A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
2nd half
- Attachments
-
- 401ResHist.gif (121.83 KiB) Viewed 358 times
USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
The only "alert" problems I found
- Attachments
-
- 209alert.gif (200.62 KiB) Viewed 358 times
USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
One more from the tracker overview screen showing some HI stats.
- Attachments
-
- 401Overview.gif (173.53 KiB) Viewed 358 times
USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
-
gradenko2k
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:08 am
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
What was the first set of screenshots (posts 34-36) before your test game (post 38 onwards)?
Comparing the figures, the test game's turn 298 has more fuel, resources and oil than your first screenshots, although the pattern still seems to be a free-fall to zero with the test game's fuel and oil, although about 4 million resource points were added between turn 298 and turn 401.
Having said that, Heavy Industry seems to constantly increase throughout the test game, as does manpower to the tune of about a minimum 10k points per turn. Did you observe Heavy Industry getting the 13k per turn artificial bonus as in your previous economy thread?
Finally, which version of the game did you run the test with? I believe that the latest beta 1108q6 from October 3 changed the auto-convoy movement routines for the better, though I'm not sure if the AI actually leverages those.
Comparing the figures, the test game's turn 298 has more fuel, resources and oil than your first screenshots, although the pattern still seems to be a free-fall to zero with the test game's fuel and oil, although about 4 million resource points were added between turn 298 and turn 401.
Having said that, Heavy Industry seems to constantly increase throughout the test game, as does manpower to the tune of about a minimum 10k points per turn. Did you observe Heavy Industry getting the 13k per turn artificial bonus as in your previous economy thread?
Finally, which version of the game did you run the test with? I believe that the latest beta 1108q6 from October 3 changed the auto-convoy movement routines for the better, though I'm not sure if the AI actually leverages those.
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
The AC system was fixed in p8. The changes in q6 were just some very minor tweaks.
-
gradenko2k
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:08 am
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
Yes Numdydar, I was aware of the AC system getting its major overhaul in p8. I was just under the impression that the changes from q6 would have potentially improved the efficiency further.
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
The first set of screenshots (34-36) were from the actual game that I was playing. Post 38 on is from the test game.
The test game was ran with the q6 beta. The only sputtering of the economy is shown in the alert screens where the game ran short of resources to feed the LI for awhile. The economy was performing better in the test game - but again, the test game was ran under a quite ideal situation for it. Yes, resources dropped dramatically, caused some shortages, and then began to recover. Everything else continued to produce. Fuel and oil are continuing their downward spiral but are able to keep providing what the economy requires.
So did Micheal's last change in the "q" betas cause an improvement in the resource gathering computer routines? I don't know. It appears to work better. I will have move data in a while on this.
ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
What was the first set of screenshots (posts 34-36) before your test game (post 38 onwards)?
Comparing the figures, the test game's turn 298 has more fuel, resources and oil than your first screenshots, although the pattern still seems to be a free-fall to zero with the test game's fuel and oil, although about 4 million resource points were added between turn 298 and turn 401.
Having said that, Heavy Industry seems to constantly increase throughout the test game, as does manpower to the tune of about a minimum 10k points per turn. Did you observe Heavy Industry getting the 13k per turn artificial bonus as in your previous economy thread?
Finally, which version of the game did you run the test with? I believe that the latest beta 1108q6 from October 3 changed the auto-convoy movement routines for the better, though I'm not sure if the AI actually leverages those.
The test game was ran with the q6 beta. The only sputtering of the economy is shown in the alert screens where the game ran short of resources to feed the LI for awhile. The economy was performing better in the test game - but again, the test game was ran under a quite ideal situation for it. Yes, resources dropped dramatically, caused some shortages, and then began to recover. Everything else continued to produce. Fuel and oil are continuing their downward spiral but are able to keep providing what the economy requires.
So did Micheal's last change in the "q" betas cause an improvement in the resource gathering computer routines? I don't know. It appears to work better. I will have move data in a while on this.
USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
ORIGINAL: Numdydar
The AC system was fixed in p8. The changes in q6 were just some very minor tweaks.
As stated before, I play with the betas as they come out. I started the actual game on 5 August 2011 using beta p6. Beta p7 came out on 7 Aug, and beta p8 came out on 14 August. It always takes me 2-3 days of real to do the first day as there is more clicking to do than I like to do in one day, so in all likelihood I upgraded to p7 while still working the first day. Beta p8 was released on 14 August, so what turn was I on then. I don't know. Do I update at the exact moment the beta is released? Most doubtfully. Do I do it within a day of release? Definitely. I am sorry I cannot be more precise as to what turn I was on at the time each beta was released.
The test game was ran from start to finish with beta q6.
USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
I have gone back and dug out a bit more data.
For the actual game I had added an additional 350,000 tons of fuel and supply was well as 250,000 tons of oil to Tokyo.
In the actual game on turn 298 I had 93 active tankers with 7 sank (cap 64,900). There were 35 large (10,000 cap or better) and 58 small (9999 cap or less). Of the 93 active tankers, 56 were disbanded in port, 5 large and 51 small. I had 1034 active AK's and had sank 186 more. Of the active AK's 596 were disbanded in port. I didn't bother to put them into a large or small category. My observation is that a great many ships were simply whiling away their time in port rather than out doing something. Of course, this is a one turn observation.
Note: the babes scenarios add a lot of additional ships. These are the ones commonly referred to as "Don's Babies" in this forum, and are generally smaller capacity ships.
In the test game on turn 401 I had 68 active tankers with 2 sank. There were only 5 disbanded in port, For AK,s there were 904 active with 51 having been sunk. Of the active AK's there were 250 disbanded in ports which is, by my calculation, about 27% of the total.
In the test game you must also consider the consequences of the result of additional sunk ships had this been an actual game. Would the various resource types transported back to Japan have been less? Would the ships simply sitting in ports have been put to use? I don't know.
So, was the AI (the computer routines which have been coded to generate the convoys to pick up and deliver the various resource types) operating more efficiently in the last beta? Turn 401 indicates that less ships are simply sitting in port and more are sitting in TF's doing "something". Enough data to make a sound judgment on? Of course not.
We do see that, in both games, resources declined to a very low level and then the game began to pull in more resources and start accumulating them. In the test game it was given me about 22-23 days worth of resources. It does not do so well with fuel and oil. In the actual game Japan does have more tankers and I did give it more fuel and oil, so have no idea what was going on with the differences between the two games.
How much have these programming routines been improved on over the many years since nthis game has been out? I don't know. What I do know is the Japanese economy in an AI game as allies against J would always collapse (in my games) during the WitP games. With AE in the games described above, the economy was in the process of collapsing in the actual game. In the test game it is fair to say that it was struggling, particularly with fuel and oil. What would happen if I played it out another 400 turns? Don't know. I expect the economy to collapse in 45/46 due to hostile action. I don't expect the economy to self destruct early in a game.
Is there anything an AI player can do about it? That is what we can speculate upon.
For the actual game I had added an additional 350,000 tons of fuel and supply was well as 250,000 tons of oil to Tokyo.
In the actual game on turn 298 I had 93 active tankers with 7 sank (cap 64,900). There were 35 large (10,000 cap or better) and 58 small (9999 cap or less). Of the 93 active tankers, 56 were disbanded in port, 5 large and 51 small. I had 1034 active AK's and had sank 186 more. Of the active AK's 596 were disbanded in port. I didn't bother to put them into a large or small category. My observation is that a great many ships were simply whiling away their time in port rather than out doing something. Of course, this is a one turn observation.
Note: the babes scenarios add a lot of additional ships. These are the ones commonly referred to as "Don's Babies" in this forum, and are generally smaller capacity ships.
In the test game on turn 401 I had 68 active tankers with 2 sank. There were only 5 disbanded in port, For AK,s there were 904 active with 51 having been sunk. Of the active AK's there were 250 disbanded in ports which is, by my calculation, about 27% of the total.
In the test game you must also consider the consequences of the result of additional sunk ships had this been an actual game. Would the various resource types transported back to Japan have been less? Would the ships simply sitting in ports have been put to use? I don't know.
So, was the AI (the computer routines which have been coded to generate the convoys to pick up and deliver the various resource types) operating more efficiently in the last beta? Turn 401 indicates that less ships are simply sitting in port and more are sitting in TF's doing "something". Enough data to make a sound judgment on? Of course not.
We do see that, in both games, resources declined to a very low level and then the game began to pull in more resources and start accumulating them. In the test game it was given me about 22-23 days worth of resources. It does not do so well with fuel and oil. In the actual game Japan does have more tankers and I did give it more fuel and oil, so have no idea what was going on with the differences between the two games.
How much have these programming routines been improved on over the many years since nthis game has been out? I don't know. What I do know is the Japanese economy in an AI game as allies against J would always collapse (in my games) during the WitP games. With AE in the games described above, the economy was in the process of collapsing in the actual game. In the test game it is fair to say that it was struggling, particularly with fuel and oil. What would happen if I played it out another 400 turns? Don't know. I expect the economy to collapse in 45/46 due to hostile action. I don't expect the economy to self destruct early in a game.
Is there anything an AI player can do about it? That is what we can speculate upon.
USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
When AE was released I reached 1946 without the japanese economy collapsing in hard settings, My only problem where the Kamis because the AI was converting Fighter squadrons to Kamis.
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
This is to replace the 2nd screenshot I posted. It should have shown the tracker global view and I grabbed the same one twice. Hope I got it right this time.
Edit: Right screenshot.
Edit: Right screenshot.
- Attachments
-
- actualgameglobal.gif (210.84 KiB) Viewed 358 times
USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
ORIGINAL: che200
When AE was released I reached 1946 without the japanese economy collapsing in hard settings, My only problem where the Kamis because the AI was converting Fighter squadrons to Kamis.
All I can say is that AndyMac must have had a reason to put in the AI crutches that he did. He can answer than better than I can. If the economy operated as it should, then there would be no reason to have such crutches present, which should be a valid assumption.
USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
Its less about the AI needing crutches per se
More about the AI being bad at stocpliling for offinsives and poor in beta testign (and still is) will lose more ships than a human player - its inevitable given I cannot 100% predict the ballgame 2 years out therefore occasionallythe AI will do moronic things so you need to compensate a little for it
More about the AI being bad at stocpliling for offinsives and poor in beta testign (and still is) will lose more ships than a human player - its inevitable given I cannot 100% predict the ballgame 2 years out therefore occasionallythe AI will do moronic things so you need to compensate a little for it
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
Yes, the AI will lose more ships, and as an AI player you always have the temptation to sink all those ships it sends in waves, but really, the AI player should be gentle about it and try not to sink too many.
Which brings me to this question? If we provide the AI with more ships, will it utilize these for transporting resource types (fuel, oil, resources) back to Japan? I think that if playing against the AI (and I do so in my modified Babes scenario) you must provide it with additional ships to assist it and hopefully make up for those which it loses. How many additional tankers and AK's would a player need to add? I guess it depends upon how aggressive a player you are. Would these additional ships sustain the economy to the point where there would be no need to worry about it self destructing? How to test?
In the real game I was playing fuel and oil held up well. In the test game they were nosediving. Which to believe?
A second option I wonder about is changing the makeup of the economy. I haven't tried it, but in the editor on the device screen is shown the inputs and outputs from the various manufacturing centers. Suppose, if in an AI game against Japan, we change the HI input to require one fuel rather than two? Suppose rather than requiring 15 resource points to produce one point of supply we require, say ten? Fuel and resource point requirements would certainly be less of a strain upon the AI. To not produce too much for the allies their HI and LI and fuel production could be reduced by some amount. How would we determine what these amounts should be? Trial and error, I reckon. A person could always start off an AI vs AI game, but as Andy Mac says, you have to take the results with a fair amount of salt.
Of course, playing the game on the hard or extra hard setting will work, and one does not have to speculate on the above.
Which brings me to this question? If we provide the AI with more ships, will it utilize these for transporting resource types (fuel, oil, resources) back to Japan? I think that if playing against the AI (and I do so in my modified Babes scenario) you must provide it with additional ships to assist it and hopefully make up for those which it loses. How many additional tankers and AK's would a player need to add? I guess it depends upon how aggressive a player you are. Would these additional ships sustain the economy to the point where there would be no need to worry about it self destructing? How to test?
In the real game I was playing fuel and oil held up well. In the test game they were nosediving. Which to believe?
A second option I wonder about is changing the makeup of the economy. I haven't tried it, but in the editor on the device screen is shown the inputs and outputs from the various manufacturing centers. Suppose, if in an AI game against Japan, we change the HI input to require one fuel rather than two? Suppose rather than requiring 15 resource points to produce one point of supply we require, say ten? Fuel and resource point requirements would certainly be less of a strain upon the AI. To not produce too much for the allies their HI and LI and fuel production could be reduced by some amount. How would we determine what these amounts should be? Trial and error, I reckon. A person could always start off an AI vs AI game, but as Andy Mac says, you have to take the results with a fair amount of salt.
Of course, playing the game on the hard or extra hard setting will work, and one does not have to speculate on the above.
USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
I suspect you can't have one set of values for industry inputs/outputs of the human player, and a different set for the AI side.
Alfred
Alfred
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
I'm playing allies on historical and normal and played like 20 turns. Honestly should i consider restarting on hard?
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
If you want a good game [:)] Or you could try Debabes mods to make it even better.
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
ORIGINAL: Tatoune
I'm playing allies on historical and normal and played like 20 turns. Honestly should i consider restarting on hard?
Andy says to use "hard" at a minimum. He's the expert. I follow his advice without fail in regards to the AI.
Pax
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
No need to restart you can adjust difficulty in game
p.s thats one of the IA cruutches of Hard difficulty level and above is thatt he AI uses less resources and oil to produce supply and fuel
p.s thats one of the IA cruutches of Hard difficulty level and above is thatt he AI uses less resources and oil to produce supply and fuel
RE: A Modest Proposal to Examine the Japanese Economy
whooohooo, that's what I call a good news [:)]