Very hard difficulty A.I.

[Sardaukar]

I am not big fan of Very Hard difficulty, since AI gets also advantages in combat, not only in logistics.

If you don't play at VH, you have an unfair advantage in combat. This advantage is referred to as "leaders". The AI does not know how to optimize leaders, players can. So, at every level below VH, the player has a potentially huge advantage in combat.

OR, you can play at lesser difficulty levels, but then to be fair you should not change ANY leader of any unit.

Caveat: a scenario designer can optimize these from the start. However, the standard scenarios use the historical leaders, and we all know how many of them need to be changed. Granted, some are good, but there are many that are just atrocious. Further, even in the standard scenarios, many new units get leaders randomly drawn with the obvious miss match in desired characteristics. Who hasn't seen an Air=+60 commanding a cargo ship?

Just saying ...

Which is more than compensated since (AFAIK) AI gets automatic 100 preparation points for target unlike human player.

[Admiral Scott]

The A.I. gets 100 percent prep points on hard level?

[Sardaukar]

The A.I. gets 100 percent prep points on hard level?

I think it's on Very Hard.

[Admiral Scott]

Does the A.I. have to expend political points to change headquarters to free up units to be used elsewhere?

[Platoonist]

Does the A.I. have to expend political points to change headquarters to free up units to be used elsewhere?

Based on the large number of overdue and unwithdrawn air, land and naval units I often see on the AI side at the end of a game I get the strong impression that the AI doesn't pay political points at all. Either that or it's exempt in many respects.

[RangerJoe]

Does the A.I. have to expend political points to change headquarters to free up units to be used elsewhere?

Based on the large number of overdue and unwithdrawn air, land and naval units I often see on the AI side at the end of a game I get the strong impression that the AI doesn't pay political points at all. Either that or it's exempt in many respects.

The AI does not need to buy out units, it can and will move permanent static units, the AI does not withdraw any units, the AI does not have to garrison bases, and the AI does not have to worry about the Manchukuo garrison requirements.

[Chris21wen]

The AI does not need to buy out units, it can and will move permanent static units, the AI does not withdraw any units, the AI does not have to garrison bases, and the AI does not have to worry about the Manchukuo garrison requirements.

... basically it breaks all the rules.

[Ekaton]

Does the AI still conduct endless suicidal attacks against Port Moresby? This is something that really frustrated me when I played previously. Landings too small to seize the objective every now and then, with large TFs occasionally bombarding the shore and easily attacked by carriers later in the war.

[Platoonist]

Does the AI still conduct endless suicidal attacks against Port Moresby?

Yes. However, since I had packed the place with defenders it couldn't help but be suicidal.

It's just the nature of a script-based AI. Once a particular script runs, and no trigger condition or date cancels it, it will keep feeding material into the operation. Usually in small TFs coming one by one or in small groups, rather than doing what most human players would do: retreat, regroup and come again with a concerted effort and enough to get the job done.

[PaxMondo]

I am not big fan of Very Hard difficulty, since AI gets also advantages in combat, not only in logistics.

If you don't play at VH, you have an unfair advantage in combat. This advantage is referred to as "leaders". The AI does not know how to optimize leaders, players can. So, at every level below VH, the player has a potentially huge advantage in combat.

OR, you can play at lesser difficulty levels, but then to be fair you should not change ANY leader of any unit.

Caveat: a scenario designer can optimize these from the start. However, the standard scenarios use the historical leaders, and we all know how many of them need to be changed. Granted, some are good, but there are many that are just atrocious. Further, even in the standard scenarios, many new units get leaders randomly drawn with the obvious miss match in desired characteristics. Who hasn't seen an Air=+60 commanding a cargo ship?

Just saying ...

Which is more than compensated since (AFAIK) AI gets automatic 100 preparation points for target unlike human player.

I'm not sure about this, I will have to check a current game. However, the human player can always prep their units as well.

The advantage of a prepped Command HQ in range is bigger than anything that the AI can do. The AI does not know how move and use Command HQ's. You can script it, but challenging to do so. In the stock AI game, they are more commonly encountered on defense (their starting position like Chungking, etc) than they are on offense.

[morphin]

So it is may worth to change Leaders for the AI Side befor start of the campaign to help the AI a little bit? (Or to adjust the existing leader to rise the skills?)

[Sardaukar]

So it is may worth to change Leaders for the AI Side befor start of the campaign to help the AI a little bit? (Or to adjust the existing leader to rise the skills?)

Might be an idea there.

[PaxMondo]

So it is may worth to change Leaders for the AI Side befor start of the campaign to help the AI a little bit? (Or to adjust the existing leader to rise the skills?)

Might be an idea there.

The Ironman mod that I play from Andy Mac ... yeah, he adjusted a LOT of leaders, and ships, and aircraft EXP and stats. And yes, it makes a LOT of difference. If you ever find the Ironman Sick version (he only posted it for 3 days before taking it down, apologizing for having gone too far), and you play it ... beware the Dorniers early and when the BB Texas shows up ... RUN! Just Run Away!

So, yes in your mod, you can do a lot more with all the stats that greatly improve the AI's capability; and gives you, the player, big shocks that you will need to recover from. Things like losing a pair of CA's early to 5 measly Dorniers (7 torp hits in one attack). Yeah, that happened to me in a previous game.

I'm not going to spoil the BB Texas, but its real. Andy Mac has a bunch more surprises in that release as well. Sure, they are fictional, but it makes the game challenging and fun. And fun is what it is all about, right?

[Yaab]

Would be nice to a have a complete list of bonuses AI gets at each difficulty so players can make informed decisions about game difficulty.

[Yaab]

So it is may worth to change Leaders for the AI Side befor start of the campaign to help the AI a little bit? (Or to adjust the existing leader to rise the skills?)

I did that many years ago for Jap AI in Takao. The airfield is overstacked there at start, and some Jap leaders there have very poor Air skill (low 30s). With bad weather , raids from Takao would often fly unescorted to my Manila/Clark Field, which resulted in loopsided losses for the Japanese.

Also, you will notice AI performs better on Clear weather days. Air raids are escorted and bigger in numbers. My December 1941 air war over Luzon in my restarts gets very bloody for BOTH sides when you get a spell of Clear weather over several subsequent days.

[PaxMondo]

Would be nice to a have a complete list of bonuses AI gets at each difficulty so players can make informed decisions about game difficulty.

The relevant devs have stated very clearly that VH is the "fair" setting. Take it or leave it. We have not been told more than that and given the length of time, I doubt we ever will.