So, how is the AI these days?

[sapper_astro]

I have been waiting for years now, thinking that eventually this game might be a nice buy. The thing that initially turned me off were the myriad complaints about the AI...

How is it these days? Improvements? Can Japan/Allies launch decent assaults/defence? How does this game stand up in this department?

[wdolson]

Personally, I think the complaints about the AI are mostly from those who primarily prefer PBEM. I play vs the AI and it's decent. If you play along the lines of the real Allied actions for the first year of the war, the AI will do about as well as Japan did in reality. I've heard the AI is worse for the Allies than for Japan. I haven't played Japan vs the AI so I don't know.

In any of these games, the AI is never going to be as good as a real person. In my experience, I'd say the AI is on par with the AI in many other historical strategy games I've played. While you're learning the game, it will definitely be a challenge, even on an easier setting. That period was longer for me than the entire time I've played most other games.

Bill

[sapper_astro]

Thanks Bill,

Can anyone with Allied AI experience comment here?

And one other question; Can the player take command of one area of the battle? Say the Brits, Aussies, or Chinese and leave the rest to the AI? Has anyone tried this?

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: sapper_astro
And one other question; Can the player take command of one area of the battle? Say the Brits, Aussies, or Chinese and leave the rest to the AI? Has anyone tried this?

You can, but it's strongly recommended not to. Odd things can happen when you hand over one or more area of the game to the AI and command the rest. If any units enter an area controled by the AI, you lose them. The AI can also do dumb things that can lead to major problems for your side.

There is also an auto convoy system that doesn't work very well. It will ship tons and tons of supplies to one base and leave many that are running out of supply to starve.

Bill

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: sapper_astro
And one other question; Can the player take command of one area of the battle? Say the Brits, Aussies, or Chinese and leave the rest to the AI? Has anyone tried this?

You can, but it's strongly recommended not to. Odd things can happen when you hand over one or more area of the game to the AI and command the rest. If any units enter an area controled by the AI, you lose them. The AI can also do dumb things that can lead to major problems for your side.

There is also an auto convoy system that doesn't work very well. It will ship tons and tons of supplies to one base and leave many that are running out of supply to starve.

Bill

We get around that auto-convoy problem by sending them to a point at sea and then giving them a new "homebase", (the intended point of delivery).[8D]

Some players simply think it lazy to use anything on 'auto"!!..Like wdolson, I play against the AI and do not have enough time in my life for micro-management......

[Miller]

It is generally regarded that the IJN AI puts up a decent fight IF you play a historical game.

The Allied AI is rubbish. Sends all its carriers on pointless kamikaze strikes very early in the game.

[Sardaukar]

Yea. IJ AI is working bit better than Allied AI.

[huggarn]

The AI tends to send convoys unescorted and into areas where you have air-sup. So its easy to kill off all the supply lines for the AI and kill off all easy ships (CVE and all other non CV).

Although the AI is quite good at using his airsupport.

[patrickl]

Hi,

You will probably play AI for a game or two. After that you will find it predictable. You will get more challenging play from PBEM although it would wise to adopt a houserule that the game proceeds in the event of auto-victory. That way you get commitment to a long term game.

Pat

[Rainer]

I'm playing ONLY Allied vs. Jap AI since initial relase.
And it is challenging and fun.
Strongly recommended despite the myriad of Nay sayers.

Not to be misunderstood: it is probably more challenging to fight against a human opponent (PBEM), but if for any reason you can't/won't do that go ahead and play versus AI. You'll be satisfied and will not be disappointed.

Cheers
Rainer

[CaptDave]

I'll concur with the previous positive posters. Is the AI perfect? Of course not; no computer system ever will be (at least in our lifetimes). Is it a challenge? Certainly at the beginning, and could be for a long time if you're like me and can't play much at one time (essentially, I have some time available for 2-3 weeks and then not for 4 months). Is it better than playing a live opponent? Probably not -- it is rather predictable. Is it better than playing solitaire? You bet!

[Grotius]

Can anyone with Allied AI experience comment here?

The Allied AI may not be great in the grand 1941 campaign, but it's giving me a decent game in the 1943 campaign, where I'm playing as Japan. So far it's performing historically: moving up the Solomons, advancing in the Central Pacific. And it hasn't given away any CVs yet. I may try the 1944 campaign as Japan against the AI too.

In general, when I play the AI, I try to confine my play to historical lines. If you do something wacky, you're likely to bamboozle the AI. Also, on occasion I "look the other way" if it does something reallly stupid, like repeatedly sending a surface TF within Betty range without air cover.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

I'm playing ONLY Allied vs. Jap AI since initial relase.
And it is challenging and fun.
Strongly recommended despite the myriad of Nay sayers.

Cheers
Rainer

Second this part. If you keep pretty much to historic Allied efforts overall, the AI will do a decent job of the Japanese the first 9-12 months (which is quite an accomplishment in and of itself). After that it really doesn't know what to do and just sort of "reacts" to your efforts. Which is nice for learning. It fizzles pretty much totally as the Allies after a few exciting months.

But if you want to try anything much "out of the ordinary" (or play the Japanese), it's better to look for a human oppponant.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Miller

It is generally regarded that the IJN AI puts up a decent fight IF you play a historical game.

The Allied AI is rubbish. Sends all its carriers on pointless kamikaze strikes very early in the game.

I have never played this game beyond the first 1 1/2 months, and I have not seen that occur even once. I have also never spotted the PoW TF. They also seem to evacuate most of the ships from PI with me being lucky to sink 4-5 of them (mostly by IJN floats planes pressed into attacking). I always play with the historic first turn so maybe the allied AI is different otherwise? I can't, however, comment on the grander scale of idiocy that the allied AI may have, only to say that it was idiotic, in a sense, to stack up all the subs from PI into the Takao area, but then that's where the majority of my ship traffic was also. I made customary aerial and naval ASW efforts to thwart them, but in a number of instances I would not set my TF's going to PI with direct routes in order to get out of the sub hexes, and some of the subs thereby moved to the hexes which I was diverting some of the TF's to (offsets). So at least it was brainey to adjust.

If I had never set foot on PI other than the first turn, I would have to wonder where they would have turned up. About three weeks into the war I got a pretty decent opposition of subs also making a nuisance in the home islands area, all because, IMO, it was the 2nd highest area for naval traffic to that point in the game. If the AI is truly going to where it's seeing the traffic, as I assume, that seems like a pretty smart AI to me, and with the IJ ASW efforts being pretty miserable early on, there's not too much risk. The plain fact of the matter is I would very likely send at least 6 air groups, if the area where the subs were being found didn't already have it so, to make sure and give them some risk, so the argument that they're stupid for trying to sink in heavily watched areas of aerial support waxes a little thin with me (not that you made that argument).

[Miller]

I think the allied AI is hard-coded to attack the central pacific islands with carriers in early 42. This is historic but if you stack say 100 or so Bettys/Nells at these islands then his carriers will go down.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Miller

I think the allied AI is hard-coded to attack the central pacific islands with carriers in early 42. This is historic but if you stack say 100 or so Bettys/Nells at these islands then his carriers will go down.

yes, I guess that would be somewhat of a shame, but I can't imagine that few bombers being able to get past their CAP, let alone me having enough escort, to what I would for the time consider, in the aerial sense, pretty much a secondary theatre from the IJ perspective in very early '42. You seem to have spoke of a very large degree of suicide runs, and while I did imagine stocking Pi with maybe 2-3 groups of bombers I certainly wasn't expecting any kind of attack. If you are talking about Kwajalein, I would be a little more suspect, but I certainly would station a couple of bomber groups there by late february. They would probably rip me up there. By central pacific, are you comsidering Midway that, because from the IJ player perspective that would be eastern pacific?

[Titanwarrior89]

Ive played witp to completion once(ai). I play both pbem and the ai(between turns). For people who don't have the time then the ai is better than most(for a game this size). Even in 1944 it was puting up a fight.

However it does play a little better with the patches. The problem with pbem is your playing humans-that can be good or bad. Why do I say that, some players want a padded game.

Last but not least this game is "not" about winning its about playing. It is super long and very few will hang in there for 2,3,4 or more years(pbem) to finish it. So you must pick your pbem buddy with care. Its a long time investment.[:D]

[sven6345789]

good idea might be to play the japanese side during the first phase of expansion (historical area + either India or Australia or the connection between Australia and the US) and after that, switch sides; i guess the AI is better defending than attacking; of course, it will take a few rounds to clean up the mess the ai left behind
If you want a standard, it is best to check on a solitaire game about the pacific war; look at webgrognards (google it) and then search for "Typhoon sur le pacific" (games are listed according to alphabet); There are english rules in the links for this game;
http://www.grognard.com/titlet.html here is the link
the most important part is page 14 of the rules (all the rest can give you some info on how to play without exploiting the weaknesses of the ai)
page 14 shows tables for victory conditions
for the japanese, these are a)Australia, b) China for the army, cut US-Australia LOS for the navy and c) India for the army, Pearl Harbor for the navy
for the allies, it is a) The far East (Churchills plan) b) Macarthurs plan, and c) Nimitz prevails
for example, a game could look like this; start with the japanese, grab the SRA, roll a die for one of the three objectives, and try to archieve it; switch when a)you have archieved your objectives as the japanese, or b)a successful allied counterattack occurs (defeat in a major naval battle , landing etc, let common sense prevail; now choose or roll for an allied strategy and try to accomplish your goals, now playing the allied side; i think that could be an interesting game.

[moses]

As my PBEM's have dried up I got bored and started a game against the AI for the first time since the game came out. I'm playing on normal level so no computer cheats.

I'm 15 days in and the AI is proving itself quite competant. It has played aggressively and is making steady progress in Malaysia and PI. I did get lucky at Wake and repulse the initial attack. I also got lucky with a torpedoe hit and magazine explosion against a Jap BB. Other then that I've been unable to hurt the Jap AI.

I haven't lost much either but last turn I tried to move a Dutch TF into position for a raid around the southern part of the PI. The AI transfered about 40 betties to Jolo (captured the turn before) and cleaned my clock. Two CL's and a DD sunk.

Naturally, I expect that in the course of a 1000 turn game of such scope I will eventually gain the upper hand and the AI will begin to come apart. But so far there is reason to hope that as long as I avoid obvious exploits, (I will continue to defend areas like India/Austrailia/West Coast as if I were playing a crazy human), that AI will provide a decent game.

[pad152]

One thing to remember a lot of players have been playing the game for years, no game AI will stand that test of time. You see the AI doing the same thing again and again. The AI for Japan does well in the first six months of the war in the stock campaigns. I'm currently playing allies against the AI as Japan with the CHS mod, the Japanese are not doing as well. It can be fun to try different things, I'm planing a northern route to take on Japan, through Midway, Marcus Island, Saipan, Tinian, and Guam to try to cutoff the southern and southeast forces.

A lot of players are playing mods, and the AI has some issues with some of them.