Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & Shot
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 1:42:09 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

This retaking of Canton after all the effort I went to to take it is realy not on - <note to self to do something about it>


Heh; no matter what you send to Canton, without any LBA in range to support or a CV or two lurking to the west, there's no way the AI can put enough troops there to keep me from taking it back. I sent what few CA's I had floating in to bombard for multiple turns, then my 3 CV's pounded it for a while, then the NZ troops made a landing and took the base. Had the NZ troops not been in Suva (yes they're headed back very soon, there's other guys there already too...) I have two regiments from Oahu headed there to do the job.

Canton is just too far forward for the AI to grab that quickly. I would have been much more alarmed if it had taken Apanama and Baker first, since they are close enough to Tarawa/Makin for support and surface TF's from Kwajalein could still intervene. Canton, though? That was isolated and easy pickings for my resources, and gave us Allies a boost to morale too!

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 61
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 1:49:50 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 3995
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
Canton is just too far forward for the AI to grab that quickly. I would have been much more alarmed if it had taken Apanama and Baker first, since they are close enough to Tarawa/Makin for support and surface TF's from Kwajalein could still intervene. Canton, though? That was isolated and easy pickings for my resources, and gave us Allies a boost to morale too!


The AI did take Baker first in my game, though it got beaten horrifically by CAs from Canton doing so.

Then it tried to take Canton, and got beat by the same CAs, who are based there. It has tried a couple of times now, but those CAs are not moving!

Very long range Betty intervention seems quite hit and miss, I loitered at Baker for a while and got away with it. Might be the AI being stoopid but it's been very good with the Betties so far...

_____________________________


(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 62
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 2:03:37 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13796
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Just watch this space next time the AI will do better.

I have a cunning plan.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 63
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 2:12:51 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2258
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

This retaking of Canton after all the effort I went to to take it is realy not on - <note to self to do something about it>



Don't spend too much effort on it, there were enough surprises in that region

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 64
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 2:45:08 PM   
Grollub


Posts: 6552
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Yup but it does leave TF's exposed but I has a cunning plan !!!


Is it as cunning as the one refrerred to in my sig?

If so, then I'm worried ...

_____________________________

“Pay attention to where you are going because without meaning you might get nowhere.”

-- Winnie the Pooh

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 65
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 3:45:01 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
I'm rushing several defense battalions to Canton in my current turn; I've seen enough of the AI so far to realize once it decides it wants something, it brings a bigger hammer on the 2nd try.  Also Canton is not that far from either Palmyra or Pago Pago and I'm building both up so ships bigger than a DD can hang out for a while too.  Suva is already well defended but I'm sending more men there as well, just in case.

I'm actually hoping the AI decides to send a couple of CV's in that direction; as long as it's not the full KB I feel able to match them or even outnumber them with my 4 CV's in the area.

(in reply to Grollub)
Post #: 66
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 4:15:21 PM   
thunar

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 7/13/2005
Status: offline
This just happened in my game too. It's not such a big deal when they sneak an AP over to Fanafuti with a raiding force, but when they attack Koumac with no escorts when I've got quite a few cruisers and destroyers off Noumea...

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 67
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 4:57:23 PM   
medicff

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline
Andy, do you recommend scenario 2 for a better long term challenge?

Thanks

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 68
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 5:12:08 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13796
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Yes I think so it will give you a better game v the AI

(in reply to medicff)
Post #: 69
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 9:07:36 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8251
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
How is the AI in the Dec8 grand campaign? 

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 70
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 9:12:07 PM   
Deerslayer


Posts: 1032
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Michigan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

How is the AI in the Dec8 grand campaign? 


Was wondering that too with maybe Hard or Very Hard thrown in as well for comment.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 71
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 9:35:31 PM   
Weidi72


Posts: 55
Joined: 6/10/2006
Status: offline
AI landed in San Francisco and caused to activate the counter invasion force. But only with 4 guns.




Ground combat at San Francisco (218,70)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 0 troops, 4 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1

Defending force 59058 troops, 745 guns, 1978 vehicles, Assault Value = 579

Japanese ground losses:
     Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)



Assaulting units:
   

Defending units:
   754th Tank Battalion
   SF Harbor Defenses
   57th Coastal Artillery Regiment
   Americal Infantry Division
   193rd Tank Battalion
   7th Mot Infantry Division
   811th Engineer Aviation Battalion
   96th Coast AA Regiment
   95th Coast AA Regiment
   226th Field Artillery Battalion
   810th Engineer Aviation Battalion
   216th Coast AA Regiment
   70th Coast AA Regiment
   West Coast
   223rd Field Artillery Battalion
   San Francisco Base Force
   197th Coast AA Regiment
   208th Coast AA Regiment
   255th USN Base Force
   198th Field Artillery Battalion
   IV US Bomber Cmnd


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wiped Out at San Francisco by attrition!!!


(in reply to Deerslayer)
Post #: 72
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 9:52:12 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13796
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Huh I need a save of that one please ASAP

a.mcphie@btinternet.com

(in reply to Weidi72)
Post #: 73
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 10:00:10 PM   
Scott_USN

 

Posts: 458
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Eagle River, Alaska USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Weidi72

AI landed in San Francisco and caused to activate the counter invasion force. But only with 4 guns.




Ground combat at San Francisco (218,70)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 0 troops, 4 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1

Defending force 59058 troops, 745 guns, 1978 vehicles, Assault Value = 579

Japanese ground losses:
     Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)



Assaulting units:
   

Defending units:
   754th Tank Battalion
   SF Harbor Defenses
   57th Coastal Artillery Regiment
   Americal Infantry Division
   193rd Tank Battalion
   7th Mot Infantry Division
   811th Engineer Aviation Battalion
   96th Coast AA Regiment
   95th Coast AA Regiment
   226th Field Artillery Battalion
   810th Engineer Aviation Battalion
   216th Coast AA Regiment
   70th Coast AA Regiment
   West Coast
   223rd Field Artillery Battalion
   San Francisco Base Force
   197th Coast AA Regiment
   208th Coast AA Regiment
   255th USN Base Force
   198th Field Artillery Battalion
   IV US Bomber Cmnd


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wiped Out at San Francisco by attrition!!!





4 lonely Japanese soldiers against 59,058 troops, 745 guns and 1900 APC's Jeeps and Tanks

LMAO

They are brave....

(in reply to Weidi72)
Post #: 74
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 10:01:06 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16143
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Weidi72

AI landed in San Francisco and caused to activate the counter invasion force. But only with 4 guns.




Ground combat at San Francisco (218,70)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 0 troops, 4 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1

Defending force 59058 troops, 745 guns, 1978 vehicles, Assault Value = 579

Japanese ground losses:
     Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)



Assaulting units:
   

Defending units:
   754th Tank Battalion
   SF Harbor Defenses
   57th Coastal Artillery Regiment
   Americal Infantry Division
   193rd Tank Battalion
   7th Mot Infantry Division
   811th Engineer Aviation Battalion
   96th Coast AA Regiment
   95th Coast AA Regiment
   226th Field Artillery Battalion
   810th Engineer Aviation Battalion
   216th Coast AA Regiment
   70th Coast AA Regiment
   West Coast
   223rd Field Artillery Battalion
   San Francisco Base Force
   197th Coast AA Regiment
   208th Coast AA Regiment
   255th USN Base Force
   198th Field Artillery Battalion
   IV US Bomber Cmnd


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wiped Out at San Francisco by attrition!!!




Feinder himself couldn't have come up with a better anomaly.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Weidi72)
Post #: 75
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 10:02:12 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16143
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: online
Where's John Belushi when you need him? 

Oh, that's right!  He's hiding behind the sunglasses on the loading screen. 

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 76
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 10:14:01 PM   
HMS Resolution


Posts: 350
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline
My eternal regards to the man who mods AE to replace the loading screen pictures with John Belushi in his P-40.

_____________________________


(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 77
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 10:33:46 PM   
Laxplayer

 

Posts: 202
Joined: 8/30/2006
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution

My eternal regards to the man who mods AE to replace the loading screen pictures with John Belushi in his P-40.


Either that, or a pic from his Samurai Deli days and flying a zero.

(in reply to HMS Resolution)
Post #: 78
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 10:47:44 PM   
Ketza


Posts: 2214
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline
Maybe it was just some Japanese POWS that got off "The Rock".

(in reply to Laxplayer)
Post #: 79
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/4/2009 10:53:55 PM   
langleyCV1

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 9/6/2008
From: Berkshire UK
Status: offline
The AI seems to sent jap bombers out without an escort far too often in my eyes is anybody else seeing this!

MJT

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 80
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/5/2009 3:28:38 PM   
bjmorgan


Posts: 2930
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

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.)

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 81
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/5/2009 3:37:25 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13796
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

(in reply to bjmorgan)
Post #: 82
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/5/2009 3:54:12 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 3995
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

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!

_____________________________


(in reply to langleyCV1)
Post #: 83
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/5/2009 3:58:08 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
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).

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 84
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 3:21:34 PM   
viberpol


Posts: 827
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drakken

quote:

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.


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
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

< Message edited by viberpol -- 8/6/2009 3:23:38 PM >


_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to Drakken)
Post #: 85
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 3:25:59 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 3995
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
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?


_____________________________


(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 86
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 3:35:54 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
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...)

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 87
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 3:40:32 PM   
TheOx

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 10/19/2005
Status: offline
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 

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 88
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 3:45:19 PM   
medicff

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline
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

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 89
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 3:48:48 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32914
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
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. Andy is watching and tweaking where it seems appropriate as well.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


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

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to medicff)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.117