AI control of US Submarines (Allied AI)

[takacssteve]

Japan vs AI Allied
Scenario #1

18 Oct 44

Once in a while I look at what the Allied AI is doing. They have 53 subs docked in San Francisco! Certainly the AI should be doing more with this most important weapon!

I realize that the AI cannot be the best opponent, but it certainly could be much better at assigning subs to sub patrols in important sea lanes.

I would be happy to provide my game files if they can be of help (I've saved a separate file for each month of the entire war). Perhaps this AI sub control issue can be addressed in a future patch for my next game I started my current game almost one year ago and have spent many many hours playing this wonderful game!

[akdreemer]

When this happens to me I give the AI a kick start by making a single sub taskforce and then making it computer controlled. The AI will usually then empty out all of the subs into task forces...

[John Lansford]

I've got the opposite situation; my subs on patrol that return to port often do so with system damage, and automatically disband and go into port repair without me noticing them doing so.  I've got 20 or more subs at Pearl Harbor that are just sitting there because I didn't pay attention to whether they were going back out on patrol or not.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: S Lee T
I would be happy to provide my game files if they can be of help

Please do, and I'll take a look.

[The Gnome]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I've got the opposite situation; my subs on patrol that return to port often do so with system damage, and automatically disband and go into port repair without me noticing them doing so.  I've got 20 or more subs at Pearl Harbor that are just sitting there because I didn't pay attention to whether they were going back out on patrol or not.

I have that same issue, they also do not seem to want to move forward out of off map bases, or to forward bases with AS's and AR's. I've gotten into the habit of doing the following:

1) Locate computer controlled sub patrols
2) Turn it to human control
3) Select new home port
4) Turn back to computer control.


Not sure how well this is working, but I at least have some subs using tarawa and midway now.

[takacssteve]

Reply to Don Bowen~

please tell me how to attach a file...error message .pws file not supported

Thank you

[Puhis]

Just zip it.

[takacssteve]

Reply to Don Bowen

zipped file is to large
rar split file is not accepted


if you provide an email address, I can send it to you direct

Thank you

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: S Lee T

Reply to Don Bowen

zipped file is to large
rar split file is not accepted


if you provide an email address, I can send it to you direct

Thank you

Just create a thread in the Tech Support forum. Larger attachements are allowed there.

[takacssteve]

new thread posted in Tech Support

[Don Bowen]

Yes there is an issue.

AI sub operations has a check to determine if a given sub should be used offensively or defensively. This check looks at sub size (tonnage), endurance, diving depth, and number of torpedoes. The cut off point for each increases year by year. The intent is to let marginal subs (like the US Old-S class and most Japanese RO boats) be used offensively for the first year or two of the war, then slowly be retired into defensive roles. For all the allies, most older boats (even the mid 1930s classes) were withdrawn by late war and the checks were aimed at accomplishing this.

Problem is with the details of the checks, which are a tad over-stringent. Based on a number of factors, the threshold crept up such that Gato class subs at bases far behind the lines will be tagged "defensive". Requires a number of demons to line up properly, but it will happen. It also points out how few players play against the allied AI and get their games into 1944/45. The routine needs some tuning.

Only solution for now is to break into the AI now and again, check for subs held up at major rear area bases (San Francisco and maybe Balboa and/or Columbo), and manually send them forward. For San Francisco, make sub patrol TFs with as many subs as will fit, give them a home port of Pearl Harbor, and select auto-disband.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Yes there is an issue.

AI sub operations has a check to determine if a given sub should be used offensively or defensively. This check looks at sub size (tonnage), endurance, diving depth, and number of torpedoes. The cut off point for each increases year by year. The intent is to let marginal subs (like the US Old-S class and most Japanese RO boats) be used offensively for the first year or two of the war, then slowly be retired into defensive roles. For all the allies, most older boats (even the mid 1930s classes) were withdrawn by late war and the checks were aimed at accomplishing this.

Problem is with the details of the checks, which are a tad over-stringent. Based on a number of factors, the threshold crept up such that Gato class subs at bases far behind the lines will be tagged "defensive". Requires a number of demons to line up properly, but it will happen. It also points out how few players play against the allied AI and get their games into 1944/45. The routine needs some tuning.

Only solution for now is to break into the AI now and again, check for subs held up at major rear area bases (San Francisco and maybe Balboa and/or Columbo), and manually send them forward. For San Francisco, make sub patrol TFs with as many subs as will fit, give them a home port of Pearl Harbor, and select auto-disband.

does this effect sub performance of player controlled subs too or is it just something for the AI. Would be cool to know that my S-class subs should better stay in port in 43/44 if they only act "defensively".

[Don Bowen]

I believe it is all Computer Generated submarine TF creation. That would include human players with Auto Sub Ops selected. Note that it does not affect sub patrol TFs that are already in operation. It would primarily affect subs that are at San Francisco (and maybe Balboa/Columbo). This would be newly arriving boats and perhaps some that have been sent back for repairs.

Once the subs get out of the rear areas, all should be OK. For now I'd recommend periodically checking the rear area arrival ports and forming a TF to move them forward.

[takacssteve]

Thank you for your reply.

I knew almost from the start of the war that the AI would not be a serious challenge. I wanted to see how well Japan could do with the best possible combat results. Much of Japan's "battle" has been providing fuel, oil, resources and supplies.

I was able to eliminate the Allied CV's early on because they did not group their CV's. One or two CV's don't stand a chance against 4-8 CV's. After all the existing Allied CV's were eliminated, the Allied AI sent out each new CV by itself; again easy picking. Historically the Allies learned this the hard way too. Perhaps the AI could be programmed to group CV's into TF's with at least 3 or 4 CV's. This would present a better challenge.

I used Japan's BB's parked at my important forward bases at protection against Naval bombardment. This worked well as the Allied CV's were non-existent.

Thank you again for your help!

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Yes there is an issue.

AI sub operations has a check to determine if a given sub should be used offensively or defensively. This check looks at sub size (tonnage), endurance, diving depth, and number of torpedoes. The cut off point for each increases year by year. The intent is to let marginal subs (like the US Old-S class and most Japanese RO boats) be used offensively for the first year or two of the war, then slowly be retired into defensive roles. For all the allies, most older boats (even the mid 1930s classes) were withdrawn by late war and the checks were aimed at accomplishing this.

Problem is with the details of the checks, which are a tad over-stringent. Based on a number of factors, the threshold crept up such that Gato class subs at bases far behind the lines will be tagged "defensive". Requires a number of demons to line up properly, but it will happen. It also points out how few players play against the allied AI and get their games into 1944/45. The routine needs some tuning.

Only solution for now is to break into the AI now and again, check for subs held up at major rear area bases (San Francisco and maybe Balboa and/or Columbo), and manually send them forward. For San Francisco, make sub patrol TFs with as many subs as will fit, give them a home port of Pearl Harbor, and select auto-disband.

Dan,
Appreciate this insight. Definitely a reasonable workaround. Thanks for the support.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


I believe it is all Computer Generated submarine TF creation. That would include human players with Auto Sub Ops selected. Note that it does not affect sub patrol TFs that are already in operation. It would primarily affect subs that are at San Francisco (and maybe Balboa/Columbo). This would be newly arriving boats and perhaps some that have been sent back for repairs.

Once the subs get out of the rear areas, all should be OK. For now I'd recommend periodically checking the rear area arrival ports and forming a TF to move them forward.

ok, thanks

[The Gnome]

Some added info. I'm not sure just moving the subs to PH will be enough. I just checked my latest save, and I have 22 Gato class submarines sitting in PH not doing much of anything.