Matrix Games Forums

New screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936War in the West coming in December!Space Program Manager will be launching on Steam
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? - 8/6/2009 4:01:12 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 6023
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: online
I am scratching my head how to stop IJ AI in 8 Dec scenario, late February. After losing Canton I. (I have INF regiment prepping to take it back), Baker I., Tulagi, Luganville, Efate, Milne Bay and Koumac, I am spread quite thin. Only substantial reinforcement I have gotten to SW Pacific is AUS 16th Brigade, which I think I have to ship to Noumea to keep at least that. Rest of the AUS 6th Div is on their way...from Aden...so looong way to go still.

Lack of APs is really really annoying!

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 91
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 4:15:31 PM   
fcam1387

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 5/17/2006
Status: offline
Most people discuss the Japanese AI, but how does the Allied AI fair in the medium to long term? I'm playing a Jap grand campaign now and am wondering whether I should expect it to adopt an offensive posture by mid 1942/3.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 92
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 5:28:34 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7164
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
Subs it seems to do ok with, but those unescorted amphibs are liable to make the end game very boring. not much fun to steamroll into Japan because the AI lost all its combat units in 1942 due to unescorted amphibs.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Drakken)
Post #: 93
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 5:48:15 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
If the AI is going after places like Koumac, I'd let them do so as long as it doesn't try and build up the base.  IIRC Koumac was hard to improve enough to put multiengine bombers on, and it would be very easy to interdict shipping going there from Noumea.  Efate and Luginville are another matter, but having Suva and Noumea nearby would make it simpler to retake those two as long as the forces are available.  There are three NZ brigades on Suva that can be used, and plenty of infantry in Hawaii if you use them judiciously.

If the AI pushes too fast, though, all those bases are just little unimproved islands that can't protect themselves and are outside the range of anywhere that could support them.  It's one reason I don't bother building up a base until I'm determined to keep it, and turn off all airbase construction in places I expect to lose (like the PI and DEI); you're just doing the AI's work for it in those areas.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 94
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 6:55:42 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13796
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
I am keeping an eye on the saves I recieve and trying to watch how things move around.

The new AI files 'seem' to be a lot better in my tests but the proof will be when you get them.

The more feedback I get the better.


(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 95
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 7:09:26 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13796
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
I guess my only question is do folks think the AI is giving them a reasonable game ? - we only promised no worse than stock - from what I am reading and seeing people seem to think its better which is good but there seems to be real concern that its going beyond history?

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 96
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 7:13:46 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4058
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

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


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

Admittedly thats a long way off. I just hope that this "damn the torpedoes" stage of the game comes to an end while there is still an IJN...

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 97
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 7:15:27 PM   
Drakken


Posts: 177
Joined: 10/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

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


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

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

This, added to the lack of escorts for Amphi TFs, could lead to the Japanese AI overextending himself much too soon.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 98
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 7:26:55 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13796
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Yup its an issue but the AI needs to stirke while the allies are weak or it may never manage it !!!

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

(in reply to Drakken)
Post #: 99
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 7:37:59 PM   
FAsea

 

Posts: 403
Joined: 6/25/2009
From: Hex 181, 36
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

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

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


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

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 100
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 7:41:58 PM   
John Lansford

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

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


So far (1/42) it's giving me a BETTER game than the WitP AI did. I held onto Wake and invaded Kwajalein in 1/42 in my WitP campaign game, had Rabaul isolated by mid-42 and never lost Balikpapan or Kendari or Timor. I don't see that as being possible vs this version of the AI, but if it keeps overextending itself the phrase "hollow shell" comes to mind.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 101
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 7:45:52 PM   
John Lansford

 

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

Another thought came to me; is it possible to get the AI to stage raids on isolated Allied bases?  The goal wouldn't be to hold the base, but to take it, eliminate the defenders, then leave.  Many of the South Central and SWPac bases are vulnerable to such an attack early on, but there's no way the AI could hold, say, Pago Pago if the human player wanted it back.  Wiping out the base support units and active defenders, though, would be a real PITA if the AI could get his LCU's back out of there.

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 102
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 8:02:10 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32941
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
John,

I believe it knows how to do that already. Let's wait and see.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

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 John Lansford)
Post #: 103
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 8:26:09 PM   
Scott_USN

 

Posts: 458
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Eagle River, Alaska USA
Status: offline
Yeah it knows how to do that well...

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 104
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 8:45:25 PM   
lostsm

 

Posts: 170
Joined: 7/10/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Is there a real point, though, to the AI assaulting bases that they've got no realistic way to hang onto for any length of time?  Canton is a good example; the AI landed a SNLF there and was more than enough to wipe out the base force, but nowhere enough to stand up to the force the Allies had available and fairly close by.  They kept it for roughly 10 days, never tried to bring in reinforcements (or evac the SNLF, which would have REALLY ticked me off), or resupply.  A few days bombardment by some cruisers, bombing by my CV's (not even all the DB's since I expected some naval intervention), and the two NZ brigades and it was all over.

Now, had the SNLF landed, wiped out my base force, had some way to destroy the facilities (returning Canton to its original condition, for example), and then left, simulating a raid on the base, now THAT would have been great.  It would force me to try and beef up all those isolated bases with garrisons or risk losing them with no way to 'get back' at the AI, and the AI doesn't lose anything in the process (assuming they evac successfully).

that would be very cool if the AI did stuff like that. i've yet to play as allies, but i can imagine them doing that to me, and it would be a real pain

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 105
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 9:08:52 PM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1941
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

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



You only promised no worse than stock but I expected better - and I got it.

There was only one thing you needed to do to make the AI light years better than the original. Move the subs around. You've done a great job with that. Too good. ;)

Like some others, I'm also concerned that the AI may burn itself out too quickly by overreaching even more than the Japanese did historically but I also see the importance of maintaining the initiative. Whereas in the past I'd already be inching forward in the South Pacific, now I'm just concerned with protecting what I've got. Which is as it should be the first month or three.


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 106
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 10:59:28 PM   
Laxplayer

 

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

I've said this before in other threads, but I'll restate it again here. First of all, great job so far on the AI. But my one critique is that when making large invasions (PM, Northern Java, Caledonia), the AI completely lacks ANY CV coverage. That alone would help alleviate a lot of the unescorted Amphib TFs getting shredded by a couple CA/CLs and some DDs. IJN has a ton of CVs early on, but in my game I only ever see the occasional Ryujo strolling around Borneo and hitting the odd empty base that's been skipped over during their advance (like hitting the lone base force at Jessleton when Miri/Brunei/Kuching/Sinkawang are already in IJN hands).

I like the aggression, they just need to have the same aggression with their CV groups, at least in covering their invasions and large movements. In my game, they've been absent for probably 80% of my game turns.

(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 107
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 11:10:12 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13796
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
All of the TF's are supposed to CV coverage

its not CV's that are the  issue its DD's to let the TF's form !!!

(in reply to Laxplayer)
Post #: 108
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 11:24:10 PM   
Laxplayer

 

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

I just got too impatient and finally loaded up the game as the Japanese and ALL of the Japanese CV's are sitting in Tokyo Harbor (2 in other ports on the home islands), completely repaired, fueled and with full squadrons aboard. Lord knows when they last headed out. Only the CVL Ryujo is at sea and her TF is actually headed back to Tokyo to join the rest.

With regards to the BBs, 6 are sitting mostly unused (though fully repaired, armed and fueled) in Singapore. The Kongo is getting repaired in Shanghai. I saw the Ise and another (Usugi? I think? ) once or twice helping out early on with Rabaul and the area nearby. And I saw the Kongo and another ran through Batavia 2 or 3 times prior to the invasion fleet arriving, but it was just an SCTF, no Bombardments (which is odd). They didn't seem to mind that I had a CV and multiple CL/DD SCTFs in the area, while theirs are still sitting in Tokyo.

I'd be happy to send you a save if it will help, or if you'd like to see it.

(in reply to Laxplayer)
Post #: 109
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 11:32:27 PM   
Laxplayer

 

Posts: 202
Joined: 8/30/2006
From: San Diego
Status: offline
There are 7 unscratched DDs sitting in Tokyo with them.
Hatsuharu
Nenohi
Hatsushima
Wakaba
Sawakaze
Katsutade
Okikaze
...though no CA/CL.

And 6 unscratched DDs in Singapore with the BBs.
Minegumo
Asagumo
Ikazuchi
Sazanami
Ushio
Mochizuki
...plus 2 CAs and 1 CL.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

All of the TF's are supposed to CV coverage

its not CV's that are the  issue its DD's to let the TF's form !!!



< Message edited by Laxplayer -- 8/6/2009 11:47:27 PM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 110
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 11:44:15 PM   
Laxplayer

 

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

I've sunk 343 ships so far (Feb 2, 1942).

14 DDs, 3 CA, 6 CL. ...and 1 CVL (Zuiho.. by a 6" gun shot near Singkawang!). The rest small escort PB/AM types and AK/AP.

There are only 2 DDs in need of serious repair atm, the rest are under 10 sys damage. 7 in Tokyo, 6 in Singapore, 7 in Babeldaob, 6 in Singora, and 4 each in Ominato, Patani, and Pescadores, and a few doubles and singles in another 8 ports or so spread all over the place. Probably less than half the DDs available are actually at sea at the moment.

(in reply to Laxplayer)
Post #: 111
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/6/2009 11:56:53 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13796
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
What date is the game at now ?

(in reply to Laxplayer)
Post #: 112
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/7/2009 12:52:32 AM   
lostsm

 

Posts: 170
Joined: 7/10/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Laxplayer

Looking further...

I've sunk 343 ships so far (Feb 2, 1942).

...

no wonder all the ships are in port! the IJN must have officially retired in your game

(in reply to Laxplayer)
Post #: 113
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/7/2009 1:38:46 AM   
FAsea

 

Posts: 403
Joined: 6/25/2009
From: Hex 181, 36
Status: offline
wow must be a bug?

(in reply to lostsm)
Post #: 114
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/7/2009 1:52:38 AM   
Laxplayer

 

Posts: 202
Joined: 8/30/2006
From: San Diego
Status: offline
2/2/42


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

What date is the game at now ?


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 115
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/7/2009 2:16:25 AM   
Laxplayer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: lostsm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Laxplayer

Looking further...

I've sunk 343 ships so far (Feb 2, 1942).

...

no wonder all the ships are in port! the IJN must have officially retired in your game


Heh, that's what happens when the IJN never uses CVs to cover any landings... especially in the new bloodier (and better!) naval surface battles of AE. And like I said, it's probably 90% AK/AP. What's amazing is that the true total of IJN ships lost is about DOUBLE what I've got on my list as the allies due to FOW.

(in reply to lostsm)
Post #: 116
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/7/2009 3:32:07 AM   
GB68

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 8/4/2009
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

All of the TF's are supposed to CV coverage

its not CV's that are the  issue its DD's to let the TF's form !!!



Are you able to clarify that comment?

I understand the concept, but from many posts, it seems this not occuring. Perhaps the AI needs a requirement for the Cv's but is ,for some reason, ignoring this condition. My understanding, would be that if the AI is unable to establish CV (or LBA) coverage, it should not proceed with the assaults or sorties until it can achieve this.

Not having tackled a campaign game yet, it does appear though, from others posts, the AI is applying the "short term gain for long term pain" strategy.

I'm speaking solely of the Japanese AI, as most people are not far enough into the game to see the long term outcome of Allied strategy.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 117
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/7/2009 7:41:34 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13796
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Send me a save please at least 4 scripts should be trying to form CV TF'as at that point

a.mcphie@btinternet.com

(in reply to GB68)
Post #: 118
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/7/2009 12:59:14 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10212
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

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


It's doing OK so far, there is a real feeling of despair at times as the AI takes another base from me. I don't mind that it's going beyond history, it promotes that feeling that the Allies must've had worrying about where the next blow would fall. The issue is that really the invasion forces are too weakly protected to stand up to counter attacks. By Jan 42 it's kicked me out of Malaya and the PI due to my poor attempts at defence and is generally strolling around China kicking my poor lads to pieces
However, in the Pacific...
The AI attempted to take Midway from me, the first attempt was spotted about 200 miles out and when I was happy there wasn't any air cover I moved a CVTF out to intercept. That invasion and it's supporting surface combat TF got hit quite hard a ran away. A week or so later another invasion turned up, this time with the KB in tow. Obviously the presence of the IJN carriers meant that a counter attack would hurt me more than them, but after a couple of days the carriers withdrew leaving the invasion TF unsupported and still unloading troops. The USN went in again and caused carnage with carrier and surface attacks against the TFs which were still unloading troops. A week after that and the Japanese troops on Midway were wiped out, the initial CV coverage the AI used was not in the area for anywhere near long enough to protect the rest of it's forces, with the result that the Japs are now down by a large number of ships and troops.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 119
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive? - 8/7/2009 1:07:14 PM   
Valgua


Posts: 218
Joined: 11/10/2006
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

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


It's doing OK so far, there is a real feeling of despair at times as the AI takes another base from me. I don't mind that it's going beyond history, it promotes that feeling that the Allies must've had worrying about where the next blow would fall. The issue is that really the invasion forces are too weakly protected to stand up to counter attacks. By Jan 42 it's kicked me out of Malaya and the PI due to my poor attempts at defence and is generally strolling around China kicking my poor lads to pieces
However, in the Pacific...
The AI attempted to take Midway from me, the first attempt was spotted about 200 miles out and when I was happy there wasn't any air cover I moved a CVTF out to intercept. That invasion and it's supporting surface combat TF got hit quite hard a ran away. A week or so later another invasion turned up, this time with the KB in tow. Obviously the presence of the IJN carriers meant that a counter attack would hurt me more than them, but after a couple of days the carriers withdrew leaving the invasion TF unsupported and still unloading troops. The USN went in again and caused carnage with carrier and surface attacks against the TFs which were still unloading troops. A week after that and the Japanese troops on Midway were wiped out, the initial CV coverage the AI used was not in the area for anywhere near long enough to protect the rest of it's forces, with the result that the Japs are now down by a large number of ships and troops.


Yeah, I have also noticed this issue. When the IJN's CVs cover some of their major invading forces they often leave the theater of war too soon. I wonder what is triggering their impatience. I realize that one major problem with the Japanese AI is the chronic lack of DDs for escort, but this issue seems something different, does it not?

_____________________________


(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 120
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

0.146