Do the Japanese keep trying?

[Bella]

I just wiped out a second Japanese attempt to land on Canton Island (lucked out, and had a small surface force nearby with a BB and a CA transiting through to Australia, or it could have been bad)

Question: Will the enemy AI keep trying to make attempts even after two disasters? Do I need to station a surface force there permanently?

[JanSako]

It means the Canton invasion script is active in your game. The answer is yes, it will keep trying with diminishing returns. I think for best results you are supposed to let them take it so the AI can move on.
In general, to get the most of the AI you should let them take all historical objectives.

On top of that a few 'reasonable' phase two objectives.

Note that I am not saying you should give up Australia or anything!

[Bo Rearguard]

In a previous contest with the Japanese AI it was hellbent on taking Port Moresby. Over and over they came to die on the beach. I eventually stationed a chain of submarines along the sea route from their staging point at Rabaul to Moresby and they took a frightful toll of cargo ships and transports coming and going. But no matter how serious the losses from ships or planes it took a long time before they quit.

[RangerJoe]

If you really want to break the AI but don't want to have a surface combat task force stationed there so they won't be hit by carrier planes, put a minefield there along with (combat) engineers, CD guns, and an armored battalion.

After the enemy hits the minefield and falls back, lay more mines so it will be a new and undiscovered minefield. All mines laid in a day are considered one minefield. You may need an ACM there to keep the minefield from disappearing.

Also have submarines there to polish off cripples, the S-boats have good torpedoes for this.

You can disband an AVD at a nearby base to care for 6 PBYs or Float Planes for a little warning, maybe even have them flying night patrol if your pilots have an experience level of 50+.

[btd64]

This is why I prefer PBEM....GP

[Bella]

By letting them take Canton, it helps the AI? It’s a big thorn in the Australia convoy chain if it goes ( and was not historically taken). I suppose you mean to pump up the AI with as great a potential as possible to make the game more interesting. Maybe next game, when I know the ropes better. Right now I just want to win. I’m still trying to figure out HQs……

[Platoonist]

By letting them take Canton, it helps the AI? It’s a big thorn in the Australia convoy chain if it goes ( and was not historically taken). I suppose you mean to pump up the AI with as great a potential as possible to make the game more interesting. Maybe next game, when I know the ropes better. Right now I just want to win. I’m still trying to figure out HQs……

I agree. Don't let them have it. It's often been said to get a better game out of the AI just try not to contest really critical spots for the Japanese AI economy like Palembang, Borneo or Java by packing them with troops that likely would not have been available due to the divided Allied command structure and political constraints. The US in particular wasn't keen on sending its troops to save European crown colonies early in the war. But at some point, you do have to draw a forward line of defense.

[Admiral DadMan]

If you really want to break the AI but don't want to have a surface combat task force stationed there so they won't be hit by carrier planes, put a minefield there along with (combat) engineers, CD guns, and an armored battalion.

After the enemy hits the minefield and falls back, lay more mines so it will be a new and undiscovered minefield. All mines laid in a day are considered one minefield. You may need an ACM there to keep the minefield from disappearing.

Also have submarines there to polish off cripples, the S-boats have good torpedoes for this.

You can disband an AVD at a nearby base to care for 6 PBYs or Float Planes for a little warning, maybe even have them flying night patrol if you pilots have an experience level of 50+.

You sir, are evil.

I love it.

[Bella]

By letting them take Canton, it helps the AI? It’s a big thorn in the Australia convoy chain if it goes ( and was not historically taken). I suppose you mean to pump up the AI with as great a potential as possible to make the game more interesting. Maybe next game, when I know the ropes better. Right now I just want to win. I’m still trying to figure out HQs……

I agree. Don't let them have it. It's often been said to get a better game out of the AI just try not to contest really critical spots for the Japanese AI economy like Palembang, Borneo or Java by packing them with troops that likely would not have been available due to the divided Allied command structure and political constraints. The US in particular wasn't keen on sending its troops to save European crown colonies early in the war. But at some point, you do have to draw a forward line of defense.

Ok. Makes sense. The Japanese are taking Indonesia, so they’ll get all those bases for the economy, but I’m going to fight for Canton Is. The Dutch made them pay, though. CV Soryu was sunk by a sub, one invasion force was mauled and they’ve lost a fair number of bombers on long range, un-escorted raids.

[RangerJoe]

If you really want to break the AI but don't want to have a surface combat task force stationed there so they won't be hit by carrier planes, put a minefield there along with (combat) engineers, CD guns, and an armored battalion.

After the enemy hits the minefield and falls back, lay more mines so it will be a new and undiscovered minefield. All mines laid in a day are considered one minefield. You may need an ACM there to keep the minefield from disappearing.

Also have submarines there to polish off cripples, the S-boats have good torpedoes for this.

You can disband an AVD at a nearby base to care for 6 PBYs or Float Planes for a little warning, maybe even have them flying night patrol if your pilots have an experience level of 50+.

You sir, are evil.

I love it.

It is better to defend than to lose and then have to retake the base. That might defense might even work against a lax human opponent and a player won't have to overstack the base. Making the enemy come back to attack slows down their advance and means that there are fewer bases to capture/recapture however the case may be.

Other units could be added as well but the CD guns will damage ships which would be in addition to what damages the mines do. AA units will also work against the invasion ships, 40mm Bofors have been credited with sinking ships. The combat engineers will function as infantry as well as repair the base plus build the forts. The armor won't be as affected by the bombardments as infantry would and if a player were to load the soft elements such as the 81mm mortar sections, I presume one 81mm mortar per company of tanks and three tank companies per battalion, then move the mortars to another base, if the base is lost the armor unit can immediately start to rebuild itself.

Those float planes, especially 18 Kingfishers if they have enough support, should do a pretty good job on low naval against the unarmored invasion force shipping or the crippled ships retreating. If you do damage a ship loaded with troops to get it detached before the invasion just makes it that much harder for the invasion force. Attacking from above and below . . .

[Bella]

Great advice all, Thank you.

Wait a minute. JanSako, you said the ‘Canton Script is activated”. Does that mean that different games activate different scripts (randomly I suppose)?. That is a great idea for re-playability

[Platoonist]

PaxMondo once mentioned that if you open up one of the stock AI files, you will find about 50 scripts for each side.

[Bella]

50 different scripts per side…..but not all activated? Do different ones get activated randomly every time a game started? That’s what I want to know. That’s awesome. It means the game won’t go down the same path every time.

[RangerJoe]

50 different scripts per side…..but not all activated? Do different ones get activated randomly every time a game started? That’s what I want to know. That’s awesome. It means the game won’t go down the same path every time.

One set of scripts per new game. Reloading a saved game will not get a new set of scripts. One way to play would be to have just one script set available for the game, once you have played that script then "retire" it and put another script in for the new start. So saving a setup or getting one from someone else will not get you a new set of scripts.

[Bella]

Mostly got that, thank you.

[Bella]

Not wanting to play the system, just understand it. My desire is for a clean game.

[PaxMondo]

The best way to avoid a stuck AI script is when attacking, move linearly, don't make a deep move. On the defensive side, you cannot do much to avoid this potential issue other than ceding historical targets. PM is the most common "AI" issue, but then the AI does pretty much what happened historically ... the IJ kept attempting to take PM when they simply did not have the assets to be able to do so. Granted the AI will commit even MORE assets, but historically it is correct. You can, and the allies did, bleed IJ badly with PM. That is the conundrum that I am sure that the devs faced with the AI: they wanted it to follow history, but historically there were some very bad decisions made. So the primary AI file has the PM attack script in it, because historically the IJ had it as a major goal, even though in hindsight we know that they did not have the assets to take it. However, not all of the other files do, so in like 25% of the AI games, you will not get the PM attack.

So, the answer is "Yes", as a player, if you want a decent game, you need to cede PM to keep the game going. Or do as the allies did and use it to remove the early war IJ advantage and swing the momentum to the allies favor. Your game will be much shorter than history because, unlike the allies, you the player have perfect hindsight: you know exactly what the IJ has at start, and much better "intel" on what she can produce. Further, you are not limited by public opinion, so you can take far greater risks than the historical allied commanders could.

[Bella]

I’ve asked this before but did not get an answer: will the recent advances in AI development in RL lead to those being incorporated into this game as an upgrade to the game AI?

[Platoonist]

I’ve asked this before but did not get an answer: will the recent advances in AI development in RL lead to those being incorporated into this game as an upgrade to the game AI?

Given its age and that this game is pretty much at the end of any further development I doubt it.

[Zeckke]

I’ve asked this before but did not get an answer: will the recent advances in AI development in RL lead to those being incorporated into this game as an upgrade to the game AI?

Bella listen to me , please (thats the question no one listen to noene)

you are triying to macht 3 (new AI) with 2 (old AI) and that is not 5, correct?

but the AI has multiples aspect and you are interesting in the combat aspect (all of us, of course)