Is AI cheating?

[felixckw]

When I play the IJN side, I find my Bettys and Nells are quite vulnerable to all kind of USN fighters, but when I play the USN side, it is not the case. Is AI cheating?

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: felixckw

When I play the IJN side, I find my Bettys and Nells are quite vulnerable to all kind of USN fighters, but when I play the USN side, it is not the case. Is AI cheating?

Like a weenie American actor on a slutty American actress ... and vice-versa.

All of Grigsby's games cheat you, and in ways that go so far that you begin to suspect his greatest love in game design was to figure out how to screw the human player.

[Desertmole]

I think that is a little harsh.  However, when you raise the difficult level, the AI compensates by more accurate shooting, more damage from bomb hits, greater and more rapid repair or release of ships, etc.  There are few ways to increase difficulty without writing whole new AI control schemes (or whatever they are called).  At least that was my experience from playing the Great Pacific War series and UV.  I haven't played WitP or WPO enough to know if they compensate in the same way.

[DuckofTindalos]

Well, strictly speaking, at higher difficulty levels the AI does cheat, because it gets to look at your dispositions...

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: felixckw

When I play the IJN side, I find my Bettys and Nells are quite vulnerable to all kind of USN fighters, but when I play the USN side, it is not the case. Is AI cheating?

I think the comments made re the designer are harsh. He's hardly likely to set the game so as to beat the player come what may. The player simply has to learn which tactics are req'd to win at any given game / play level.

Historically the Betty's & Nell's were very vulnerable, so thats no suprise.
As the Allied side you need to ascertain the correct attack method. I understand this requires making " slashing attacks". This is a choice you need to set from the Fighter options available. If you are doing this correctly then perhaps something else is not correct ( e.g. CAP heights and or numbers ). If this is all correctly done, then, perhaps, the AI is cheating to some degree !

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Desertmole

I think that is a little harsh.

I don't.

Try this at any difficulty level: ground your CAP at a base within range of escorted enemy LBA (either side). Run the turn. You'll get hit, particularly if you have ships in port unloading. Reload. Put up a CAP that will fly more aircraft than escorted the enemy bombers last time you ran the turn. Let 'er rip. The AI will choose a different target.

I have tested this on every Grigsby game I have ever owned (and I've owned them all), and there are dozens of examples of it (some even amusing). The problem is not that the AI will beat you, because even with this kind of help it is never even close to good enough after you learn the game. The problem is that you can't enjoy playing a game against the AI, because you know this is going on in the background as a lame attempt to make it competitive.

It's still going to do unbelievably stupid things - and not do simple, sensible things. I just wish a little more effort had gone into the AI routines and less had been expended on "well, let's just give our little darling a little advantage here and there."

[Bodhi]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Try this at any difficulty level: ground your CAP at a base within range of escorted enemy LBA (either side). Run the turn. You'll get hit, particularly if you have ships in port unloading. Reload. Put up a CAP that will fly more aircraft than escorted the enemy bombers last time you ran the turn. Let 'er rip. The AI will choose a different target.

I have tested this on every Grigsby game I have ever owned (and I've owned them all), and there are dozens of examples of it (some even amusing). The problem is not that the AI will beat you, because even with this kind of help it is never even close to good enough after you learn the game. The problem is that you can't enjoy playing a game against the AI, because you know this is going on in the background as a lame attempt to make it competitive.

It's still going to do unbelievably stupid things - and not do simple, sensible things. I just wish a little more effort had gone into the AI routines and less had been expended on "well, let's just give our little darling a little advantage here and there."

A succinct, and accurrate, critique of the AI in UV and WITP, the two Grigsby games I've played.