Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: AE Land and AI Issues

 
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: AE Land and AI Issues Page: <<   < prev  63 64 [65] 66 67   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 12/26/2009 11:47:23 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14464
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Not sure I wasnt aware of the problem so it might not have been depends when it was fixed in GC

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1921
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 12/26/2009 4:17:35 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24074
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Not sure I wasnt aware of the problem so it might not have been depends when it was fixed in GC


Stretching to remember here, maybe it was Andrew Brown who posted something.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1922
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/30/2009 2:45:33 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1968
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

I was cleaning out my files, and stumbled upon these notes I prepared many months ago. They are by no means comprehensive - they don't discuss any of the Marine Corps design choices, fx, but on the off-chance anyone is interested. . .


US EARLY WAR LAND FORCES – DESIGNER NOTES

Harbor Defenses:
The permanent, fixed gun, coastal defense installations have been completely overhauled from stock. The suite of guns at each location are far more accurate, to include 8” and 14” railroad guns on Oahu and Los Angeles. “Harbor Defense” LCUs now upgrade during the war, shedding obsolete WWI 10” and 12” guns and mortars, and generally adding one or two “big guns” and some modern, smaller 90mm and 155mm CD guns.

Minefields:
IRL, the US had major mine fields only at San Francisco, Pearl Harbor, and the entrance to Manila Bay. There was a small minefield at Subic Bay (now part of the Clark Field hex). WitP-AE has a code that distributes minefields to all nationalities based on base/port size. For the US, all the historic minefields are included, and the code adds others to some of the larger West Coast cities.

US Army Organization:
The US Army was in the process of reorganizing from “square” four-regiment divisions to “triangular” three-regiment divisions when the war began. Most of regular army divisions had already converted. Most of the National Guard divisions were still square. However, every division converted to a three-regiment formation before it deployed. Some of the “surplus” fourth regiments became independent “Separate” Infantry Regiments. Other surplus regiments were combined to form new divisions, or to help turn one “square” division into two “triangular” ones.

For simplicity’s sake, regiments in AE start the game with their post-reorganization assignments. So the 132nd, 164th and 182nd regiments all belong to the Americal Division when they arrive in-game, even though they were actually part of the 33rd, 34th and 26th Divisions, respectively, when the war broke out.

Hawaii’s Missing 299th Infantry Regiment:
In October of 1941, the “square” Hawaiian Division was split in two to create the 24th and 25th “triangular” divisions. Each division received 2 regular army regiments. Their third regiments (299th to the 24th; 298th to the 25th) came from the Hawaiian National Guard. The 299th was detached from the 24th and sent to guard the outer islands. The National Guard regiments started the war understrength, and lost half their number when the Army discharged all soldiers of Japanese ancestry in early 1942. Reduced to skeletons, the two regiments were merged into one – the 298th – and made a separate regiment, guarding the positions held by the old 299th. By then, two other regiments that started the war in California (the 34th and 161st) were in Hawaii and they officially became the round-out regiments for the 24th and 25th divisions in July.

For simplicity’s sake, in AE, when the war begins the 24th and 25th Divisions each have two regiments on Oahu. The 298th and 299th have already been consolidated into the 298th Separate Infantry Regiment, defending the other islands. The 34th and 161st Regiments, arriving in San Francisco, start as part of the 24th and 25th Divisions in Hawaii.


No Regimental Combat Teams (RCTs)!
Unlike stock, In AE, there are no RCTs. Regimental Combat Teams were not official TO&E units in WWII. A typical RCT was an infantry regiment with attached battalions of artillery and anti-aircraft, an attached battalion or company of engineers, and occasionally some tanks. In AE, all of the artillery, AAA, engineers and tanks are in the game as separate units. So move a regiment of infantry to a base, reinforce it with other battalions as desired and, voila!, you have essentially created a RCT.

“Armored” Motorized Infantry and Mechanized Cavalry
The 7th Motorized Infantry Division, and 159th Motorized Infantry Regiment, as well as some West Coast Mechanized Cavalry units are classified as “Armored units.” This allows them to use the “armor” movement table, as they are fully motorized. They fight normally – the “Armor” designation only affects how they move.

The Motorized Division Experiment
Shortly after the war began, the US Army designated the 7th Infantry Division, defending the San Francisco area, to test the “Motorized Division” concept. A regular infantry division had enough trucks to carry 1/3rd of the division at a time; all the elements of a motorized division could move at once. During the test period, the 7th Motorized Division was not available to deploy overseas. By the end of 1942, the Army abandoned the motorized division concept, the 7th re-converted to regular infantry, and deployed to the Aleutians in April/May of 1943.

In AE, the 7th starts as a Motorized Infantry Division. It is the perfect unit to guard San Francisco, because it starts near there, is restricted to the West Coast and can not be shipped overseas. Since LCUs can not be “un-restricted” in the editor, in early 1943 the 7th Motorized Division withdraws, and is replaced by a ‘new’ 7th (unrestricted) Infantry Division, that can deploy to the Pacific.

Too Many Trucks!
Allied LCUs in AE have a lot more motorized support than they did in WitP. The Western Allies were far more dependent on trucks for movement and supply than the Japanese were. In AE, that is not a good thing for the Allied player. Motorized support takes up more shipping space than regular support, requires AKA and AK transports, and is devilishly hard to unload in small ports. Throughout the war, the US Army constantly struggled to reduce the number of trucks in each division, in order to alleviate the shipping shortage. When the infantry division TO&E upgrades in 42/7, motorized support drops from 266 to 184. Unlike the Army, Marine divisions were designed from the beginning with shipping economy in mind, and they require far less motorized support.

The Missing Cannon Companies
In 1942, TO&Es for Infantry Regiments were adjusted to add a “Cannon Company” of x6 75mm and x2 105mm self-propelled howitzers mounted on halftracks. However, only a few units ever adopted these changes, mostly in North Africa. In the Pacific, units generally added a battery of towed, short-barreled 105mm howitzers, instead. Unlike stock, the AE TO&E adds the towed weapons, not the “cannon companies.” I made a mistake that I need to patch eventually – I have several US reinforcements arriving in 1942 with the short-barreled 105s, but these guns were not actually available until 1943.


The Cheating AI Gets a Free Tahiti Vacation:
A battalion of the 102nd Separate Infantry Regiment, and a battalion of the 198th Coast Artillery Regiment (AA) arrive directly at Bora Bora in the South Pacific. Obviously, IRL, they were shipped over from the US, but in play tests the AI kept combining the sub-units of the two regiments en route, preventing the separate battalions from going to their assigned destinations. If we ever design a PBEM-only scenario, I’ll make these folks start back on the East Coast.


_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 1923
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/30/2009 9:31:53 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10406
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline
Excellent - thanks Joel - wonder why these Designer Notes never made it into the manual??


_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 1924
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/30/2009 10:05:32 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1968
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Excellent - thanks Joel - wonder why these Designer Notes never made it into the manual??



Space limitations, natch.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 1925
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/31/2009 1:42:37 AM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2277
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
A compilation of such notes would be wonderful.  If one of the Devs had the time and inclination to do such.  Things like the recently reported lost tower armor on American CAs would be great to know before hand for those of us whose history education is not sufficient to know that cruiser X lost it's conning tower armor in 44 {though I had heard that all the refits made them top heavy}. Might stop a couple "bug" reports.

< Message edited by rockmedic109 -- 12/31/2009 1:43:57 AM >

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 1926
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 1/7/2010 8:26:09 PM   
jackyo123

 

Posts: 697
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
I've been keeping a running list of AI issues - some may be 'bugs' that don't belong in this thread, but since they are 'behavioral' I will post them here.

Here are 2 that don't require a save, as i can reproduce in every game.

1> If the Human player turns OFF facility repair, when the AI takes the base, it often will set production to EXPAND but will *not* set REPAIR to *on*. I have confirmed that this behavior continues for at least 2 months (and maybe longer) after the AI has taken the base (cities it happened in - Rangoon, Chengtu (sp?), Manilla, Mandalay (i think - dont have my notes at work). All these cities are at or close to 100% broken, there is plenty of supply on hand, but the AI has not repaired.




2> AI Ship repairs. The AI is not properly repairing ships, or maximizing its chances for quick repair.

Examples:
a> I created a small repair facility (size 10) at Truk. Several damaged subs and a small AK put in there with severe damage. 2 weeks passed, and none of the ships used the facility. When I intervened, all ships were fixed in less than 6 days.

b> In my game, the AI has sent many damaged ships to Tokyo. At least 5 have engine damage of 15 or more, but are still set to READINESS, and will never fully repair. They have estimated repair times of 30+ days. Changing to STAND DOWN reduces this in most cases by 50% or more, and fixes their engine issues.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1927
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 1/7/2010 8:47:44 PM   
jackyo123

 

Posts: 697
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
SCRIPTING ISSUES

The latest hotfix seems to have improved the 'overaggressive' and pointless sorties that the AI was making into fully controlled allied bases, with a few exceptions.

1> Several invasion attempts were made at Milne Bay by completely inadequate forces. The Japs had held Rabaul (and had 50 planes there - i checked by logging in as the jap player) for over a month, and should have known the kind of strength i had in hand at milne bay. After the allies wiped out the transports, the japanese DD's assigned / preceding the transport convoy proceeded *west* along the southern New Guinea coast, and were subsequently destroyed. Not sure where they were going, but they no longer had anything to escort, and headed in the wrong direction. Perhaps waypoints can be set for their 'escape' route, or set their home base as rabaul instead of Truk, so they definitely head north/east.

2> After logging in as the jap player, I've noticed that the pattern for invasions generally has the transport force 'following' a few hexes behind a surface combat force. But when the surface combat forces get severely punished, and are limping away at 1 hex/turn from land based air or an enemy TF, the Transport TF's *do not* seem to turn away. They continue blithely on their way, catching up and following the surface units, and blunder right into the same 'trap' that decimated the surface combat force (namely, a strong allied TF or strong LBA). I dont know if this is something that can be fixed by scripting, but it would make the game much more challenging if it could.

3> So far (april 42) no silly raids on Pearl. So thats an improvement for sure.

4> Port Moresby - IRL, the Japanese had launched the PM invasion force but cancelled it after the battle of the coral sea and the doolittle raid. Lae was occupied in March 1942. coral sea happened in May 42. So, historically, the Japanese had decent air cover in the region, and furthermore knew they needed carrier based cover for the invasion to have any chance of success, especially when faced with LBA from Australia, PM, and possibly Milne Bay.

So - I suggest the PM invasion scripts be edited so they do NOT trigger until the Jap player has control of bases in New Guinea (Lae, Buna, Salmuana, etc) and if possible has planes there (not sure if part 2 is possible, didnt see that as a trigger in the script editor). Otherwise, these southern new guinea seaborne invasions are doomed to failure. The ideal scenario would be for these forces not to 'kick off' until the land based forces begin moving over the Kokoda trail.

Same for Milne Bay - IRL, Milne bay was not attacked until summer 42 - after the Japanese had good air cover at forward bases. In my campaign, they are trying to take Milne Bay in March - way way too early. Again, suggest changing the script triggers so that the jap player must have adequate New guinea bases before attempting the invasion.

And perhaps you can 'call off' the scripts if certain conditions are not met, such as control of abovementioned bases. The AI loses too many valuable ships in a totally fruitless invasion.


thanks - keep up the great work!

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1928
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 1/7/2010 9:44:39 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14464
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
The AI uses stock WITP routines so by peeking you will never see the AI using different repair modes it doesnt get them it gets the logic in the old way.

1. is interesting do you have a save that shows it

a.mcphie@btinternet.com
quote:

ORIGINAL: jackyo123

I've been keeping a running list of AI issues - some may be 'bugs' that don't belong in this thread, but since they are 'behavioral' I will post them here.

Here are 2 that don't require a save, as i can reproduce in every game.

1> If the Human player turns OFF facility repair, when the AI takes the base, it often will set production to EXPAND but will *not* set REPAIR to *on*. I have confirmed that this behavior continues for at least 2 months (and maybe longer) after the AI has taken the base (cities it happened in - Rangoon, Chengtu (sp?), Manilla, Mandalay (i think - dont have my notes at work). All these cities are at or close to 100% broken, there is plenty of supply on hand, but the AI has not repaired.




2> AI Ship repairs. The AI is not properly repairing ships, or maximizing its chances for quick repair.

Examples:
a> I created a small repair facility (size 10) at Truk. Several damaged subs and a small AK put in there with severe damage. 2 weeks passed, and none of the ships used the facility. When I intervened, all ships were fixed in less than 6 days.

b> In my game, the AI has sent many damaged ships to Tokyo. At least 5 have engine damage of 15 or more, but are still set to READINESS, and will never fully repair. They have estimated repair times of 30+ days. Changing to STAND DOWN reduces this in most cases by 50% or more, and fixes their engine issues.


(in reply to jackyo123)
Post #: 1929
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 1/7/2010 9:48:00 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14464
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
I need to know which script you are running as they are all different can you send me a save so I can run the AI debugger.

1. and 2. I cannot control unfortunatelt

4. I can do this but then the AI will almost never take PM it needs to go early to have a chance I will take another look but need to think through the impact
quote:

ORIGINAL: jackyo123

SCRIPTING ISSUES

The latest hotfix seems to have improved the 'overaggressive' and pointless sorties that the AI was making into fully controlled allied bases, with a few exceptions.

1> Several invasion attempts were made at Milne Bay by completely inadequate forces. The Japs had held Rabaul (and had 50 planes there - i checked by logging in as the jap player) for over a month, and should have known the kind of strength i had in hand at milne bay. After the allies wiped out the transports, the japanese DD's assigned / preceding the transport convoy proceeded *west* along the southern New Guinea coast, and were subsequently destroyed. Not sure where they were going, but they no longer had anything to escort, and headed in the wrong direction. Perhaps waypoints can be set for their 'escape' route, or set their home base as rabaul instead of Truk, so they definitely head north/east.

2> After logging in as the jap player, I've noticed that the pattern for invasions generally has the transport force 'following' a few hexes behind a surface combat force. But when the surface combat forces get severely punished, and are limping away at 1 hex/turn from land based air or an enemy TF, the Transport TF's *do not* seem to turn away. They continue blithely on their way, catching up and following the surface units, and blunder right into the same 'trap' that decimated the surface combat force (namely, a strong allied TF or strong LBA). I dont know if this is something that can be fixed by scripting, but it would make the game much more challenging if it could.

3> So far (april 42) no silly raids on Pearl. So thats an improvement for sure.

4> Port Moresby - IRL, the Japanese had launched the PM invasion force but cancelled it after the battle of the coral sea and the doolittle raid. Lae was occupied in March 1942. coral sea happened in May 42. So, historically, the Japanese had decent air cover in the region, and furthermore knew they needed carrier based cover for the invasion to have any chance of success, especially when faced with LBA from Australia, PM, and possibly Milne Bay.

So - I suggest the PM invasion scripts be edited so they do NOT trigger until the Jap player has control of bases in New Guinea (Lae, Buna, Salmuana, etc) and if possible has planes there (not sure if part 2 is possible, didnt see that as a trigger in the script editor). Otherwise, these southern new guinea seaborne invasions are doomed to failure. The ideal scenario would be for these forces not to 'kick off' until the land based forces begin moving over the Kokoda trail.

Same for Milne Bay - IRL, Milne bay was not attacked until summer 42 - after the Japanese had good air cover at forward bases. In my campaign, they are trying to take Milne Bay in March - way way too early. Again, suggest changing the script triggers so that the jap player must have adequate New guinea bases before attempting the invasion.

And perhaps you can 'call off' the scripts if certain conditions are not met, such as control of abovementioned bases. The AI loses too many valuable ships in a totally fruitless invasion.


thanks - keep up the great work!


(in reply to jackyo123)
Post #: 1930
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 1/8/2010 3:46:32 AM   
jackyo123

 

Posts: 697
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
Andy - cannot post savefiles to this forum, so am posting a savegame to techsupport. AI 'aggression' raids again - deep, unsupported, suicidal.


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1931
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 1/8/2010 4:13:39 AM   
jackyo123

 

Posts: 697
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I need to know which script you are running as they are all different can you send me a save so I can run the AI debugger.

1. and 2. I cannot control unfortunatelt

4. I can do this but then the AI will almost never take PM it needs to go early to have a chance I will take another look but need to think through the impact





Happy to oblige - unfortunately cannot upload to this forum.

Here is a save from before milne (not sure how much before - maybe a week or two)
http://www.divshare.com/download/10078714-042


If the AI needs to grab PM early to have a chance (and IRL, you could argue that a seaborne invasion of PM probably would not have stood much of a chance without supreme air cover), then possibly ramp it up to include massive fleet support. A carrier group, with surface forces supporting, and a simultaneous landing at Lae/Buna, might do the trick.

Or, maybe advance the clock to take the northern new guinea bases ealrier. If they take Buna in, say, late january, by march a PM invasion might be a go, since they could have 40 or so planes running over NG by then, and launch a kokoda hop at the same time.

There were a lot of assets not being used offensively in the few peeks i took at the jap side - including BB's and CA's that were escorting forces to/from northern china. Not sure what they were afraid of up there ...

Question - *can* scripts have complicated branchings? Such as 'abort if forces fall below x size' ? If so, then that might also be enough to do the trick.



(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1932
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 1/8/2010 8:04:16 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14464
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
no they cannot

(in reply to jackyo123)
Post #: 1933
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 1/8/2010 12:27:17 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
XP and LCU disband question.


On vacation so I don't have the game to verify my facts, but I think major LCUs like the 7th Indian division start with 20 xp while many of the smaller units start around 40. If I disband the smaller units to get devices in the pool to flesh out 7th, is that xp "lost" or do the squads retain some attribute that would have them bring up the 7th ID xp as it fleshes out?

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1934
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 1/8/2010 1:24:55 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14464
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Lost

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 1935
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 1/12/2010 4:38:50 AM   
jackyo123

 

Posts: 697
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
Andy - more small TF suicide runs in April, 42, hotfix 3. Posted in the TECH forum (cant upload the zip to here)


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1936
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 1/14/2010 4:23:28 AM   
jackyo123

 

Posts: 697
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline

And more suicide runs. Apr 12 - 2 BB's and a CA tried to storm Pearl. They got trashed by LBA 12 hexes out. Thats 5 capital ships lost in 10 days for the Japs, with zero returns.

Andy - did you find my savefile over in the tech forum?

(in reply to jackyo123)
Post #: 1937
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 1/14/2010 12:28:43 PM   
BigJ62


Posts: 1800
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline
Part of this problem is TFs trying to refuel at bases that take it past a lot of cd guns.

_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi…AeAi …AeAi…Long live AeAi.

(in reply to jackyo123)
Post #: 1938
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 1/15/2010 4:57:28 AM   
jackyo123

 

Posts: 697
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
this wasnt that - the AI sent a surface task force to Pearl Harbor in April 42 - a WEAK task force, with 4 ships only. If it is going to do deep raids they need to be in sufficient strength for the objective.

They sent a 2 ship TF in march, and a 4 ship TF in april. 2 other weak TF's came down to suva. Thats 10 capital ships lost, all killed by my LBA.

(in reply to BigJ62)
Post #: 1939
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 1/18/2010 6:40:20 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 24074
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
I've checked the manual for this information and it's not there - sorry if it's been asked already.

Regarding unit organization and rebuilding LCU's - when you rebuild, for example, 3 regiments into the parent division, what HQ is the division assigned to?

For example, if I have already spent the PP to assign each of the 3 regiments to Pacific Fleet, when I combine them into the division will the division be assigned to Pacific Fleet, or to whatever was previously keyed into the scenario editor?

(in reply to jackyo123)
Post #: 1940
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 1/18/2010 6:53:27 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2482
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: online
Pacific fleet I presume

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1941
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 1/18/2010 10:08:18 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14464
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Yup Pacific Fleet

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 1942
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 1/19/2010 12:45:02 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 24074
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Much thanks!

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1943
Recon Issue - 1/20/2010 8:12:42 PM   
doc smith

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
Has anyone noticed that recon is a bit odd?  If I'm in the same hex as an enemy unit, and neither one of us bombards or attacks, I know nothing about the enemy units.  However, if I send a bomber from 15 hexes away, they bomb from 25,000 feet, I often get the name of who was bombed.  How do the pilots know but not my lads in the hex?

I think in a future update, one might rethink recon rules.  For example, ground detects ground only actually in combat.  Enemy forces in reserve not detected/listed.  Air recon, should only report something like: "small, medium, large inf force moving NW", "air/naval personnel detected", "light, medium, heavy artillery/flak detected".  Naval bombardment would never report who was shelled other than "coast/field artillery" or "infantry defenses" or "shore installations".

Also, and this is for naval, air sightings of ships might give direction of movement.

Does this make sense to anyone else?



Doc

(in reply to Sonny II)
Post #: 1944
RE: Recon Issue - 1/20/2010 11:31:01 PM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1904
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline
AndyMac on the AI script changes you made to tone down/stop the suicide AI TFs to Pearl Harbor, does that also happen elsewhere? In my savegame started under original release & patched to last hotfix the AI does the same thing at Darwin & Port Moresby though due to the suicide runs it's lost most BB's & many CA/CL so there's not much left for it to send & it's now Aug42. It also lost 3 of the KB in a suicide cruise to Brisbane so there's also not much left in the CV/CVLs either. Can you also change it for the AI to be able to draw airunits from the destroyed airgroup menu more often (didn't seem to want to recreate them even when pool is full of a/c to fill them out) & possibly put them on the empty CVE's?

(in reply to doc smith)
Post #: 1945
RE: Recon Issue - 1/21/2010 5:45:12 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14464
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

AndyMac on the AI script changes you made to tone down/stop the suicide AI TFs to Pearl Harbor, does that also happen elsewhere? In my savegame started under original release & patched to last hotfix the AI does the same thing at Darwin & Port Moresby though due to the suicide runs it's lost most BB's & many CA/CL so there's not much left for it to send & it's now Aug42.

IF STARTED UNDER ORIGINAL RELEASE IT WIL USE THAT AI SCRIPT THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS SO ITS HARD TO TELL WHICH ONE IS BEING APLIED


It also lost 3 of the KB in a suicide cruise to Brisbane so there's also not much left in the CV/CVLs either.

I REDUCED THE CHANCE OF AN AI ATTACK BRISBANE IN A PATCH 2 SCRIPT AND MADE IT ATTACK WITH MORE WEIGHT AND ON WAYPOINTS NOT PATROL SO ITS MORE LIKELY TO BE A FLYBYE

Can you also change it for the AI to be able to draw airunits from the destroyed airgroup menu more often (didn't seem to want to recreate them even when pool is full of a/c to fill them out)

I THINK DESTROYED AIR GROUPS WHEN DESTROYED ON CARRIERS ARE GONE FOR GOOD.

& possibly put them on the empty CVE's?

I HAVE NO WAY OF TELLING THE AI TO PUT SQNS ON CV'S - SCENARIO DESIGNERS MUST ALWAYS HAVE CARRIERS ARRIVE WITH SQNS IF THEY WANT THE AI TO WORK - HISTORIC PURISTS WILL SAY RN AND OTHER SHIPS ARRIVED WITHOUT AIRGROUPS THEY AWOULD BE CORRECT BUT IN ORDER FOR THE AI TO WORK EVERY CARRIER MUST HAVE AT LEAST 1 SQN ON BOARD AND PREFEREABLY A FIGHTER ONE.


(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 1946
RE: Recon Issue - 1/22/2010 11:23:42 PM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1904
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac


quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

AndyMac on the AI script changes you made to tone down/stop the suicide AI TFs to Pearl Harbor, does that also happen elsewhere? In my savegame started under original release & patched to last hotfix the AI does the same thing at Darwin & Port Moresby though due to the suicide runs it's lost most BB's & many CA/CL so there's not much left for it to send & it's now Aug42.

IF STARTED UNDER ORIGINAL RELEASE IT WIL USE THAT AI SCRIPT THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS SO ITS HARD TO TELL WHICH ONE IS BEING APLIED


It also lost 3 of the KB in a suicide cruise to Brisbane so there's also not much left in the CV/CVLs either.

I REDUCED THE CHANCE OF AN AI ATTACK BRISBANE IN A PATCH 2 SCRIPT AND MADE IT ATTACK WITH MORE WEIGHT AND ON WAYPOINTS NOT PATROL SO ITS MORE LIKELY TO BE A FLYBYE

Can you also change it for the AI to be able to draw airunits from the destroyed airgroup menu more often (didn't seem to want to recreate them even when pool is full of a/c to fill them out)

I THINK DESTROYED AIR GROUPS WHEN DESTROYED ON CARRIERS ARE GONE FOR GOOD.

& possibly put them on the empty CVE's?

I HAVE NO WAY OF TELLING THE AI TO PUT SQNS ON CV'S - SCENARIO DESIGNERS MUST ALWAYS HAVE CARRIERS ARRIVE WITH SQNS IF THEY WANT THE AI TO WORK - HISTORIC PURISTS WILL SAY RN AND OTHER SHIPS ARRIVED WITHOUT AIRGROUPS THEY AWOULD BE CORRECT BUT IN ORDER FOR THE AI TO WORK EVERY CARRIER MUST HAVE AT LEAST 1 SQN ON BOARD AND PREFEREABLY A FIGHTER ONE.




On the CV airgroups at least for the AI or IJ they were in the destroyed airgroups list when I peaked at that side & were able to be bought out so looks like they are able to return in a way. It'd be nice if they could as I think it'd make the AI hang around a bit longer to challenge any Allied player but I know it'd take a good bit of programming logic to get that to happen & in doing that a whole new array of problems might happen. Thanks

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1947
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/29/2010 1:19:42 AM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

No Regimental Combat Teams (RCTs)!
Unlike stock, In AE, there are no RCTs. Regimental Combat Teams were not official TO&E units in WWII. A typical RCT was an infantry regiment with attached battalions of artillery and anti-aircraft, an attached battalion or company of engineers, and occasionally some tanks. In AE, all of the artillery, AAA, engineers and tanks are in the game as separate units. So move a regiment of infantry to a base, reinforce it with other battalions as desired and, voila!, you have essentially created a RCT.



just a quibble here while on my way to post something else: While corps or army assets may be distinct, it seems to me that most regiments or brigades that are part of a division are still combined arms teams to the extent that we don't see the numbered divisional artillery regiments or engineer and pioneer battalions, rather, they are split into the constituent infantry regiments and brigades.

There is the Blackforce MG battalion that goes into one of the Australian divisions, and for some reason the USMC divisional tank battalions are independent as if they were Army -- and rather opulent in comparison to the Army's. But at the given hex scale, I certainly understand the design choice to do it the way it was done. Matrix sells many fine games for the OOB obsessed. And if they sell one that allows me to select Pedro del Valle to command the 11th Marines for an invasion of Guadalcanal, I'll buy that one too.

I hope this won't discourage you from offering further peeks back stage; it's always a treat.

_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 1948
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/29/2010 1:39:58 AM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline
I am playing the Babe's Lite with the December 8 start as the Allies; and I seem to have drawn a very peculiar Japanese AI opponent in comparison to previous practice rounds.

I first became suspicious when he sailed into the minefields and guns at Singapore for no apparent reason. Then, after the fall of Manila, he sent sent several TF's sailing through the minefields, and past the guns, at Bataan. The effect was ruinous enough for him that I still wonder about the reported pain-free invasions of Pearl.

Lately (Spring 1942), the AI has split up the KB, and it has been rather easy for me to pick off two CV and a CVL on the way to Canton, along with mauling a pair of invasion fleets.

If this is luck of the draw, I'll take it, and I'll switch to one of the smarter AI games I have saved. If a save is wanted for a look see, I can post it here, or where ever.

_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to Central Blue)
Post #: 1949
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/30/2010 12:36:29 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1968
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

There is the Blackforce MG battalion that goes into one of the Australian divisions, and for some reason the USMC divisional tank battalions are independent as if they were Army -- and rather opulent in comparison to the Army's. But at the given hex scale, I certainly understand the design choice to do it the way it was done. Matrix sells many fine games for the OOB obsessed. And if they sell one that allows me to select Pedro del Valle to command the 11th Marines for an invasion of Guadalcanal, I'll buy that one too.

I hope this won't discourage you from offering further peeks back stage; it's always a treat.


Thanks. At some point I'll write up my notes about the Marines -- it was a deliberate design choice to separate the Parachute and Tank battalions from the Marine Divisions. And leader 16358 del Valle, Pedro is available in 1944 to command a Marine Division (but, not, alas, the artillery on Guadalcanal - another limitation of the land combat/leader system).

Enjoy the Marines' tank "opulence" -- it is short-lived. The Marine tank battalion starts out with a mix of 72 M2A4 or M3 Stuart tanks; the Army tank battalion has 59 M3's. But the Marine TOE changes over time to 46 M4 Shermans . . . the Army battalion will eventually change to 53 Shermans, plus 17 Stuarts, plus 6 M4 105mm Close Support tanks.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Central Blue)
Post #: 1950
Page:   <<   < prev  63 64 [65] 66 67   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AE Land and AI Issues Page: <<   < prev  63 64 [65] 66 67   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

0.220