AI good enough?

[finn]

Hi, I am thinking of buying War in the Pacific, I played one of the earlier pacific war games a few years ago and enjoyed it very much. My question is, is the AI good enough for enjoyable single player games? Will it provide a good challenge?

Thanks in advance.
Lars

[SunDevil_MatrixForum]

Yes,

This game is very impressive. Worth the cost.

[MadDawg]

I find that PBEM is where this game really shines as opposed to AI games. Personally I havnt had too much luck with the AI as Ive found that it has a few issues at the moment which can hopefully be ironed out in a patch (search here and in the support forums and you will probably find a few AI threads), but with a game this complex it is extremely hard to get an AI that is going to be able to give a human a run for his money.

My advice would be to use the AI for training and get a couple of PBEM games running [:)]

Dawg

[Moquia]

If you don't go gamey on the AI, it will do its job. This is from playing the allies.

[Mr.Frag]

If you don't go gamey on the AI, it will do its job.

Thats actually a good point to raise.

Any AI once watched enough will give up how it plays resulting in the ability to exploit it quite simply. If you want to play the game that way, you will find a way to do so. If you want to play the game to have fun, you will also find that.

[finn]

Thanks guys, I have ordered the game now

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: finn

Hi, I am thinking of buying War in the Pacific, I played one of the earlier pacific war games a few years ago and enjoyed it very much. My question is, is the AI good enough for enjoyable single player games? Will it provide a good challenge?

Thanks in advance.
Lars

As one who is highly critical of wargame AI's in general, I agree with the above poster that the AI does a decent job so long as you stay "in the box". A few quirks have been raised, that are going to be fixed. It has a tendancy to do the death spiral thing, but to see that you pretty much have to be playing "outside the box". The best example that is easily duplicated is to spend political points early and massively reinforce Rabaul as the American player playing the Japanese AI in Scen #15 before the Japanese take it. The AI will impale itself repeatedly on that one. Other than that, it plays an aggressive, but very linear game against you.

Just now starting a game as Japanese player playing American AI. Way to soon to judge, overall, how the American AI does, but it is giving me fits in China, so far. Elsewhere, it appears it likes to retreat to strong points and try and hold there, pretty much letting the rest go without much of a fight. I did get the situation where only 8 zeroes attacked PH on turn 1, though.

[Grotius]

I agree with the consensus here. The AI gives you a good game if you don't do anything too "out of the box." For me, that's fine; I almost prefer to play my first games as quasi-re-enactments of the historical war. I figure that will entertain me for months or longer, given my current pace (March 1942 as the Allies).

I admit there's nothing like PBEM; UV became a whole different game when played that way. But I'm finding the AI more fun to play in WITP than it was in UV. And the time commitment for a PBEM in WiTP seems pretty daunting, to say the least.

[m10bob]

AI seems better than in UV..In January'42,I just had a Japanese Battlegroup show up at Port Moresby,and they promptly blew my AK's outta the water.Thet were not dumb enough to stick around and my aircraft never did detect them!!!!
(I had at least 4 different groups searching from PM,Townsville,etc...)
Very impressive!!(This was solo.)[:)]

[Nikademus]

think of it this way. An AI may not be very inspired, but it will often play a nice "conventional" non-gamey 'game'.

If you play like-mindedly, you'll get a better playing experience. Get all tricky and you'll probably eventually get a sour taste.... [;)]

[m10bob]

Nikademus!!.I like that picture..Isn't that the Japanese "country club"??[X(]

[EMO]

I have not been to this forum for a few days and remember a discussion on how long it takes the AI to make a move. How long does it take--a minute, two minutes, longer?

[hithere]

on my computer....it takes from 10-15 min for a computer turn. pent 2.7 with 1 Gig Ram, 256 meg GeForce....it is the same for me with or without sound

[pad152]

I think is too early to tell.

I'm playing the campaign as Allies, the Japanese AI, has lost more ships and aircraft then historical but is also gaining ground faster. I think the real test will be what can the computer AI do in 1943!

[Caltone]

ORIGINAL: EMO

I have not been to this forum for a few days and remember a discussion on how long it takes the AI to make a move. How long does it take--a minute, two minutes, longer?

All AI moves are done in the resolution phase. Mine typically takes around 5-8 mins give or take. If you watch air and sea battles through it will take longer.

What so many that complain about the AI don't understand is the way it works. People use tactics to exploit the system and AI limitiations and then complain the game is broken.

Like others have said here you play a convential, historical in a broad way, game and the AI will respond with a decent game.

Spend tons of PP's and beef up Rabaul? That's gamey and the AI will not react properly.

Create 100's of PT's and split them into 1-2 ship TF's along deep water patrol routes to sink the merch fleet? That's gamey and the AI will not react properly.

Create a 350 PT boats and put them into Midway? That's gamey and the AI will not react properly.

Things of this nature worked in UV too but you still saw 8 CV TF armadas roaming the coast and the US launching impossible numbers of planes from a single base.

etc, etc

You get the idea.