RE: AI Disappointment
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:44 am
Disclaimer: I think I may be deemed an apologist for the AI - so be it. [8D]
The AI as I recall randomly selects one of 12 different aggressiveness scripts at game start. Having played through 3.5 games I have been impressed with the variations I have experienced.
(The Midway variant was indeed one of my experiences as well; A Normantown invasion was another; a deep push into Canton Island and Fiji was a third)
But..
1) Most players (Allied or Japanese) have the benefit of almost perfect historical hindsight.
We bought the game because of our interest in the history of the subject. That translates to the tendency to rush troops, supplies, logistic support to key bases you deem critical to your long term objectives. The Allies did not have such perfect foresight in 1942.
2) What is your real objective ?
What is wrong with the pure objective of massively defeating the AI given the above ?
One experienced veteran poster responded to me once - his objective was to win a decisive victory by December 1942 (Victory Points Ratio). I inquired if this included the invasion of Tokyo - it did not; but it is his preference - great if he so enjoys.
I define my game objectives as the capture of Tokyo. I play on despite achieving the required ratio of VP points. I do find the AI very capable in defense through 1944.
I tend to disagree with "allowing the AI" early wins - but that is my preferred play style (*see 4 below).
3) House-rules.
Many good ones mentioned above.
Only ship fuel in tankers
Only rearm ships where an AKE or AK is present
Obey or adhere to stacking limits. Use DaBabes mod that imposes much harsher stacking penalties
One I personally think should be more often implemented : Off map ship movements of supply and fuel REQUIRE an escort; at least 1 for every 10 ships. Minimum would be a Armed Merchant Cruiser (AMC) or DD / DE. Rationale - this reflects the German menace of Uboats / German Raiders in the Atlantic through 1943. Your would be surprised how precious those escorts are in the early days and how long it takes to assemble critical mass to ship "off map" when you want to optimize i.e. Eastern USA to Capetown supply routes.
4) No re-load challenge.
The AI never gets hurt feelings if you reload a turn. I get it.
However depending on your personal objectives - don't reload. Make a house rule.
Or limit your reloads - 1 'mulligan' per year maximum.
The game is incredibly detail rich. They ability to pump out 'one perfect turn after another' without some 'brain dead settings'; further without the benefit of a reload adds another layer of complexity to playing against the AI. You will suffer reversals.
Nimitz never had a 'mulligan' [8D] He took calculated risks. Emulate Nimitz. Don't reload past turns.
Bottom line - a game against the AI is what you choose to make it.
A game against a human opponent may indeed be your best ultimate solution; and may be humbling as well [8D]
The AI as I recall randomly selects one of 12 different aggressiveness scripts at game start. Having played through 3.5 games I have been impressed with the variations I have experienced.
(The Midway variant was indeed one of my experiences as well; A Normantown invasion was another; a deep push into Canton Island and Fiji was a third)
But..
1) Most players (Allied or Japanese) have the benefit of almost perfect historical hindsight.
We bought the game because of our interest in the history of the subject. That translates to the tendency to rush troops, supplies, logistic support to key bases you deem critical to your long term objectives. The Allies did not have such perfect foresight in 1942.
2) What is your real objective ?
What is wrong with the pure objective of massively defeating the AI given the above ?
One experienced veteran poster responded to me once - his objective was to win a decisive victory by December 1942 (Victory Points Ratio). I inquired if this included the invasion of Tokyo - it did not; but it is his preference - great if he so enjoys.
I define my game objectives as the capture of Tokyo. I play on despite achieving the required ratio of VP points. I do find the AI very capable in defense through 1944.
I tend to disagree with "allowing the AI" early wins - but that is my preferred play style (*see 4 below).
3) House-rules.
Many good ones mentioned above.
Only ship fuel in tankers
Only rearm ships where an AKE or AK is present
Obey or adhere to stacking limits. Use DaBabes mod that imposes much harsher stacking penalties
One I personally think should be more often implemented : Off map ship movements of supply and fuel REQUIRE an escort; at least 1 for every 10 ships. Minimum would be a Armed Merchant Cruiser (AMC) or DD / DE. Rationale - this reflects the German menace of Uboats / German Raiders in the Atlantic through 1943. Your would be surprised how precious those escorts are in the early days and how long it takes to assemble critical mass to ship "off map" when you want to optimize i.e. Eastern USA to Capetown supply routes.
4) No re-load challenge.
The AI never gets hurt feelings if you reload a turn. I get it.
However depending on your personal objectives - don't reload. Make a house rule.
Or limit your reloads - 1 'mulligan' per year maximum.
The game is incredibly detail rich. They ability to pump out 'one perfect turn after another' without some 'brain dead settings'; further without the benefit of a reload adds another layer of complexity to playing against the AI. You will suffer reversals.
Nimitz never had a 'mulligan' [8D] He took calculated risks. Emulate Nimitz. Don't reload past turns.
Bottom line - a game against the AI is what you choose to make it.
A game against a human opponent may indeed be your best ultimate solution; and may be humbling as well [8D]