Scripts and the AI

[spence]

Although I appreciate all the work that has been done with providing scripts for the AI to follow I have found that the scripts often try to capture bases with inadequate forces and rigidly adhere to attempts to capture certain bases.

When playing the AI is it possible or practical to intervene on the AI's behalf? Does one have to play the part of the AI for multiple turns to get one's ideas applied or does the AI immediately go back to its own script(s) after you return control to it?

[pontiouspilot]

There are some threads that speak about this issue. My recollection is that some players intervene manually for a few turns to redirect the AI. According to what I read this will work till it tilts at the next windmill.

[Grfin Zeppelin]

Try Andy Macs nasty scenario, the AI droped 5 Marine divisions on my 3 naval guards at Tulagi.

[Kull]

Assuming you are playing one of the non-Ironman campaign scenarios, when the AI is making a move for a certain base, you are best served to just give it up. That will allow the AI to move on to the next target. For that reason, it's often best to follow the process for pre-selecting one of the "more historical" scenario variants.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin
Try Andy Macs nasty scenario, the AI droped 5 Marine divisions on my 3 naval guards at Tulagi.

ROFL

[HansBolter]

In Ironman Ported to Babes, scenario #40, the AI invades Midway, Johnston, Hilo and Coal Harbor on the first turn as well as starts with infiltrators in Burma and Malaysia that prevent the Allies from building viable defenses.

Kull makes a very good point about letting the AI have its head to a degree.

It doesn't seem to realize it has failed in an invasion attempt and will continue to execute the script directing it to develop the base that it hasn't taken.
It will continue sending follow on convoys with base forces to be promptly sunk.

[Chickenboy]

So, lemme get this straight. In terms of how to handle the AI, we're supposed to:

1. Not fight back or interfere with its offensive efforts as it attempts to take an island.
2. When the AI demonstrates a clear 'interest' in a goal, we should leave it for the AI, lest the game be 'skewed'.
3. Not opportunistically sink follow up after follow up convoys for bases it fails to take.
4. Occasionally intervene manually on behalf of the AI to help it properly marshall its forces / invade its next 'historical' goal.
5. Not punish the AI for clear overextension of its first turn invasions (e.g., Coal Harbor)

Sounds fun. [8|]

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

So, lemme get this straight. In terms of how to handle the AI, we're supposed to:

1. Not fight back or interfere with its offensive efforts as it attempts to take an island.
2. When the AI demonstrates a clear 'interest' in a goal, we should leave it for the AI, lest the game be 'skewed'.
3. Not opportunistically sink follow up after follow up convoys for bases it fails to take.
4. Occasionally intervene manually on behalf of the AI to help it properly marshall its forces / invade its next 'historical' goal.
5. Not punish the AI for clear overextension of its first turn invasions (e.g., Coal Harbor)

Sounds fun. [8|]

Solution>>>>>>>>>>PBEM....GP

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: General Patton

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

So, lemme get this straight. In terms of how to handle the AI, we're supposed to:

1. Not fight back or interfere with its offensive efforts as it attempts to take an island.
2. When the AI demonstrates a clear 'interest' in a goal, we should leave it for the AI, lest the game be 'skewed'.
3. Not opportunistically sink follow up after follow up convoys for bases it fails to take.
4. Occasionally intervene manually on behalf of the AI to help it properly marshall its forces / invade its next 'historical' goal.
5. Not punish the AI for clear overextension of its first turn invasions (e.g., Coal Harbor)

Sounds fun. [8|]

Solution>>>>>>>>>>PBEM....GP

So I'm supposed to:

1. Be beholding to some one who expects a turn from me every day regardless of whether, or not, I feel like it that day.
2. Give up my marathon sessions on Saturdays wherein I can play 10-12 turns in a day.
3. Force me to wait on someone else to be able to play
4. Put up with whining and complaining.
5. Put up with inane requirements for House Rules to nerf my 4Es while I have to endure 60-65% hit rates from netties.

Sounds like fun......[8|]

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: General Patton

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

So, lemme get this straight. In terms of how to handle the AI, we're supposed to:

1. Not fight back or interfere with its offensive efforts as it attempts to take an island.
2. When the AI demonstrates a clear 'interest' in a goal, we should leave it for the AI, lest the game be 'skewed'.
3. Not opportunistically sink follow up after follow up convoys for bases it fails to take.
4. Occasionally intervene manually on behalf of the AI to help it properly marshall its forces / invade its next 'historical' goal.
5. Not punish the AI for clear overextension of its first turn invasions (e.g., Coal Harbor)

Sounds fun. [8|]

Solution>>>>>>>>>>PBEM....GP

So I'm supposed to:

1. Be beholding to some one who expects a turn from me every day regardless of whether, or not, I feel like it that day.
2. Give up my marathon sessions on Saturdays wherein I can play 10-12 turns in a day.
3. Force me to wait on someone else to be able to play
4. Put up with whining and complaining.
5. Put up with inane requirements for House Rules to nerf my 4Es while I have to endure 60-65% hit rates from netties.

Sounds like fun......[8|]

Hans, Didn't mean to say the AI wasn't fun, I play an AI game now when I have nothing to do. In 2 months I made it to 12/18/41. Been pretty busy. But Your experience may vary.[;)]....GP

[Chickenboy]

HansBolter: I genuinely don't understand how you can be willing to suspend your disbelief about the AI in some circumstances (i.e., those aforementioned 'crutches' needed for the AI to be a worthy opponent) and not others. Where do you draw the line as a player about what pain you're willing to inflict on the AI versus what you decide to 'give it'?

For example, you mention sinking follow on convoy after follow on convoy after a failed AI invasion. Why would you do that if it skews the outcome? Shouldn't you fall back or intentionally *not* sink follow on convoy after follow on convoy for a better more competitive game? Where do you draw the line?

I'm being serious now. I've been playing the Japanese AI (as Allied) because of some of those real life issues you've identified. But I can't get my head around any approach other than punishing the AI when it 'should be' punished. Unsupported amphibious TFs get sunk and their LCUs drowned. Japanese CVs banging on ground targets get sunk by Allied CVs set to naval attack. Transit predilections for Japanese transports get submarines plotted on their routes and interdicted by Allied subs.

My goal is Allied autovictory on January 1, 1943. Within that context, I need to collect lots of Japanese VPs, avoid Allied LCU losses in places like Manila and Singapore and not yield high VP geography. The only question is whether I can manage the stiff VP ratio needed for Allied autovictory on that early date.

Grafin: With 5 MarDivs on Tulagi, there must have been tremendous disruption and overstack penalties applied to those troops (assuming playing on Historical difficulty). For game playability, did you consider intervening and removing some of those MarDivs after the invasion or did you let 'em wither on the vine? If the latter, don't you consider that a deal breaker in terms of the Allied ability to effectively use them for the foreseeable future?

[Grfin Zeppelin]

Grafin: With 5 MarDivs on Tulagi, there must have been tremendous disruption and overstack penalties applied to those troops (assuming playing on Historical difficulty). For game playability, did you consider intervening and removing some of those MarDivs after the invasion or did you let 'em wither on the vine? If the latter, don't you consider that a deal breaker in terms of the Allied ability to effectively use them for the foreseeable future?

It wasnt just 5 Marine divisions, also several regiments and tank units. I dont play with
stacking limits against the AI tho.

Tulagi was also heavily mined and had CD guns. The AI lost a buckload of landing ships. Also three CVs,4 CVEs, 2 CAs and two dozen destroyers. Also 500 aircraft.
My loses werent exactly light also. I lost 2 BBs 1 CA 6 DDs and roughly 1200 aircraft. Another BB sits mortally wounded in Munda and dozens of ships damaged. Not sure if I get it out.
Curently there are several dozens of allied task forces in the area loading troops. I suppose they prepare a landing in Munda.

What I try to say here is that the AI forced the landing in Tulagi and earlier in Guadalcanal and threw me out.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Try Andy Macs nasty scenario, the AI droped 5 Marine divisions on my 3 naval guards at Tulagi.

The AI just dropped a nav guard, snlf and some other unit ony my Marine regiment (at 100%) and support troops at Canton. Before they bombarded and bombed a bit, did not hurt much. 2 of the invading units did not even make it ashore. Seems "recon" is not a word in the AI vocabulary... lol. Funny also they bomb at China where the Allies have almost no AA at 10k or higher most often, but bomb eg. Townsville or Darwin at 6k where a lot of good AA is located. And they they come back for sure, and still at low alt [:D] The Betty loss no climbs dangerously (luckily the AI gets thousands of planes more than a human player could build).

The AI also send what I guess was an invasion to PH...[:D] And to Addu LOL Sadly I could not give Pearl to the AI to helpit out [:(]

(I started an AI Allied game some time ago, then a IJ PBM later, now continued the AI game too inbetween, it is at end of may 42 and quite fun too).

[HansBolter]

Please take my commentary with a grain of salt.

It was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek attempt at tit-for-tat humor playing devil's advocate by making the point that there are both pros and cons in playing either way.

With that said, I only play Ironman scenarios that give the other side a huge bonus in extra forces.
To a large degree I play it by ear in how aggressivly I will try to stop the AI form achieving it's goals.

I learned early on that in places like Canton Island I can trash the AI by setting up an ambush, take out a carrier or two, because the AI rarely brings more than that in support, and then sink one follow on convoy after another.
However, I also quickly learned that doing so just for the enjoyment of winning tactically and operationally I have skewed the game too heavily in my favor strategically.
Do I really need to fight so aggressively over Canton Island....absolutely not.

The great benefit of the Ironman scenarios is that in areas where I do want to fight aggressively, I can destroy vast quantities of enemy forces and the AI is still viable because it gets so much more to be able to lose.

I like holding Darwin and will fight the AI tooth and nail not to lose it, but I won't do the same for Canton Island.
I like stopping the AI cold in Burma, but in scenario #40 the game starts with infiltrators in Burma that prevent me from forming the impregnable line that can stop the AI cold.

It mostly comes down to judgment calls and personal preferences on where to let the AI have it's head and where to fight

[Chickenboy]

I just played this turn this morning. Japanese AI, scenario 1:

Edited to remove the more mundane actions...

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Feb 09, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Serasan at 57,86, Range 8,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Atago, Shell hits 1, on fire
CL Kashima, Shell hits 2
DD Uranami, Shell hits 1
DD Ushio
DD Yayoi
DD Mochizuki

Allied Ships
CL Ceres, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
DD Vendetta, Shell hits 1
DD Evertsen, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage

I go sniffing around for trouble on the 'hot corner' of NW Borneo. I find it. Ceres is hit by two long lances and splits in half. [:(]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Port Moresby at 98,130, Range 11,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Myoko, Shell hits 20, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Hayashio
DD Kasumi, Shell hits 3, on fire
E Hashidate, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
TB Kari
CM Takashima
xAK Ryuzan Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire
LSD Shinshu Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
xAP Yoshino Maru, Shell hits 1
xAP Kongo Maru, Shell hits 1

Allied Ships
CL St. Louis, Shell hits 3
CL Helena, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Dewey, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Dent
DD Crosby, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Kennison, Shell hits 1, on fire

Japanese ground losses:
73 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled

Who says that the Allies can't hold their own in a night action? Here, two modern CLs hold a sizable reinforced enemy amphibious invasion fleet at bay off of Port Moresby.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Madjene at 64,103, Range 26,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
xAK Gyoko Maru, Shell hits 36, and is sunk
xAK Nitian Maru, Shell hits 28, and is sunk
xAK Ryoka Maru, Shell hits 26, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
SC CHa-6, Shell hits 3, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Dorsetshire
CL Emerald
DD Craven
DD Gridley
DD McCall
DD Porter
DD Balch
DD Piet Hein

Japanese ground losses:
13945 casualties reported [X(]
Squads: 132 destroyed, 468 disabled
Non Combat: 163 destroyed, 340 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 87 (81 destroyed, 6 disabled)

Lightly escorted enemy amphibious TFs to the North of the Celebes. They are slaughtered.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Port Moresby at 98,130, Range 20,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Hayashio, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Kasumi, Shell hits 4, heavy fires
E Hashidate, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
TB Kari, Shell hits 2, on fire
CM Takashima, Shell hits 4, on fire
xAK Ryuzan Maru, Shell hits 9, heavy fires, heavy damage
LSD Shinshu Maru, Shell hits 5
xAP Yoshino Maru, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAP Kongo Maru, Shell hits 3, heavy fires

Allied Ships
CL St. Louis, Shell hits 2
CL Helena, Shell hits 2
DD Dewey, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Dent, Shell hits 2
DD Crosby, Shell hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Kennison, Shell hits 1, on fire

Japanese ground losses:
1339 casualties reported
Squads: 9 destroyed, 41 disabled
Non Combat: 10 destroyed, 46 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 12 (2 destroyed, 10 disabled)

I'll give 'em top marks for persistence. The cheeky Japanese try an opposed daytime landing. How'd that work out for 'em?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Madjene at 65,104, Range 26,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
xAK Aobasan Maru, Shell hits 23, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Taizin Maru, Shell hits 36, and is sunk
SC CHa-16, Shell hits 3, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Dorsetshire
CL Emerald
DD Craven
DD Gridley
DD McCall
DD Porter
DD Balch
DD Piet Hein

Japanese ground losses:
[X(]
Squads: 73 destroyed, 319 disabled
Non Combat: 119 destroyed, 211 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 65 (62 destroyed, 3 disabled)

9416 casualties here...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Makassar at 65,106, Range 13,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
PB Chokai Maru, Shell hits 17, and is sunk
xAP Tango Maru, Shell hits 19, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Portland
CA Louisville
CL Leander
CL Achilles
DD Lamson
DD John D. Edwards
DD Stronghold
DD Le Triomphant

Japanese ground losses:
314 casualties reported
Squads: 9 destroyed, 19 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Makassar at 65,105, Range 21,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Minekaze, Shell hits 39, and is sunk
AK Sakura Maru, Shell hits 21, and is sunk
xAK Brisbane Maru, Shell hits 20, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Yodozo Maru, Shell hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CA Dorsetshire, Shell hits 3
CL Emerald, Shell hits 1
DD Craven, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Gridley, Shell hits 2, heavy fires
DD McCall, Shell hits 2, heavy fires
DD Porter
DD Balch
DD Piet Hein

Japanese ground losses:
5046 casualties reported
Squads: 67 destroyed, 124 disabled
Non Combat: 87 destroyed, 114 disabled
Engineers: 10 destroyed, 11 disabled
Guns lost 15 (10 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Vehicles lost 21 (21 destroyed, 0 disabled)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Makassar at 65,106, Range 25,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
xAK Brisbane Maru, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
PB Yodozo Maru, Shell hits 15, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Portland
CA Louisville
CL Leander
CL Achilles
DD Lamson
DD John D. Edwards
DD Stronghold
DD Le Triomphant

Japanese ground losses:
5328 casualties reported From one xAK...
Squads: 31 destroyed, 191 disabled
Non Combat: 41 destroyed, 144 disabled
Engineers: 17 destroyed, 21 disabled
Guns lost 26 (21 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Vehicles lost 15 (15 destroyed, 0 disabled)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Makassar at 65,106, Range 24,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
AK Amagisan Maru, Shell hits 33, and is sunk
xAK Hokusin Maru, Shell hits 22, and is sunk
SC CHa-4, Shell hits 2, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Portland
CA Louisville
CL Leander
CL Achilles
DD Lamson
DD John D. Edwards
DD Stronghold
DD Le Triomphant

Japanese ground losses:
7327 casualties reported From 2 xAK/AKs
Squads: 111 destroyed, 157 disabled
Non Combat: 107 destroyed, 126 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 45 (38 destroyed, 7 disabled)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Milne Bay at 101,134, Range 21,000 Yards

And the piece de resistance...

Japanese Ships
DD Sagiri, Shell hits 25, and is sunk
TB Kasasagi, Shell hits 11, and is sunk
xAKL Tomozono Maru #3, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
CM Naryu, Shell hits 11, and is sunk
xAK Kumagawa Maru, Shell hits 10, and is sunk
xAK Tatukami Maru, Shell hits 24, and is sunk
xAK Keisyo Maru, Shell hits 46, and is sunk
xAK Seisyo Maru, Shell hits 40, and is sunk
xAK Teiryu Maru, Shell hits 16, and is sunk
xAK Shinwa Maru, Shell hits 12, and is sunk
xAKL Hitora Maru, Shell hits 11, and is sunk
xAKL Daitei Maru, Shell hits 10, and is sunk
xAKL Taiyu Maru, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
xAP Ukishima Maru, Shell hits 22, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Indianapolis, Shell hits 1
CL Perth
DD Hughes
DD Anderson, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Hammann, Shell hits 2, heavy fires
DD Mustin
DD Russell, Shell hits 1
DD O'Brien, Shell hits 1
DD Walke

Japanese ground losses:
34186 casualties reported
Squads: 373 destroyed, 878 disabled
Non Combat: 400 destroyed, 709 disabled
Engineers: 54 destroyed, 40 disabled
Guns lost 178 (102 destroyed, 76 disabled)

What's the butcher's bill for today? 76,901.

In one day, I drown nearly 77,000 of his Imperial Japanese majesty's soldiers. This isn't the first time I've slaughtered large numbers at sea. A month ago, another invasion TF near Kendari yielded some 17,000 when it was destroyed. Many other smaller TFs between 3,000-5,000 have been similarly destroyed.

I just wonder if this is as good as it gets against the AI. Squandering its abilities with such wanton disregard for sound management. This is two months into the grand campaign. The Japanese still should have access to their BBs, most of their CAs and other excellent surface combatants. Where the Hell were they? Especially around 34,000 troops by Milne Bay? Ridiculous.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Try Andy Macs nasty scenario, the AI droped 5 Marine divisions on my 3 naval guards at Tulagi.

Talk about sledge hammers to crack egg shells.[:D]

[Kull]

Definitely not going to get into the PBEM vs. AI argument. It's a big game, and it can satisfy both playstyles. As for "accomodating the AI", it is no secret that the AI is script driven. And that means it works best if it can move from one target to another. So if AI-Japan comes knocking at the door for Canton Island or Port Moresby earlier than it should, well, so what? Give them up. There's no ego here. You don't "lose" if the Japanese AI takes some forward base it can't support in the long run. If anything, it gives you, the Allied player, a chance to hone your invasion skills earlier than expected, as the AI immediately loses interest in Canton Island and moves on to the next target. And that's the point, letting the war take it's course, and enjoying the ride.

To be clear, those are the choices you make to have a fun game vs. the AI when playing one of the historical force-level scenarios, such as 1 or 2. Now once you get to Ironman, all bets are off. In fact, anybody that feels duty-bound to "punish the AI" is best served playing one of the Tier 3 Ironman games. Then we'll see who's being punished. [:D]

[Grfin Zeppelin]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Try Andy Macs nasty scenario, the AI droped 5 Marine divisions on my 3 naval guards at Tulagi.

Talk about sledge hammers to crack egg shells.[:D]

It felt right tho, I got overwhelemed by allied numbers. It also nicely showed tha tthe AI can take a base if it wants to.

[Alpha77]

CHICKENBOY: You should give PM to the AI I believe they will come again...as someone suggested above let them have certain bases (not PH or Colombo, Calcutta, Sidney perhaps [:D])

In my game the AI lost also quite a lot with underprotected convois, but managed to take PM (I did not re-inforce it). It also took most other historical places meanwhile.
At Canton the AI re-embarked their survivers and was gone next turn they also sank A damgaged DD in harbour. They can deal out damage I lost a CV and 4 BB already (2 at PH and 2 of force Z, POW was only damaged by the AI sunk it later with a carrier raid near Brisbane). However its Betty losses should have broken a human players IJN airforce backbone already - but in AI game they keep coming [&o][;)]

Coolest thing in AI games is you get lots of Chinese aces if you manage their weak fighter force good enough. I16 shoots down lots of Sonia etc. Also the AI shows not much interest in China at all, they took no major city or destroyed many Chinese so far.

[dwesolick]

ORIGINAL: Kull

Now once you get to Ironman, all bets are off. In fact, anybody that feels duty-bound to "punish the AI" is best served playing one of the Tier 3 Ironman games. Then we'll see who's being punished. [:D]

Sorry for a silly question but I've been out of the WIP loop for a while. What are the tier 3 Ironman scenarios and where would one find them? I made it to late 1943 against the Japanese AI in a stock (or semi-stock) Ironman scenario last summer and it was a lot of fun. Might pick up where I left off this summer or start a new campaign and just wondering what is the best/most challenging (full campaign) scenario against the Japanese AI that is available now.
thanks!