CVsC comes to 8/44 and the result?

[jiajia1]

after many nights running, the com vs com campaingn is now Aug 1944.

Allie lost 4 CV Lexinton, hornet, wasp and essex, 7 CVE, 21 BB(OMG), 19 CA, 36 CL, about 100 DD, 13 SS (best reflect IJN ASW?)

IJN lost 1 BB, 4 CA, 7 CL, 7 DD, 14 SS

scen001, FOW is off. PDU off. RR on.

?????

[Ian R]

The AI is not very good.

The IJ AI works from a central position - possibly making things easier - and to a fast invasion phase scripting which enables it to expand historically, as long as the allied player does not exploit that by blocking certain key bases. The allied AI tends to assign small TFs to targets which the IJ reacts to, and defeats.

There is a list of "must take" bases for the IJ AI described in other threads. The best game against the AI is to play the allies, let them have those bases, and then lead the counter offensive. Alternatively, you could take the IJ side - and seek to win an auto-victory.

The enhanced IJ, and Iron Man scenarios give you a difficult challenge playing the scripted IJ opponent.

[RangerJoe]

I was thinking that maybe I could handle a PBEM if I played Japanese in an Ironman 3 scenario. [:D]

[dwesolick]

I've played exclusively against the AI for the last 10+ years and Andy Mac's ironman scenarios really are the best in that regard. They give you quite a challenge for the first 8-12 months.

Still, there's always that depressing moment when I finally launch my counteroffensive at GC (always play straight historical against the AI) and the response from the AI is....zilch. Ok, maybe a weak airstrike or two. And from late 42 on it's always the same: invasion...nothing from AI.

That's when you realize the game is basically over, unless you just want to flog a corpse all the way to Tokyo.

[traskott]

Well, last iroman Andy scenarios keep you honest more than those 12 months... Usually u lost more than historical and the AI has more assets to hold that positions so u can find yourself in 1/1/1943 behind the historical timeline.

[Macclan5]

I too have played exclusively against the AI for the past 5 years.... [8D]

I appreciate that each player has very different expectations.

However before a statement that the AI is 'no good' I would urge veteran players to use language relative to their expectations or perhaps a newbies expectations.

In fact after late 42 / early 43 the Japanese historically did not launch many massive counterstrokes to regain the initiative.

- after the loss of Guadalcanal they 'redirected' their attacking to New Guinea - battle of Bismark Sea.
- they essentially abandoned all troops in the Gilberts / Marshalls to make their own stand.

- a massive Naval reaction to the invasion of the Mariana's and the Battle of the Philippine Sea
- The Army did initiate Ichi-Go in China in 1944 in fairness and another drive in Burma in 1944.

However in these last two initiatives the Japanese result was essentially catastrophic. I hardly need to reteach history in this forum - but both the Philippine Sea and Ichi-Go / Burma lead to such impactful attrition that it further compromised Japan's position in the war.

If a players expectations are more closely aligned to historical the AI runs - based on scripted targets - very well.

Further if you actually play the game through to Invasion of the Home Islands - Operations Olympic and Coronet - the AI "digs in" rather well. The last stages are a real slug match and the casualty rates of Allied Forces are horrendous if you worry about your electron troops lives....

I am - maybe - an apologist for the AI - I simply want to emphasize that the gamer experience is relative to expectations [:)]

[jiajia1]

I need to give it another run -- the "use AI" option in the scenario options of AE editor was not used. "AI DATA" seems to be quite complicated.

[jiajia1]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

I too have played exclusively against the AI for the past 5 years.... [8D]

I appreciate that each player has very different expectations.

However before a statement that the AI is 'no good' I would urge veteran players to use language relative to their expectations or perhaps a newbies expectations.

In fact after late 42 / early 43 the Japanese historically did not launch many massive counterstrokes to regain the initiative.

- after the loss of Guadalcanal they 'redirected' their attacking to New Guinea - battle of Bismark Sea.
- they essentially abandoned all troops in the Gilberts / Marshalls to make their own stand.

- a massive Naval reaction to the invasion of the Mariana's and the Battle of the Philippine Sea
- The Army did initiate Ichi-Go in China in 1944 in fairness and another drive in Burma in 1944.

However in these last two initiatives the Japanese result was essentially catastrophic. I hardly need to reteach history in this forum - but both the Philippine Sea and Ichi-Go / Burma lead to such impactful attrition that it further compromised Japan's position in the war.

If a players expectations are more closely aligned to historical the AI runs - based on scripted targets - very well.

Further if you actually play the game through to Invasion of the Home Islands - Operations Olympic and Coronet - the AI "digs in" rather well. The last stages are a real slug match and the casualty rates of Allied Forces are horrendous if you worry about your electron troops lives....

I am - maybe - an apologist for the AI - I simply want to emphasize that the gamer experience is relative to expectations [:)]

Japanese lost over 7000 air crew units during solomen campaign. IJN only train hundreds of pilots per year before the war.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: jiajia1

I need to give it another run -- the "use AI" option in the scenario options of AE editor was not used. "AI DATA" seems to be quite complicated.

The Ironman Scenarios are a separate set of scenarios that do not come with the game. You must locate them and download them so that they are available when you start the game. The will be saved in different scenario slots from the ones used by the official game. Similarly, there are some user-created modified scenarios like Da Big Babes (DBB) which change some of the database information to change the experience (such as using the extended map, stacking limits everywhere, and smaller capacity on Allied cargo ships).

There are so many options for playing this game that you will never live long enough to try everything, and random die throws on battles will give a different experience every time you try the same strategy. Game On! [:)]

[jiajia1]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: jiajia1

I need to give it another run -- the "use AI" option in the scenario options of AE editor was not used. "AI DATA" seems to be quite complicated.

The Ironman Scenarios are a separate set of scenarios that do not come with the game. You must locate them and download them so that they are available when you start the game. The will be saved in different scenario slots from the ones used by the official game. Similarly, there are some user-created modified scenarios like Da Big Babes (DBB) which change some of the database information to change the experience (such as using the extended map, stacking limits everywhere, and smaller capacity on Allied cargo ships).

There are so many options for playing this game that you will never live long enough to try everything, and random die throws on battles will give a different experience every time you try the same strategy. Game On! [:)]

Time consuming is the main problem for the large scene running test. It takes up to 10 or 20 mins to pass a day on my poor laptop. therefor so far have not tested any others yet.

there are a thousand example AI scripts and they can be chained together. you can define your own script. sounds like you are the director of the war only focus on the strategy instead of commanding every unit.

[RangerJoe]

I think that you may be interested in a different game. There have been some comments, if I recall correctly, on the General thread for a game where you give your "instructions" to various commanders and then their AI carries them out.

[jiajia1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I think that you may be interested in a different game. There have been some comments, if I recall correctly, on the General thread for a game where you give your "instructions" to various commanders and then their AI carries them out.

I am not saying I do not like to command every detailed action. they are different levels. I make a plan with hundreds of TO-DOs for a turn and enjoy.