AI fixing history or too aggressive?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
Rogue188
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:37 pm

AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by Rogue188 »

I am on my 4th new year's resolution to play WITP beyond March of 42 and find myself needing to start over after some very unexpected moves by the AI. I have been pretty slow to get the US into much of the South Pacific and have been using the first two months to train up my forces. So I was shocked when the AI invaded Port Moresby, Tulagi, and Efate in mid February 1942.

When playing against the AI, do I need to be aggressive in claiming islands early in the war?

Was the script written this way to avoid the historical moves by Japan and create a more difficult challenge for the Allied player?

Edit: Also, I'm losing cities in China rapidly!
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 14108
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by RangerJoe »

Just build up Port Moresby, let the others fall.

As far as China goes, I liberated Hong Kong, then Canton, Hankow, and Wuchang. It is in August of 1942 . . .
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child

User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by rustysi »

Was the script written this way to avoid the historical moves by Japan and create a more difficult challenge for the Allied player?

There're multiple scrips, one of which is selected at game start.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by rustysi »

When playing against the AI, do I need to be aggressive in claiming islands early in the war?

No, it'll just 'break' the AI.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 7033
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by Nomad »

This is from Alfred and AndyMac:

Time and time this question is asked. It really is pointless. It is not the specific script, not the particular scenario which matters. Any scenario/script (yes even Nast Nasty Tier 3) will cease to be competitive if the Allied human player focuses on stopping at all cost computer Japan from capturing in 1942 these bases:

1. Singapore
2. Manila
3. Clark Field
4. Bataan
5. Palembang
6. Batavia
7. Soerbaja
8. Rangoon
9. Mandalay
10.Rabaul


These bases are absolutely essential for any computer script.

Not quite essential but still of great assistance in maintaining a competitive AI player is for these bases to also be captured by the computer.


11. Port Blair
12. Port Moresby
13. Tarawa
14. Shortlands
16. Lunga
17. Akyab


All these bases (with the exception of Port Moresby) were historically captured by Japan, and it wasn't enough to make Japan really competitive in the war. Why do human Allied players believe that denying the computer these bases will allow the AI to remain competitive when the real life Japan with these bases wasn't competitive.

Alfred
Rogue188
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:37 pm

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by Rogue188 »

I don't mind sacrificing most of those bases to keep things interesting, with the exception of Port Moresby. Given how important Port Moresby was to Australia, I will fight for it, but I disagree with a landing in early February 42. The Japanese weren't ready to take it, and the Allied player has some very limited ability to mount a major relief unless they started turn one.

On a side note I was able to get a surface force to the Port and break up a major landing force, but there is still a string of Japanese TFs moving toward Moresby. What does it take to get the AI to abandon an objective? Last time I tried something like this I was able to park my US carriers just south of Moresby and just sink everything. It didn't feel like a fight but a slaughter. Frankly, it was the reason I stopped playing the AI last year. There is no fun in watching the AI send its whole fleet piecemeal against one target regardless of how many ships get sunk.
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: Rogue188

I don't mind sacrificing most of those bases to keep things interesting, with the exception of Port Moresby. Given how important Port Moresby was to Australia, I will fight for it, but I disagree with a landing in early February 42. The Japanese weren't ready to take it, and the Allied player has some very limited ability to mount a major relief unless they started turn one.

On a side note I was able to get a surface force to the Port and break up a major landing force, but there is still a string of Japanese TFs moving toward Moresby. What does it take to get the AI to abandon an objective? Last time I tried something like this I was able to park my US carriers just south of Moresby and just sink everything. It didn't feel like a fight but a slaughter. Frankly, it was the reason I stopped playing the AI last year. There is no fun in watching the AI send its whole fleet piecemeal against one target regardless of how many ships get sunk.

1. Japan had the capability in Feb 1942 to capture Port Moresby if it wanted to. It is simply a question of priorities. Instead of sending the KB to hammer Darwin in Feb 1942 it could have been sent off instead to Port Moresby. A subsidiary DEI invasion force could have been diverted to Port Moresby instead. again if that had been their priority.

2. The script will continue firing until either the expiry date is reached or all the allocated assets for the objective are destroyed.

3. The official scenarios have 13 scripts. You can only have one historical objective followed script. That means by definition, the other 12 scripts must vary from the historical objectives. As the non historical scripts don't have additional Japanese forces, then again, by definition, their non historical objectives are feasible. They just represent a different priority for the deployment of their assets.

4. You can disagree about the importance of defending to the bitter end Port Moresby in early 1942. Just don't complain about the computer not giving you are good game. You've already been told what is necessary for a computer player.

Alfred
User avatar
Leandros
Posts: 1850
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:03 pm
Contact:

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by Leandros »

Why do human Allied players believe that denying the computer these bases will allow the AI to remain competitive when the real life Japan with these bases wasn't competitive.

Alfred

Probably because new players believe the AI is more than what it really is.

Fred
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: Leandros
Why do human Allied players believe that denying the computer these bases will allow the AI to remain competitive when the real life Japan with these bases wasn't competitive.

Alfred

Probably because new players believe the AI is more than what it really is.

Fred

In which case they are committing the cardinal sin of approaching the game with preconceived ideas about how it should play.

Too many approach AE like the the 18 year old who enrolls in physics at university and on their first lecture/tutorial informs the lecturer that they've never heard of Newton or Einstein but that isn't a problem because he already knows how physics operates. Then when he fails his first paper/exam he blames the marker for not applying the youngster's physics laws.

Alfred
Andy Mac
Posts: 12570
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by Andy Mac »

ORIGINAL: Rogue188

I am on my 4th new year's resolution to play WITP beyond March of 42 and find myself needing to start over after some very unexpected moves by the AI. I have been pretty slow to get the US into much of the South Pacific and have been using the first two months to train up my forces. So I was shocked when the AI invaded Port Moresby, Tulagi, and Efate in mid February 1942.

When playing against the AI, do I need to be aggressive in claiming islands early in the war?

Was the script written this way to avoid the historical moves by Japan and create a more difficult challenge for the Allied player?

Edit: Also, I'm losing cities in China rapidly!

If the AI moves at the actual pace Japan moves at especially in Scen 1/2 then due to hindisght alone it is too easy for the allied player to break the AI.

Amphib invasions is the single biggest thing the AI struggles with so as Japan making a huge early land grab while the player is weak is the best way to maximise the AI's challenge long term
User avatar
Leandros
Posts: 1850
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:03 pm
Contact:

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by Leandros »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In which case they are committing the cardinal sin of approaching the game with preconceived ideas about how it should play.

Alfred

Hmm...isn't that about the same - believe, expect, conceive. How can a new player not be pre-conceived? Oh, yes, by studying the manual? To that I would say that the manual is quite short on defining the game's (AI) shortcomings.

Apart from that I love this game - in the PBEM mode, that is. Better to promote the AI more as a preparation for PBEM. Just my opinion.

Fred
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 10447
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by Sardaukar »

It is actually incredibly easy to break "Artificial Idiot" even when trying not to.

In my AAR I have not lost Soerabaja or Batavia even without any effort, just some nasty aerial settings and lucky dice.

I have come to conclusion that Hard setting is only way to go, since AI seems unable to handle logistics well.

Or if glutton for punishment, AndyMac's Ironman scenarios [8D][:D]
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 14108
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by RangerJoe »

For my game, it is early August 1942. I have IJA units trapped at Manila and Clark, among other places. I hold all of Java, Balikpappen with Samarinda, Palembang and other parts of Sumatra. I have liberated Hong Kong, Canton, Hangkow, and Wuchang - in that order. I have brought extra artillery to Manila with supplies and over 200k in supplies to Hong Kong. I have just invaded Jolo with paratroopers against an IJA AF battalion.

I don't know when the Hiyo comes in but I have sunk 13 IJN aircraft carriers while only losing the Saratoga. The Yamato is sunk plus other BBs but I have lost none.

I have over 1.7 million supplies in Sydney and over 3 million supplies in Cape Town.

Maybe I should play one of the Iron Man scenarios next, maybe even modifying it to have some US DDs removed later as they actually were.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child

Ambassador
Posts: 1676
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by Ambassador »

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

It is actually incredibly easy to break "Artificial Idiot" even when trying not to.
Indeed. Against the Japan AI, I’ve actually taken the habit of doing a real Sir Robin ; not to save assets for later, but to avoid messing too much with their invasions.[8|]
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by Macclan5 »

Expectations or 'preconceived ideas' really do play a roll here as mentioned.

It depends on the players 'want from the game'

A historically orientated player desiring a recreation with 'some what if' scenario capability will find the game entirely enjoyable / challenging / thorough despite the AI being 'linear' (not broken). I obviously fall into that self defined category.

Others may want more from the game and should explore Hard/ Iron man / Nasty / PBEM options. The game accommodates all type and that perhaps is the most incredible aspect of this game given its age.
A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
User avatar
Kull
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:43 am
Location: El Paso, TX

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by Kull »

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

Expectations or 'preconceived ideas' really do play a roll here as mentioned.

It depends on the players 'want from the game'

A historically orientated player desiring a recreation with 'some what if' scenario capability will find the game entirely enjoyable / challenging / thorough despite the AI being 'linear' (not broken). I obviously fall into that self defined category.

Others may want more from the game and should explore Hard/ Iron man / Nasty / PBEM options. The game accommodates all type and that perhaps is the most incredible aspect of this game given its age.

+1

Worth noting something which should be obvious. The human player has 20/20 hindsight, which the real Allies did not. To complain about the Japanese AI without accounting for your ENORMOUS advantage in knowing - strategically - what it's going to do is quite disingenuous.

If you want a tabla rasa game in which all options are possible, then play PBEM. But if you enjoy history and want to put realistic handcuffs on your actions (which are effectively identical to those worn by the Allies), than let Japan have it's way for the first 6 months or so, competing against it only with the force structures actually utilized by the Allies during that time frame. From that point forward, the AI will do no worse than the historical opponent, and in most cases will do much better.
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 10447
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by Sardaukar »

For me the game is pretty much lessons from history.

Late war you are going to win as Allies, it is pre-destined, so to speak.

Early war is most interesting and enlightening why things went southways as they did.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
Rogue188
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:37 pm

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by Rogue188 »

Personally, I would like to see the AI follow the historical Japanese movements for the first six months as part of an "easy" or tutorial grand campaign scenario. If nothing else, the same movements up to the Battle of Coral Sea. Its not that I want to bushwhack the Japanese, but I want to face the early challenges the Allies faced while watching the rapid Japanese advance. This would give me the chance to learn how to build bases, start training my units, and get the logistics going without having to worry about needing to put together a large amphibious force on March 1, 1942 to take back a critical base or spending huge amounts of political points to activate LCUs far sooner than they should have been available. Once I get better at the game, then I would be happy to play an ahistorical campaign. What happens if the Allies set up a better early defense? What would happen if the Japanese had invaded Darwin?

My preconceived notion for how the AI will play out is that I will lose for the first six months, then I should be able to start going on the offense late 1942. The only thing I can really do is snipe the Japanese here and there to disrupt their movements, but nothing major until later in the year.

Regardless of the what the AI does, I have no complains about aggressive moves by human players. We all have 20/20 vision on WWII and a human player would make for a better experience.
Ian R
Posts: 3423
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cammeraygal Country

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by Ian R »

ORIGINAL: Rogue188

Personally, I would like to see the AI follow the historical Japanese movements for the first six months as part of an "easy" or tutorial grand campaign scenario.

...
.

Just defend Port Morseby, Espirito Santo, Noumea and Fiji/Samoa then. Canton/Palmyra as well. Withdraw to the Indian border. Dig in in China in the mountains. Spend 8 months training aircrew. The scripted opponent may grab some things beyond what Japan historically occupied, but you'll get them back later.

If it rolls the "invade Australia" or "invade India" scripts, give due thanks to the dice gods. Send some of your early US units to help the locals stalemate the invasion. Eventually your growing air umbrella will sink all the IJN re-supply ships, and you can treat the lodgement as a "Tigerland" to train your fresh divisions.
"I am Alfred"
Chris21wen
Posts: 6454
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Cottesmore, Rutland

RE: AI fixing history or too aggressive?

Post by Chris21wen »

Of course the opposite is true against an Allied AI. When I play as Japan only expaned to what there Historically did. Once they I stop allowing the AI to do it's thing normally did. I don't aggressively seak out US CV, waiting until it sends out a proper CV TF in late 42. Surface, bombments etc I limit as well. When any naval battle occurs I withdraw after the the first day, win lose or draw. If The AI persues I will defend. I severly restrict naval air missions, I let the us invade islands, Guadalcanal is usually the first. It is defended and I will bomb ground units and AF.

The first carrier battle occured two days ago OCT 26 42 and did not go well for the US and I didn't beleive it as normally a 6 CV US v 6 CV KB at this time are usually pretty even not this time. Basically the reverse of Midway. I re-ran it a few times and mostly got a draw.
Post Reply

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