Another AI "Cheat"?

[Icedawg]

In all of my games against the AI, I have sent an invasion TF to the hex in between Patani and Kota Bharu and tried to move some armored units across the penninsula to cut off the Indian brigades that start the game in Alor Star. I perform ground attacks for the first 2 or 3 days using my bombers in Thailand to knock these brigades back into combat mode, thereby keeping them moving at what should be a snail's pace. Mathematically, it should be almost impossible for the allies to get those brigades out of there before my tanks cut them off.

How is it then that I have never trapped them there in Alor Star? In what must be at least ten starts/restarts, the Indian brigades from Alor Star always manage to get to Taiping before I can cut them off. In spite of the fact that I usually get my tanks into the cut off position by Dec 10th, those brigades always make it to Alor Star. How is this possible?

Is this another instance of the AI getting some kind of magic bonus? Kind of like the CV teleport move and the free aviation support that it receives?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

In all of my games against the AI, I have sent an invasion TF to the hex in between Patani and Kota Bharu and tried to move some armored units across the penninsula to cut off the Indian brigades that start the game in Alor Star. I perform ground attacks for the first 2 or 3 days using my bombers in Thailand to knock these brigades back into combat mode, thereby keeping them moving at what should be a snail's pace. Mathematically, it should be almost impossible for the allies to get those brigades out of there before my tanks cut them off.

How is it then that I have never trapped them there in Alor Star? In what must be at least ten starts/restarts, the Indian brigades from Alor Star always manage to get to Taiping before I can cut them off. In spite of the fact that I usually get my tanks into the cut off position by Dec 10th, those brigades always make it to Alor Star. How is this possible?

Is this another instance of the AI getting some kind of magic bonus? Kind of like the CV teleport move and the free aviation support that it receives?

I don't think units are kicked back to "Combat" from "Strat" mode...could be wrong on that.

[Icedawg]

I know they can be bumped from Move mode, so I just assumed they could also be bumped down while in Strat mode. If anything, it seems like it would be easier to interdict troops loaded on a train than on roads, so I made the assumption that Strat mode would be even easier to disrupt than Move mode.

Even if the interdiction is not possible, I am dumbfounded by the speed with which the AI gets those brigades out of there. Assuming that the majority of the time those brigades require 3 days to pack/unpack (because that is the case when I open up a game as the Allies), they would still be in Alor Star by the time I got my tanks into position blocking the rail line running south. Does the AI get some kind of pack/unpack bonus? Can it get troops into and out of Strat mode quicker than the human player(s)?

[USSAmerica]

The AI never cheats. [:-]

The AI plays by a different set of rules from the human player, to be able to provide some challenge to the human player. The AI never breaks the rules it has to play by.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: USS America

The AI never cheats. [:-]

The AI plays by a different set of rules from the human player, to be able to provide some challenge to the human player. The AI never breaks the rules it has to play by.

+1

[Nikademus]

they can be bumped but from a ground attack by another LCU, not by air attack.

Air attack is supposed to be more 'effective' in terms of causing casualties and disruption when attacking a unit in move mode or strategic mode, vs. combat mode. Terrain and other modifyers will still roll but its abstractly meant to represent the vulnerability of an LCU in a marching column vs. dug in and spread out. Attacking an LCU in clear terrain by air while it is in Move mode can quickly make that unit disapear for example.

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: USS America

The AI never cheats. [:-]

The AI plays by a different set of rules from the human player, to be able to provide some challenge to the human player. The AI never breaks the rules it has to play by.

[:D]

Okay, let me rephrase the title of my thread: Another AI "instance of playing by its own set of rules"? (I call it "cow sh*t", you call it "manure". I call it a "cheat", you call it a "different set of rules".) [:)]

Now, back to being serious. I understand the need to give the AI various boosts to be able to be competitive against a human. However, I am playing against the AI in order to learn/master this game so that I can someday effectively play against a human opponent. If the AI is constantly getting these "rule enhancements", then I am effectively playing a different game against the AI than I would be against a human. Therefore, playing against the AI doesn't allow me to accurately learn the game I intend to play against a human.

It would be like practicing kicking a football to learn how to play chess. Okay, maybe this is a bit of an exaggeration. A better analogy would be a baseball player spending three years in the minors playing right field only to be brought up to the majors as a shortstop. Sure, it's still baseball, but from a very different perspective.

Playing this game via PBEM requires that another human being invest a large chunk of their limited lifespan in you. If you don't know what you're doing, you may find yourself wasting a lot of your opponent's time. Before I risk disappointing a future/hypothetical opponent with my own poor understanding of game mechanics, I want to make sure I have done everything I can to ensure that I know what I am doing. That's why I am constantly asking questions on this forum. (I swear, I must be comparable to the little three year old that repeatedly asks "Why?".)

I guess what it ultimately comes down to is that I really don't want to be one of those players that whines and complains about the game being "borked" while getting his butt spanked in a PBEM, only to find out that the game is fine, it's just that his own understanding of the game's inner workings is deficient.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: USS America

The AI never cheats. [:-]

The AI plays by a different set of rules from the human player, to be able to provide some challenge to the human player. The AI never breaks the rules it has to play by.

[:D]

Okay, let me rephrase the title of my thread: Another AI "instance of playing by its own set of rules"? (I call it "cow sh*t", you call it "manure". I call it a "cheat", you call it a "different set of rules".) [:)]

Now, back to being serious. I understand the need to give the AI various boosts to be able to be competitive against a human. However, I am playing against the AI in order to learn/master this game so that I can someday effectively play against a human opponent. If the AI is constantly getting these "rule enhancements", then I am effectively playing a different game against the AI than I would be against a human. Therefore, playing against the AI doesn't allow me to accurately learn the game I intend to play against a human.

It would be like practicing kicking a football to learn how to play chess. Okay, maybe this is a bit of an exaggeration. A better analogy would be a baseball player spending three years in the minors playing right field only to be brought up to the majors as a shortstop. Sure, it's still baseball, but from a very different perspective.

Playing this game via PBEM requires that another human being invest a large chunk of their limited lifespan in you. If you don't know what you're doing, you may find yourself wasting a lot of your opponent's time. Before I risk disappointing a future/hypothetical opponent with my own poor understanding of game mechanics, I want to make sure I have done everything I can to ensure that I know what I am doing. That's why I am constantly asking questions on this forum. (I swear, I must be comparable to the little three year old that repeatedly asks "Why?".)

I guess what it ultimately comes down to is that I really don't want to be one of those players that whines and complains about the game being "borked" while getting his butt spanked in a PBEM, only to find out that the game is fine, it's just that his own understanding of the game's inner workings is deficient.

What would you do in this situation in a PBEM if you and your opponent have a house rule against invading non-base hexes?

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

they can be bumped but from a ground attack by another LCU, not by air attack.

Air attack is supposed to be more 'effective' in terms of causing casualties and disruption when attacking a unit in move mode or strategic mode, vs. combat mode. Terrain and other modifyers will still roll but its abstractly meant to represent the vulnerability of an LCU in a marching column vs. dug in and spread out. Attacking an LCU in clear terrain by air while it is in Move mode can quickly make that unit disapear for example.

Thanks for the clarification. I guess I was relying too heavily on my airstrikes to slow them down.

What I am gathering from this thread is that the AI's units are packing and unpacking very quickly to ensure that they can get where the AI would like them to go in interest of play balance. I suppose this is the LCU counterpart to the "trans-hemisphere teleportation" of CV's, also instituted for AI play balance.

I'm starting to think that I am just going to have to give up trying to develop strategies against the AI for future application to a human opponent. Playing against the AI only lets you get the basics of the game under your belt. It looks like higher-level strategy formulation can only come by playing against another person.

[pws1225]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

I'm starting to think that I am just going to have to give up trying to develop strategies against the AI for future application to a human opponent. Playing against the AI only lets you get the basics of the game under your belt. It looks like higher-level strategy formulation can only come by playing against another person.

Yup

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: USS America

The AI never cheats. [:-]

The AI plays by a different set of rules from the human player, to be able to provide some challenge to the human player. The AI never breaks the rules it has to play by.

[:D]

Okay, let me rephrase the title of my thread: Another AI "instance of playing by its own set of rules"? (I call it "cow sh*t", you call it "manure". I call it a "cheat", you call it a "different set of rules".) [:)]

Now, back to being serious. I understand the need to give the AI various boosts to be able to be competitive against a human. However, I am playing against the AI in order to learn/master this game so that I can someday effectively play against a human opponent. If the AI is constantly getting these "rule enhancements", then I am effectively playing a different game against the AI than I would be against a human. Therefore, playing against the AI doesn't allow me to accurately learn the game I intend to play against a human.

It would be like practicing kicking a football to learn how to play chess. Okay, maybe this is a bit of an exaggeration. A better analogy would be a baseball player spending three years in the minors playing right field only to be brought up to the majors as a shortstop. Sure, it's still baseball, but from a very different perspective.

Playing this game via PBEM requires that another human being invest a large chunk of their limited lifespan in you. If you don't know what you're doing, you may find yourself wasting a lot of your opponent's time. Before I risk disappointing a future/hypothetical opponent with my own poor understanding of game mechanics, I want to make sure I have done everything I can to ensure that I know what I am doing. That's why I am constantly asking questions on this forum. (I swear, I must be comparable to the little three year old that repeatedly asks "Why?".)

I guess what it ultimately comes down to is that I really don't want to be one of those players that whines and complains about the game being "borked" while getting his butt spanked in a PBEM, only to find out that the game is fine, it's just that his own understanding of the game's inner workings is deficient.

What would you do in this situation in a PBEM if you and your opponent have a house rule against invading non-base hexes?

If we have that rule, I wouldn't do it.

If we didn't have that rule, I would do it.

[&:]

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: pws1225

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

I'm starting to think that I am just going to have to give up trying to develop strategies against the AI for future application to a human opponent. Playing against the AI only lets you get the basics of the game under your belt. It looks like higher-level strategy formulation can only come by playing against another person.

Yup

Yeah, I've heard many people say stuff to this effect on these forums. I'm just hesitant to use/waste another person's time learning how to play the game. Rock and a hard place I guess. [:(]

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: Icedawg



[:D]

Okay, let me rephrase the title of my thread: Another AI "instance of playing by its own set of rules"? (I call it "cow sh*t", you call it "manure". I call it a "cheat", you call it a "different set of rules".) [:)]

Now, back to being serious. I understand the need to give the AI various boosts to be able to be competitive against a human. However, I am playing against the AI in order to learn/master this game so that I can someday effectively play against a human opponent. If the AI is constantly getting these "rule enhancements", then I am effectively playing a different game against the AI than I would be against a human. Therefore, playing against the AI doesn't allow me to accurately learn the game I intend to play against a human.

It would be like practicing kicking a football to learn how to play chess. Okay, maybe this is a bit of an exaggeration. A better analogy would be a baseball player spending three years in the minors playing right field only to be brought up to the majors as a shortstop. Sure, it's still baseball, but from a very different perspective.

Playing this game via PBEM requires that another human being invest a large chunk of their limited lifespan in you. If you don't know what you're doing, you may find yourself wasting a lot of your opponent's time. Before I risk disappointing a future/hypothetical opponent with my own poor understanding of game mechanics, I want to make sure I have done everything I can to ensure that I know what I am doing. That's why I am constantly asking questions on this forum. (I swear, I must be comparable to the little three year old that repeatedly asks "Why?".)

I guess what it ultimately comes down to is that I really don't want to be one of those players that whines and complains about the game being "borked" while getting his butt spanked in a PBEM, only to find out that the game is fine, it's just that his own understanding of the game's inner workings is deficient.

What would you do in this situation in a PBEM if you and your opponent have a house rule against invading non-base hexes?

If we have that rule, I wouldn't do it.

If we didn't have that rule, I would do it.

[&:]

Many people feel non-base hex invasions are gamey. Why would you do something gamey vs. the AI, then whine about the AI "cheating"?

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: ckammp





What would you do in this situation in a PBEM if you and your opponent have a house rule against invading non-base hexes?

If we have that rule, I wouldn't do it.

If we didn't have that rule, I would do it.

[&:]

Many people feel non-base hex invasions are gamey. Why would you do something gamey vs. the AI, then whine about the AI "cheating"?

Many people do feel this way about non-base hexes, but many (perhaps an equal number) feel it is not. That is the purpose of house rules.

Also, I am not "whining". I am trying to get an understanding of how the game works before I potentially waste a great deal of another person's time. As I implied in post #8 above, I'd be really upset with another person if they undertook a PBEM game with me without understanding how the game works.

I placed the word "cheat" in quotation marks to indicate that I understand it is not actually cheating in the human sense of the word. (I thought I was quite clear that I agreed with USS America about the AI not actually "cheating".) You can call it whatever you like, "cheat", "rule enhancement", "play balancing" or whatever. It's all the same. (That was the point of my "cow sh*t" and "manure" comment.) And I agree that it is necessary to keep the AI competitive. However, it greatly impedes the player's ability to sharpen one's techniques/strategies when the AI is playing a very different kind of game due to its different subset of rules. Things possible against a human are not against the AI and visa versa.

Which leads me to reiterate my conclusion: the AI is useful for learning the basics, but due to the "rule enhancements", you can't rely on using games against the AI to prepare you for the higher-level aspects of playing the game. It appears as though there is no way around it. I am going to have to risk wasting someone's time in order to learn how to play the game fully.

[ckammp]

Rather than continue to restart vs. AI, why not play in Head-to-Head mode to verify your tactics?
As Allies, set the units at Alor Star to Strat mode, and move them out. As Japan, land those armoured units as before, and attack by air.
If you trap the units, you know it works. If you can't, at least you know that 1) the AI doesn't cheat, and 2) it wouldn't work vs. a human either.

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: pws1225

ORIGINAL: Icedawg



Yup

Yeah, I've heard many people say stuff to this effect on these forums. I'm just hesitant to use/waste another person's time learning how to play the game. Rock and a hard place I guess. [:(]

Not at all, Icedawg. Advertise in the Opponent's Wanted section for another player who is relatively new to PBEM. You can both learn together. [:)]

[larryfulkerson]

I'm a relative new guy and in my game w/ Rob Roberson I explained right up front in my reply to his advertizement for a player that I had only a rudimentary grasp of the game and he volunteered to answer my questions and stuff and it's been a blast so far. There are opponents out there who will "show you the ropes" so to speak. This is an outstanding group of guys on this forum I must say. I'm coming here from the WITE forum and it's one argument after another over there.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: USS America

The AI never cheats. [:-]

The AI plays by a different set of rules from the human player, to be able to provide some challenge to the human player. The AI never breaks the rules it has to play by.

[:D]

Okay, let me rephrase the title of my thread: Another AI "instance of playing by its own set of rules"? (I call it "cow sh*t", you call it "manure". I call it a "cheat", you call it a "different set of rules".) [:)]

Now, back to being serious. I understand the need to give the AI various boosts to be able to be competitive against a human. However, I am playing against the AI in order to learn/master this game so that I can someday effectively play against a human opponent. If the AI is constantly getting these "rule enhancements", then I am effectively playing a different game against the AI than I would be against a human. Therefore, playing against the AI doesn't allow me to accurately learn the game I intend to play against a human.

It would be like practicing kicking a football to learn how to play chess. Okay, maybe this is a bit of an exaggeration. A better analogy would be a baseball player spending three years in the minors playing right field only to be brought up to the majors as a shortstop. Sure, it's still baseball, but from a very different perspective.

Playing this game via PBEM requires that another human being invest a large chunk of their limited lifespan in you. If you don't know what you're doing, you may find yourself wasting a lot of your opponent's time. Before I risk disappointing a future/hypothetical opponent with my own poor understanding of game mechanics, I want to make sure I have done everything I can to ensure that I know what I am doing. That's why I am constantly asking questions on this forum. (I swear, I must be comparable to the little three year old that repeatedly asks "Why?".)

I guess what it ultimately comes down to is that I really don't want to be one of those players that whines and complains about the game being "borked" while getting his butt spanked in a PBEM, only to find out that the game is fine, it's just that his own understanding of the game's inner workings is deficient.

Nothing which you said above regarding the futility of playing against the AI, and repeated in several subsequent posts, is valid. You have absolutely no evidence that playing against the AI will not teach you the same game mechanics which you will need to know in order to play a PBEM at the standard you deem acceptable. Furthermore do not conflate tactical with strategic play.

Let's go back to the OP. All your comments in this thread about the unsuitability of playing against the AI are built on a single issue viz your inability to prevent the Allied LCUs located at Alor Star on 7 December 1941 from escaping before you get to Taiping on 10 December 1941. Where is your evidence that the AI can escape in circumstances where a human player could not similarly escape. All that you rely upon is your claim that it takes 3 days to get a transfer from combat to strategic mode. That is simply wrong. For a human player, it can take anything from a minimum of 1 day to a maximum of 3 days for the change in operation mode to take effect. Therefore on what ground can you maintain that a human player would not similarly have already transited through Taiping before you arrive there.

The AI largely has the same exact set of game rules which a human player has.

1. Most of the differences are brought into play only if you set the AI difficulty level higher than the default "Historical" level. That is entirely something under your control.

2. The few differences which are not attributable to the AI difficulty level you set allow the AI to play more like a good human player. IOW if you were playing a good human player, they would achieve the same tactical situation which the AI is allowed to achieve with its "different" ruleset.

I have said this before and I will say it again. The AI often plays a far stronger game than many a human player. The AI's deficiencies become obvious because it never quits a game whereas weak human players readily abandon a game and restart. Do not assume that a human necessarily plays AE better than does the AI. A strong human player will but there are plenty of human players who are not strong AE players.

Alfred

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Rather than continue to restart vs. AI, why not play in Head-to-Head mode to verify your tactics?
As Allies, set the units at Alor Star to Strat mode, and move them out. As Japan, land those armoured units as before, and attack by air.
If you trap the units, you know it works. If you can't, at least you know that 1) the AI doesn't cheat, and 2) it wouldn't work vs. a human either.

I've already tried this route. I tested it three of four times immediately before posting my question. The result was that the Allied brigades usually take three days to pack (every once in awhile one will manage to pack it up in two days). My armored units get into cut off position by Dec 10th, so it pretty much worked. On a couple of occasions one slipped out. In probably 10 or so games against the AI, every time, both brigades have made it to Taiping. Now, I know the sample size is a little small, but I'm leaning towards a probable bonus being given to the AI in getting those guys out of there.

I've used the head to head format to test a few other things as well (magic move TF range, number of transport aircraft required to lift para units completely, etc). It is effective, but it takes a fair amount of time and turns the game into work. I'd rather be able to play, have fun and learn all at once. I guess I'm more of a grasshopper than an ant on this one I guess. [:)]

[Yaab]

I think the Allied AI on 7th Dec has its orders issued as well. I ran the first turn as Japan and on 7th December,a  Chinese DB-3 unit from Changhsa bombed Nanking. As Allies I can only issue orders on the next day, on 8th December. The AI units in questions probably started packing on 7th December, and not on 8th December.