---

The end game here is simply accept what this beautiful game gives you and play with its limitation ; enjoy - its a hobby as much as a game.

The aggressive non-historical scenarios can provide that extra challenge for those who want.








A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
Mac Linehan
Posts: 1514
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:08 pm
Location: Denver Colorado

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by Mac Linehan »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Well, playing Ironman almost exclusively, Nasty, Nasty version modded to be a bit more ...

I've played the allied side only a couple of times for testing purposes. Few tips:

1. Play on Hard (or very Hard). It will keep you honest.
2. Don't setup the AI for failure. Once a script fires, it is on until its conditions are met. But restarting from a save several turns earlier seems to often (but not always by any means) put the script to sleep. So, if it is trying to invade Canton fruitlessly, go back several turns, play H2H, and get the AI out of its rut. You'll likely have to run ~3 turns H2H. If it works, great. If not, don't pound the AI unless you want a short game. Just ignore it and focus elsewhere.
3. No deep passes. Be methodical on offense. Don't do a deep end around and surprise the AI. You won't like the results.

Search the forum for other advice ... been given 100's of times ...

You are on target Pax-

Hard- Preferably very Hard is the way to go.

I love the Iron Man series. Not Perfect; but when the above guide lines are adhered to, while set to "Very Hard", you will find a rewarding experience.

The Human player can overcome the "Very Hard" setting; it takes better planning and use of assets with attention to detail.

And:

Andy- you consistently produce a wide range of terrific scenarios; when I consider that you do have a Real Life, I can only have the highest regard and respect for your work.

Just my thoughts, Gents.




LAV-25 2147
Chris21wen
Posts: 6948
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Cottesmore, Rutland

RE: Ironman scenarios

Post by Chris21wen »

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Sorry you are disaapointed I simply dont have the time to do everything I would like to

Right now I am focused on

1. Re writing the 'core' scen 1 AI but not getting much feedback so thats on a back burner - and yes it is intended to be less aggressive
2. May 42 and 43 scenarios.

BUT I am pretty much one person trying to do it all with limited tester support so it takes time and being blunt I have a life as well.....

I will keep going I have a hopper of jobs to do that is huge.

In addition to above

Rewrite AI fior Ironman Allied and Japan
Update all small map scenarios
A long list of requested new small map scenarios
etc etc

there are only so many hours in the day for a game that we released a long time ago !!!

I should have responded to this before but wanted to get someway into the May 42 scenario.

Well it's now Oct 42 and I'm glad to say the AI has not done anything completely stupid but still does not know when to stop trying, I.e. Capture PM. It has stopped now though. It still sends transport TF to places were they shouldn't go without support. I have to say it's the best game I've ever played against an AI probably because most of it's expanding options have already been carried out and it mostly minor/defensive stuff. It proves to me that I was correct it stating the AI plays a better game on the defensive/less aggressive.

One last thing all of you guys who keep on supporting this game do stirling work, we the mere players would be far worse off without your effects.
Post Reply

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