AI a little /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

John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by John Lansford »

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

This retaking of Canton after all the effort I went to to take it is realy not on - <note to self to do something about it>

Heh; no matter what you send to Canton, without any LBA in range to support or a CV or two lurking to the west, there's no way the AI can put enough troops there to keep me from taking it back. I sent what few CA's I had floating in to bombard for multiple turns, then my 3 CV's pounded it for a while, then the NZ troops made a landing and took the base. Had the NZ troops not been in Suva (yes they're headed back very soon, there's other guys there already too...) I have two regiments from Oahu headed there to do the job.

Canton is just too far forward for the AI to grab that quickly. I would have been much more alarmed if it had taken Apanama and Baker first, since they are close enough to Tarawa/Makin for support and surface TF's from Kwajalein could still intervene. Canton, though? That was isolated and easy pickings for my resources, and gave us Allies a boost to morale too!
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by EUBanana »

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
Canton is just too far forward for the AI to grab that quickly. I would have been much more alarmed if it had taken Apanama and Baker first, since they are close enough to Tarawa/Makin for support and surface TF's from Kwajalein could still intervene. Canton, though? That was isolated and easy pickings for my resources, and gave us Allies a boost to morale too!

The AI did take Baker first in my game, though it got beaten horrifically by CAs from Canton doing so.

Then it tried to take Canton, and got beat by the same CAs, who are based there. It has tried a couple of times now, but those CAs are not moving!

Very long range Betty intervention seems quite hit and miss, I loitered at Baker for a while and got away with it. Might be the AI being stoopid but it's been very good with the Betties so far...
Image
Andy Mac
Posts: 12577
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by Andy Mac »

Just watch this space next time the AI will do better.
&nbsp;
I have a cunning plan.
User avatar
oldman45
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Jacksonville Fl

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by oldman45 »

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

This retaking of Canton after all the effort I went to to take it is realy not on - <note to self to do something about it>


Don't spend too much effort on it, there were enough surprises in that region [;)] [8D]
User avatar
Grollub
Posts: 6676
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:46 am
Location: Lulea, Sweden

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by Grollub »

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Yup but it does leave TF's exposed but I has a cunning plan !!!

Is it as cunning as the one refrerred to in my sig?

If so, then I'm worried ... [X(]
“Not mastering metaphores is like cooking pasta when the train is delayed"
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by John Lansford »

I'm rushing several defense battalions to Canton in my current turn; I've seen enough of the AI so far to realize once it decides it wants something, it brings a bigger hammer on the 2nd try.&nbsp; Also Canton is not that far from either Palmyra or Pago Pago and I'm building both up so ships bigger than a DD can hang out for a while too.&nbsp; Suva is already well defended but I'm sending more men there as well, just in case.
&nbsp;
I'm actually hoping the AI decides to send a couple of CV's in that direction; as long as it's not the full KB I feel able to match them or even outnumber them with my 4 CV's in the area.
thunar
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:48 am

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by thunar »

This just happened in my game too. It's not such a big deal when they sneak an AP over to Fanafuti with a raiding force, but when they attack Koumac with no escorts when I've got quite a few cruisers and destroyers off Noumea...
medicff
Posts: 710
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:53 pm
Location: WPB, Florida

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by medicff »

Andy, do you recommend scenario 2 for a better long term challenge?

Thanks
Andy Mac
Posts: 12577
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by Andy Mac »

Yes I think so it will give you a better game v the AI
bradfordkay
Posts: 8586
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by bradfordkay »

How is the AI in the Dec8 grand campaign?&nbsp;
fair winds,
Brad
User avatar
jhdeerslayer
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Michigan

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by jhdeerslayer »

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

How is the AI in the Dec8 grand campaign? 

Was wondering that too with maybe Hard or Very Hard thrown in as well for comment.
User avatar
Weidi72
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:47 am

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by Weidi72 »

AI landed in San Francisco and caused to activate the counter invasion force. But only with 4 guns. [&:]




Ground combat at San Francisco (218,70)
&nbsp;
Japanese Bombardment attack
&nbsp;
Attacking force 0 troops, 4 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1
&nbsp;
Defending force 59058 troops, 745 guns, 1978 vehicles, Assault Value = 579
&nbsp;
Japanese ground losses:
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Assaulting units:
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Defending units:
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 754th Tank Battalion
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; SF Harbor Defenses
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 57th Coastal Artillery Regiment
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Americal Infantry Division
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 193rd Tank Battalion
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 7th Mot Infantry Division
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 811th Engineer Aviation Battalion
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 96th Coast AA Regiment
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 95th Coast AA Regiment
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 226th Field Artillery Battalion
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 810th Engineer Aviation Battalion
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 216th Coast AA Regiment
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 70th Coast AA Regiment
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; West Coast
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 223rd Field Artillery Battalion
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; San Francisco Base Force
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 197th Coast AA Regiment
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 208th Coast AA Regiment
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 255th USN Base Force
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 198th Field Artillery Battalion
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; IV US Bomber Cmnd
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

&nbsp; Wiped Out at San Francisco by attrition!!!

Andy Mac
Posts: 12577
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by Andy Mac »

Huh I need a save of that one please ASAP
&nbsp;
a.mcphie@btinternet.com
Scott_USN
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 6:32 pm
Location: Eagle River, Alaska USA

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by Scott_USN »

ORIGINAL: Weidi72

AI landed in San Francisco and caused to activate the counter invasion force. But only with 4 guns. [&:]




Ground combat at San Francisco (218,70)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 0 troops, 4 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1

Defending force 59058 troops, 745 guns, 1978 vehicles, Assault Value = 579

Japanese ground losses:
     Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)



Assaulting units:
   

Defending units:
   754th Tank Battalion
   SF Harbor Defenses
   57th Coastal Artillery Regiment
   Americal Infantry Division
   193rd Tank Battalion
   7th Mot Infantry Division
   811th Engineer Aviation Battalion
   96th Coast AA Regiment
   95th Coast AA Regiment
   226th Field Artillery Battalion
   810th Engineer Aviation Battalion
   216th Coast AA Regiment
   70th Coast AA Regiment
   West Coast
   223rd Field Artillery Battalion
   San Francisco Base Force
   197th Coast AA Regiment
   208th Coast AA Regiment
   255th USN Base Force
   198th Field Artillery Battalion
   IV US Bomber Cmnd


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wiped Out at San Francisco by attrition!!!



4 lonely Japanese soldiers against 59,058 troops, 745 guns and 1900 APC's Jeeps and Tanks

LMAO

They are brave....
User avatar
USSAmerica
Posts: 19211
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Graham, NC, USA
Contact:

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by USSAmerica »

ORIGINAL: Weidi72

AI landed in San Francisco and caused to activate the counter invasion force. But only with 4 guns. [&:]




Ground combat at San Francisco (218,70)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 0 troops, 4 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1

Defending force 59058 troops, 745 guns, 1978 vehicles, Assault Value = 579

Japanese ground losses:
     Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)



Assaulting units:
   

Defending units:
   754th Tank Battalion
   SF Harbor Defenses
   57th Coastal Artillery Regiment
   Americal Infantry Division
   193rd Tank Battalion
   7th Mot Infantry Division
   811th Engineer Aviation Battalion
   96th Coast AA Regiment
   95th Coast AA Regiment
   226th Field Artillery Battalion
   810th Engineer Aviation Battalion
   216th Coast AA Regiment
   70th Coast AA Regiment
   West Coast
   223rd Field Artillery Battalion
   San Francisco Base Force
   197th Coast AA Regiment
   208th Coast AA Regiment
   255th USN Base Force
   198th Field Artillery Battalion
   IV US Bomber Cmnd


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wiped Out at San Francisco by attrition!!!


Feinder himself couldn't have come up with a better anomaly. [:D]
Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Image
Artwork by The Amazing Dixie
User avatar
USSAmerica
Posts: 19211
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Graham, NC, USA
Contact:

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by USSAmerica »

Where's John Belushi when you need him?&nbsp; [:D]
&nbsp;
Oh, that's right!&nbsp; He's hiding behind the sunglasses on the loading screen.&nbsp; [;)]
Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Image
Artwork by The Amazing Dixie
User avatar
HMS Resolution
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:31 pm

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by HMS Resolution »

My eternal regards to the man who mods AE to replace the loading screen pictures with John Belushi in his P-40.
Image
Laxplayer
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:36 pm
Location: San Diego

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by Laxplayer »

ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution

My eternal regards to the man who mods AE to replace the loading screen pictures with John Belushi in his P-40.

Either that, or a pic from his Samurai Deli days and flying a zero.
User avatar
Ketza
Posts: 2228
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:11 am
Location: Columbia, Maryland

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by Ketza »

Maybe it was just some Japanese POWS that got off "The Rock".
User avatar
langleyCV1
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 2:17 pm
Location: Berkshire UK

RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?

Post by langleyCV1 »

The AI seems to sent jap bombers out without an escort far too often in my eyes is anybody else seeing this!

MJT
"My God, I hope you don't blame me for this. I had no idea where you were."
Air Vice-marshal Pulford upon the loss of "Force Z"
Post Reply

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