About AI...

[Pyrrhos1976]

Hello,

It seems that AI is not very good when playing the overall campaign. At strategic level, Ai is just a good partner for training, but doesn't offer a great challenge.
But what do you think of AI in short scenarios (Coral Sea, Marianas, Guadalcanal) ? Tactically does it offer some challenge, maybe like a human opponent ?
At your opinion, at which level is the AI the best ?

[Terminus]

It isn't.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It isn't.

That non sequitur is certainly useful.

[Ursa MAior]

When playing against the AI treat it as a tutorial. It will attack in a very lame way (if at all), and defend like an oak (rooted to the spot). 

[Pyrrhos1976]

Ok. No hope.[:(]

For my scenario projects, I will try with "Carriers at War"...

But I'm surprise. I thougth that, at least for short scenario with accurate goals, the AI could offer some challenge.

[decaro]

CaW has a much better AI, but the scenarios aren't as complicated, and last only days, not months or years. W/the WitP/UV engine, the longer the scenario, the lamer the AI as it progresses.

[bradfordkay]

The other aspect is, the bigger the map the harder it is for the AI to cope. Thus in playing against the AI, you are better off playing the partial map scenarios - but then tht's not why we purchased  this game, so we are regularly asking the AI to provide us with an enjoyable game and  are getting upset when we run afoul of its limitations. It's kind of like expecting a competitive game of Trivial Pursuit from a parrot...

[Pyrrhos1976]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

W/the WitP/UV engine, the longer the scenario, the lamer the AI as it progresses.

It's why I asked for short scenarios. Usually, in wargame, AI has the greatest problem when scenario becomes longer and bigger. But sometimes, tactically, it offers a good challenge, in shorter scenarios.
I'd like to create a little campaign, with a "bordgame" for strategic aspects and PC game for operational: thus I can counterbalance AI's difficulty with strategy. I thought that maybe with short scenarios (=operational aspect of my campaign) WITP's AI could be a good partner. I just want a good opponant for scenarios which simulate a single operation (like invading an atoll or trying to intercept an invader's force with maybe a major naval battle: a duration between some days and a month). Do you think that WITP'AI can be good for this (scenarios which have the same size that Corail Sea) or CAW is better ?

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

... It's kind of like expecting a competitive game of Trivial Pursuit from a parrot...

LOL - the AI and the parrot are both scripted!

CaW to WitP/UV has been compared as checkers is to chess, but although the game is simpler, the AI is more challenging in CaW.

It's also nice to fire up a scenario and not spend an hour or two on your first move. Besides, in CaW you can't micromanage your subs and you have the option of setting airbases and fleets to AI control; now that I'm older, I do that as much as possible

[Pyrrhos1976]

Let's take an example of short scenario: the battle of Corail sea. Is it more easy to win against AI in WITP than with CAW ?? How is the AI in this scenario of WITP ?

[decaro]

The WitP/UV Coral sea scenario is more involved, but when it comes to carriers, the CaW scenario is more realistic and has mystery/alternative variants.

Once you beat Coral Sea in UV, that's pretty much it, but CaW is unpredictible, so I'd have to say it's harder.

Realize that I'm comparing a turn-based WEGO w/a pausable real time game.

[Pyrrhos1976]

So, Ai is worst when the size of the game is bigger.
At your opinion, what's the duration and the size at which AI is at his (poor) best ?
It's important for me because I want to create some small hypothetical scenarios for playing against AI and I need to have an idea of the best size for this (just a battle of some days: CAW is better for this, a little campaign of some weeks, a campaign of some months ??).

[decaro]

If you want a game to "mod" its scenarios, CaW is your best bet, but as I am not a modder, I suggest you go to the CaW forum on Matrix and ask the experts who run it.

[Pyrrhos1976]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

If you want a game to "mod" its scenarios, CaW is your best bet, but as I am not a modder, I suggest you go to the CaW forum on Matrix and ask the experts who run it.

Yes, for a single naval battle, but not for a more complicated operation. With WITP it's possible to combine air and land battles (to provide an aerial support to ground units was an important mission for carriers...). It's why I would prefer to use this game for short scenarios, with acurate objective (like in the Marianas scenario, or a little more): the AI will not disperse too much. Don't you think that AI can perform well in this kind of scenario (ok, it's not for this that the game was conceive, but I'm free to practice it as I want !!) ? Or should I lost all my illusion ? [:(]

[I'm sorry to insist on this, but modding take a lot of time, and I don't want to create something that AI will spoil. I thank you to take time for responding].

[decaro]

CaW scenarios are short by default, so I can't compare a CaW "campaign" w/WitP. But as a rule of thumb, w/the Grigsby engine, the shorter the scenario, the better the (scripted) AI peforms.

[Shark7]

Honestly the only thing the AI is really good at is being ready to play any time you are day or night. It is nice that I can turn on the game and run through several turns in an afternoon against the AI as opposed to a PBEM where 1 or 2 turns in a day is usually the limit.

But as far as presenting a real challenge, nope the AI in WITP is just as bad as any other game AI. It practically garrauntees the player will win.

Should the AI in any game be referred to as the AS (Artificial Stupidity)? [;)]

[treespider]

Reading through this thread I don't believe anyone actually answered Pyrrhos1976's question....

For a small short scenario that is limited in scope is the AI at least somewhat competent???

We all know for a full map extravaganza the AI is lacking....but for a small short and limited in scope scenario - I don't know....as I haven't played them.

[Mike Scholl]

In my experiance, the AI is never competant. But it's incompetancy shows up less in a smaller, shorter scenario.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Reading through this thread I don't believe anyone actually answered Pyrrhos1976's question....

For a small short scenario that is limited in scope is the AI at least somewhat competent???

We all know for a full map extravaganza the AI is lacking....but for a small short and limited in scope scenario - I don't know....as I haven't played them.

It has been my experience, that even with smaller, very specific scenarios the AI will invariably do something that leaves you scratching your head and saying "What was it thinking?" Unless you can completely script out the way the AI should behave so that it actually has a human brain behind it, and is not thinking for itself, it just never seems quite up to the task.

I think the resupply routine is really weak in this area, as I have seen the AI dump off troops for an invansion, and if it doesn't take the objective in a timely manner it will just leave the troops there to starve without resupply. Maybe other players have had better luck?

I wouldn't mind an improved AI, in fact I would love a more robust AI because that is mainly what I play against.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
I wouldn't mind an improved AI, in fact I would love a more robust AI because that is mainly what I play against.

Everybody would LOVE a robust and competant AI. But I won't hold my breath. Stop and thing of the number of unit types and systems in the game. And how they must interact just to play at all. Then the hoops that must be negotiated to make that interaction tactically sound. And when you have all that, you have to make it capable of both developing and pursuing a strategy, and reacting effectively to the player's. And if it's Japanese, doing production effectively.

I'm amazed it does as well as it does..., and it doesn't do all that well. The ideal AI is still a long way off as I see it.