Japanese computer to weak?

mark the brit · Post by **mark the brit** » Sat Dec 02, 2000 4:36 pm

This post is a question to new recruits and veterans alike.Do you think the japanese should be made stronger?.The AI seems to me to play a very defensive game even from the start(41 campaign).Although it has plenty of LCUs and APs it performs limited landings it puts large amounts of aircraft in japan from the start of the war instead of using them.TFs are small compared to human generated TFs,their commanders are not always the best available.It assigns CA,Cl and DDs to tranport TFs.japanese supply is terrible it is to little capacity it goes to the wrong places and the US submarines are to powerful especially earlier on.Proabably the best arm is the army as they fight to the death ,however they are easily isolated or by passed and the computer rarely tries to evacuate them or reinforce them.Also why do the japanese never use their engineers effectively EG.Japanese rarely move bases, new guinea seems to be a no go area altogether, this also applies to army aircraft which are not used very effcetively,have you seen any army aircraft operate from bases in New guinea? .the computer seems to rate guadacanal and port moresby as its major targets.Once you secure these two bases the japanese seem to do little or no attacks.Surely a Invasion of Austraila or Pearl Harbour would be more benificial to the japanese.Are all these things hardcoded and unable to be changed?.one last point once when i was playing the original pacwar a Japanese BB TF attacked a CV TF destroying several CAs,CLs and badly damaging two CVs this is the only time i have seen this happen this gave me the reason why CV TFs always had CAs and CLs attached but i have never seen this again perhaps the CV TF could outrun the BB TFs but this would not be true of Escort carriers ?.Did this ever happen historically ?.Could this be put into the game?.I would really like to see the Surface Combat TF do something because they seem to be of limited use as they rarely attack any other shipping most of the time they end up on bombardment missions
.

Drex · Post by **Drex** » Sun Dec 03, 2000 12:01 am

I think this PacWar is more aggressive than the original, but I agree with you that it could be stronger. But this could be that you get better at playing the game.Eventually the AI will seem passive because we've learned all the right strategies. that's why pbem is so geat. As for BB's catching CV's, only in port and not on reaction. I always put my CV task groups on reaction and move them with a covering force. CV groups used CA's because the older BB's couldn't keeep up. it wasn't until the fast BB's came out that CV's groups could use them.

HQTANGO · Post by **HQTANGO** » Sun Dec 03, 2000 10:05 am

I agree Drex the Iowa Class BB was the first (I think) to have 33 knot speed. Before then 21 was the norm and 28 the exception. As far as the Japanese weakness, well I agree they get passive quickly. perhaps using help japan would give them a boost I don't know, but then maybe the all new Pacific war will be better. I think for the age of this game it does a good job to balance the war, consider that after 1942 Japan was pretty much beat anyway, was just a matter of time. My main complaint is the bug when loading troops on transports and get wrong one and cancel and they just go into the blackhole. I do not remember it ever being like that in the old version, and I played it since 92 93, rarely did I lose whole divisons to the byte monster.

Drex · Post by **Drex** » Mon Dec 04, 2000 2:58 am

i don't remember losing units to the byte monster in the old version either. We just have to be careful until ver.2.2 comes out. right now its the supply bug that hurting the game.

LargeSlowTarget · Post by **LargeSlowTarget** » Mon Dec 04, 2000 4:06 am

Originally posted by mark the brit:
one last point once when i was playing the original pacwar a Japanese BB TF attacked a CV TF destroying several CAs,CLs and badly damaging two CVs this is the only time i have seen this happen this gave me the reason why CV TFs always had CAs and CLs attached but i have never seen this again perhaps the CV TF could outrun the BB TFs but this would not be true of Escort carriers ?.Did this ever happen historically ?
.

As far as I know, only during Leyte Gulf did Japanese Surface forces attack a CV TF, and this were slow baby flattops. The abandoned hulk of the Hornet was sunk by Japanese DDs in the battle of St. Cruz, after US DDs failed to scuttle her with torpedos and gunfire.
In european waters, though, the German BCs Scharnhorst and Gneisenau intercepted a British CV (Glorious ?) retiring from Norway with only light escorts in early 1940, sinking her.

sethwrkr · Post by **sethwrkr** » Mon Dec 04, 2000 4:16 am

Just to put my 2 cents in.

I never put bbs in CA TFs. 4XDD are much beter flack producers. BB are good for killing ships and bombardment. Also good at absorbing a bomnb or 2. VS near instant death for cruisers.

As far as I know, I have never seen a SC AC task force fight. I wonder if it only happens when you empy a carrier of planes and there is no carrier azoc?

Seth