Magical Mystery Japanese TF teleportation!!

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
I've complimented Andy's efforts in far too many posts to pay attention to your nonsense Nik. But the term "intelligence" is a misnomer when used to refer to an AI. No matter how many interesting scripts Andy writes, the AI will not be intelligent. It can't think, it can only react in predetermined ways.

right....and for whatever few compliment(s) you've tossed his way, like a broken record you keep turning around and spewing bile on the AI practically any time someone mentions it. You think he or any of the programmers appreciate this? Its old news. Why don't you just encapsulate your view on the AI design in your signature....like Erwin did with his crack on the game in general? Save yourself the carpel tunnel from having to lash out every time someone asks a question regarding the AI.

[8|]

[gradenko2k]

Whenever the topic of AI cheating comes up, I always recall how Sid Meier, when designing Civilization 1, deliberately allowed the Ancient Age Triremes of AI-controlled players to ignore the "must end turn in a coastal square or sink" rule. Why?

It allowed these AI civs to explore across the map much faster than a player would, but it turned out to be for the best anyway because it meant that players in Archipelago-type games would encounter other civs much earlier than they otherwise would have, which in turn made for a far more interesting game.

Try to keep that in mind whenever you're about to make some silly crack at the AI: It's not necessarily supposed to play by the same rules as the player does - it just has to give us a good game to play against.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Don already explained it. The AI is allowed to cheat on certain aspects.

That the AI can teleport ships between ports in order to form TFs is very, very old news. The OP should search in the earliest months of the forum. Andy Mac was very open about this, and also why it is necessary.

As a counter to the "teleporting is cheating" line of argument (I note you are not arguing this, Nik; I'm hitchhiking on your post), I would offer as a counter that the AI is also hamstrung by TF formation rules which a human player need not observe. A human can form an Air TF with one CV in it, no escorts, and send it off to its doom. The AI has rules imposed on it as to minimum TF make-up. This is particularly true with combatant TFs, and particularly true in the second half of the game where the Japanese AI is often scraping the barrel for escort vessels bigger than Es. Imposing code whereby the AI would have to physically move escorts to TF formation ports, running choke points as well as having to "think ahead" on upcoming scripts, wouldn't work in the current script-based AI system. Teleporting goes around that problem and lets the AI have a chance to to form the TFs needed by a triggered script when and where called for. With no teleporting the Allied human experience playing the AI would be far more sterile than enjoyable.

[traskott]

Concerning cheats: AI have unlimited planes ? I mean, if USAAF got 600 P-40 all over the world and I shoot down all 600, I won't see anymore, isn't ? 

[Nikademus]

On the Hard level....AI is no longer 'bound' by the logistical rules of the game. That means that you can surround units but they'll never starve. This helps at times as the AI doesn't always watch out for sneaky flank attacks. Very Hard level gives the AI combat bonuses added to that. I don't think it gets boosted or unlimited production.

I'm sure it runs the Japanese economy far better than I do. I run OUT of planes and stuff constantly. I'm too busy fighting and dying to be a CEO of Mitsubishi. [:D]

[sandman2575]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
I'm too busy fighting and dying to be a CEO of Mitsubishi. [:D]

Funny Nikademus -- I was just reading "The Guns of August" last night and came across an anecdote that sounds just like this -- when it became clear that the war was not going to be the quick victory all sides had envisioned, a German cabinet minister approached von Moltke about the necessity of long-term economic planning and forming an 'economic general staff' -- Moltke replied, "Don't pester me with economics. I have a war to manage."

As someone who has only played the AI exclusively so far, I have to say I find it quite challenging. In some ways I think of WitP as similar to golf: you're playing against the course as much as against opponents: i.e. the challenge isn't just 'what is your enemy up to?' it's, 'how on earth am I going to get enough fuel to Australia?' The logistics challenge is still a big one despite the quality of your opponent!

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

LOL!! This thread sure drew some flak!!

But seriously any of the designers watching the forum anymore or are we cut lose on our own? I'll hang on to the save games. Calling transports to a location was an ole Pacific War function. I would if that bit of code survived.

Three people from the development team have weighed in on this thread. michaelm is doing all the code updates these days and he is fairly quick to fix bugs as people bring them up. The scenario and OOB designers are also active on the forum and most weigh into various discussions. A handful of the development team are off developing mods.

AE was done by players of WitP as more a labor of love than a commercial venture. A few have moved on to other things, but most of us are still on the forum.

Bill

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


The AI cheats.

Hehe, surely not. [:'(]

Actually it doesn't cheat. Cheating is breaking the rules. The AI has different rules from human players. It needs them to give some semblance of a challenge to the human player. You can choose to accept that as a fact of life when playing against predetermined code, or you can choose to play against another human, who has to play by the same rules as you do. (HR's negotiated, of course)

What makes anyone look like a fool is choosing to complain that "the game AI cheats" when all it's doing is trying it's best (the programmer's best) to provide some type of challenge in place of a human opponent. [:D]

I'm getting the feeling that my attempt at sarcasm was lost on my audience. [:(]

[wdolson]

Unfortunately the PBEM vs AI thing has gone around enough times people have lost their senses of humor when it comes up.

Bill

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: Shark7




Hehe, surely not. [:'(]

Actually it doesn't cheat. Cheating is breaking the rules. The AI has different rules from human players. It needs them to give some semblance of a challenge to the human player. You can choose to accept that as a fact of life when playing against predetermined code, or you can choose to play against another human, who has to play by the same rules as you do. (HR's negotiated, of course)

What makes anyone look like a fool is choosing to complain that "the game AI cheats" when all it's doing is trying it's best (the programmer's best) to provide some type of challenge in place of a human opponent. [:D]

I'm getting the feeling that my attempt at sarcasm was lost on my audience. [:(]

Sorry, Shark, I completely understood your sarcasm, but just plucked that post out of the list to end up replying to. My intent was to head off some of the flak that was sure to be directed at Don's post, but my timing was not very good. [:D]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: USS America




Actually it doesn't cheat. Cheating is breaking the rules. The AI has different rules from human players. It needs them to give some semblance of a challenge to the human player. You can choose to accept that as a fact of life when playing against predetermined code, or you can choose to play against another human, who has to play by the same rules as you do. (HR's negotiated, of course)

What makes anyone look like a fool is choosing to complain that "the game AI cheats" when all it's doing is trying it's best (the programmer's best) to provide some type of challenge in place of a human opponent. [:D]

I'm getting the feeling that my attempt at sarcasm was lost on my audience. [:(]

Sorry, Shark, I completely understood your sarcasm, but just plucked that post out of the list to end up replying to. My intent was to head off some of the flak that was sure to be directed at Don's post, but my timing was not very good. [:D]

No harm done. [:)]

[Capt Cliff]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

LOL!! This thread sure drew some flak!!

But seriously any of the designers watching the forum anymore or are we cut lose on our own? I'll hang on to the save games. Calling transports to a location was an ole Pacific War function. I would if that bit of code survived.

Three people from the development team have weighed in on this thread. michaelm is doing all the code updates these days and he is fairly quick to fix bugs as people bring them up. The scenario and OOB designers are also active on the forum and most weigh into various discussions. A handful of the development team are off developing mods.

AE was done by players of WitP as more a labor of love than a commercial venture. A few have moved on to other things, but most of us are still on the forum.

Bill

Ah, thanks good to know! Matrix is renown for supporting their products.

I have discovered another AI glitch. I'll post it on a new thread, found a Japanese replenishment TF north of Pearl on 12/21/41 all by itself. I toasted it with the CV's at Pearl.

[Capt Cliff]

Addendum on that TF that was teleported into Victoria Point. I was fortunate to have the Prince of Wales survive so I sent her south for repairs, Surabaya. But she was to big for the yard so I sent her to Colombo. While in route she ran over that errant TF in the Indian Ocean ... meep meep!! Minor speed bump.[:D]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Don already explained it. The AI is allowed to cheat on certain aspects.

That the AI can teleport ships between ports in order to form TFs is very, very old news. The OP should search in the earliest months of the forum. Andy Mac was very open about this, and also why it is necessary.

As a counter to the "teleporting is cheating" line of argument (I note you are not arguing this, Nik; I'm hitchhiking on your post), I would offer as a counter that the AI is also hamstrung by TF formation rules which a human player need not observe. A human can form an Air TF with one CV in it, no escorts, and send it off to its doom. The AI has rules imposed on it as to minimum TF make-up. This is particularly true with combatant TFs, and particularly true in the second half of the game where the Japanese AI is often scraping the barrel for escort vessels bigger than Es. Imposing code whereby the AI would have to physically move escorts to TF formation ports, running choke points as well as having to "think ahead" on upcoming scripts, wouldn't work in the current script-based AI system. Teleporting goes around that problem and lets the AI have a chance to to form the TFs needed by a triggered script when and where called for. With no teleporting the Allied human experience playing the AI would be far more sterile than enjoyable.

Listen to the Moose.

The Moose is wise.

The Moose is knowledgeable.

The Moose plays exclusively against the AI.

I do too. [;)] As someone mentioned above, my life at this time won't allow me a PBEM (as much as I would wish to and have several long term friends who would start one at moments notice).


Teleporting ships is NOT a cheat. It is a feature of the AI. Bases/Units getting supply/fatigue recovery/devices is NOT a cheat, it is a feature of the AI. If you can't accept these features, don't play the AI. But PLEASE, get off your tired old horse. The only person I see in this thread complaining about the AI who acutally plays the AI is the OP.

The rest of you all play PBEM by your own admission. You hate playnig the AI. Fine. Leave well enough alone. Thank you.

<admonishment complete to those of you who need it ... and you know who you are.>

[Satansbraten]

Also stumbeld over that teleporting thing a few months ago. While understanding this is necessary for convoy management etc. I always felt this AI function has some critical gameplay drawbacks:

If SCTFs are build they spawn to close to the action (about 5 hexes or even closer?). Defense (meaning interception) vs these TFs is almost impossible and in my opinion this spoils the gameplay (you should be able to counter if you play your cards right). Example: I was unable to guard my landings (as Jap) on Java by using two Air combat task forces. No early warning because the Allied SCTF spawned very near to the landing force. So the spawned TF fought it out with the landing force (which contained some heavy assets) and got obliterated afterwards (by air attacks). An additional problem is, that the AI tends to use all the "ear-marked" assets for these kind of operations (but in a piecemeal fashion). In this case it means that the whole procedure repeated at least once (iirc it was three turns in sequence). The assets it used where nearly all Aussie/NZ/NL/Brit combat ships on the map effectivly bleeding its assets to a point of being defenseless afterwards (in this category). So my impression is, teleportion does not always help the AI, especially when talking about offensive operations.

I also stumbled over the raiding scripts put into action and had US SCTFs raiding the waters around Northern Japan. Again, this seemed to be a good idea to spice up the AI, but there were also some serious drawbacks: The raiding force seemed under-powered (iirc 1-2 CA or CL + about 3 DDs) and the spawning loc is again very questionable. They seem to spawn roughly S of Sakhalin NE of Hokkaido (meaning somewhere in the western region of the Kuriles but very near to Japan). This again means: No early warning despite "good" force management (placing recon assets into the region, especially Kuriles). I think to some extend this contradictes the idea behind these raiding scripts, because they normally should force you to at least keep some assets in all regions (recon, torpedo bombers etc.). Besides that, in this case the TF was rather short-legged in terms of endurance. The force seemed like an Allied Kamikaze operation not expecting to come home anyway. So if the goal for the AI behaviour was "be annoying" then I say "accomplished", but if the the goal was "be more intriguing but still believable" I have to say "not accomplished".

[Capt Cliff]

Having the AI summon AK's or AP's to a base is not a bad idea it helps scripting the AI, but when you get the situation like I reported it makes you scratch your head. Perhaps certain ports should be exempt at certain times? Like Point Victoria can receive ships until 6/42, or any ports on the west side of the Malay Peninsula. Same with the west side of Sumatra and south side of Java. Any way a suggestion.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: 5thGuardsTankArmy
Whatever you do, don't play the AI, play a Human or don't play.

[morganbj]

The latter, my man, the latter.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Satansbraten

Also stumbeld over that teleporting thing a few months ago. While understanding this is necessary for convoy management etc. I always felt this AI function has some critical gameplay drawbacks:

If SCTFs are build they spawn to close to the action (about 5 hexes or even closer?). Defense (meaning interception) vs these TFs is almost impossible and in my opinion this spoils the gameplay (you should be able to counter if you play your cards right). Example: I was unable to guard my landings (as Jap) on Java by using two Air combat task forces. No early warning because the Allied SCTF spawned very near to the landing force. So the spawned TF fought it out with the landing force (which contained some heavy assets) and got obliterated afterwards (by air attacks). An additional problem is, that the AI tends to use all the "ear-marked" assets for these kind of operations (but in a piecemeal fashion). In this case it means that the whole procedure repeated at least once (iirc it was three turns in sequence). The assets it used where nearly all Aussie/NZ/NL/Brit combat ships on the map effectivly bleeding its assets to a point of being defenseless afterwards (in this category). So my impression is, teleportion does not always help the AI, especially when talking about offensive operations.

I also stumbled over the raiding scripts put into action and had US SCTFs raiding the waters around Northern Japan. Again, this seemed to be a good idea to spice up the AI, but there were also some serious drawbacks: The raiding force seemed under-powered (iirc 1-2 CA or CL + about 3 DDs) and the spawning loc is again very questionable. They seem to spawn roughly S of Sakhalin NE of Hokkaido (meaning somewhere in the western region of the Kuriles but very near to Japan). This again means: No early warning despite "good" force management (placing recon assets into the region, especially Kuriles). I think to some extend this contradictes the idea behind these raiding scripts, because they normally should force you to at least keep some assets in all regions (recon, torpedo bombers etc.). Besides that, in this case the TF was rather short-legged in terms of endurance. The force seemed like an Allied Kamikaze operation not expecting to come home anyway. So if the goal for the AI behaviour was "be annoying" then I say "accomplished", but if the the goal was "be more intriguing but still believable" I have to say "not accomplished".

I have always looked at this as additional FOW. Meaning, yes I have good recon going on, but no recon is perfect. And as you note, it forces you to keep reaction forces available in all theatres which is a good thing.

As to the short-leggedness ... sadly that is just an artifact. A DD is a DD is a DD. Some have 6000 range, some 2000 range. I suspect too much effort to discriminate.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

Having the AI summon AK's or AP's to a base is not a bad idea it helps scripting the AI, but when you get the situation like I reported it makes you scratch your head. Perhaps certain ports should be exempt at certain times? Like Point Victoria can receive ships until 6/42, or any ports on the west side of the Malay Peninsula. Same with the west side of Sumatra and south side of Java. Any way a suggestion.

I think your concept is valid, but it would be tough to put in place. A time limit would assume too much about the course of the game ... very hard to predict when certain areas will change hands. EX: Fortress Palembang tactic.

I think the way it currently works, while not perfect, is sufficient. Yes, you do get some surprises, but overall the outcome isn't too bad.