AI cheats with teleports?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Shellshock

ORIGINAL: Remenents

Had something similar. Playing a Allies, I bombed a fleet consisting of 2 carriers and some cruisers. I sank 2 crusiers and damaged both carriers. Next turn... the TF was simply gone. So I loaded the game as both players to see what the hell happened, suddenly, their TF that was near Gudalcanal, was now in Tokoyo. Wth? What kind of garbage is that? I mean,if the AI can cheat, it makes me not even want to play. Teleporting ships that far is just silly.

You might want to read the thread Alfred posted a liltte more closely--

ORIGINAL: Alfred
An existing on map TF is never teleported. It complies with the same exact movement factors which confront a human player. This includes fuel consumption and availability. A common complaint from players who only play against the computer is that later in the war IJN activity drops alarmingly. This is usually due either to the script not being called into play or much more commonly, a lack of fuel at the ports where the bulk of the IJN resides.

Teleportation in the game usually involves ship being pulled from port to form a TF.

So the terminology Remenents used was imprecise. Don't overlook the forest for the trees, Shellshock. It's very annoying playing the AI that cheats. I don't care the reason or rationale. But using other worldly tricks (and not letting the human know *how* it is doing them) is annoying as all get up. My personal (least) favorite is under 'hard' or 'very hard' where the AI doesn't have to worry about supply issues. That fundamentally changes the game for me, as it is no longer possible to starve out garrisons by cutting off their LOS.

So don't shoot the messenger. I totally understand the frustration that AI only players like Remenents feel.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
My personal (least) favorite is under 'hard' or 'very hard' where the AI doesn't have to worry about supply issues. That fundamentally changes the game for me, as it is no longer possible to starve out garrisons by cutting off their LOS.

That is a myth. I have been playing Ironman very hard the whole game, and have starved out countless Allied garrisons by cutting off supply.

Ground combat at Amoy (83,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 18587 troops, 144 guns, 175 vehicles, Assault Value = 570

Defending force 18288 troops, 83 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 306

Japanese adjusted assault: 204

Allied adjusted defense: 37

Japanese assault odds: 5 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(+), morale(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
783 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 36 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled

Allied ground losses:
962 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 154 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 51 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 8 (1 destroyed, 7 disabled)

Assaulting units:
66th Infantry Regiment
19th Ind.Mixed Brigade
51st Engineer Regiment
102nd Infantry Regiment
19th Tank Regiment
18th Tank Regiment
Amoy Special Base Force
32nd JNAF AF Unit

Defending units:
63rd Chinese Corps
65th Chinese Corps
7th War Area
12th Group Army

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

...So the terminology Remenents used was imprecise. Don't overlook the forest for the trees, Shellshock. It's very annoying playing the AI that cheats. I don't care the reason or rationale. But using other worldly tricks (and not letting the human know *how* it is doing them) is annoying as all get up. My personal (least) favorite is under 'hard' or 'very hard' where the AI doesn't have to worry about supply issues. That fundamentally changes the game for me, as it is no longer possible to starve out garrisons by cutting off their LOS.

So don't shoot the messenger. I totally understand the frustration that AI only players like Remenents feel.

1. Not true re starvation. Try finding another.

2. The human chooses the "Hard" or "Very Hard" levels instead of playing under the default "Historical" level.

3. Exactly how do you propose to differentiate the hard/Very hard levels from the Historical level. Based on the many years of you beating this drum, absolutely anything done to differentiate the levels amounts to "cheating".

4. Would you prefer that at the "Very Hard" level, the human player would have to pay double the supply cost to get replacements, human ship fuel consumption rates were doubled, human ships sank when they reached 50% flotation damage, human aircraft mvr ratings were halved, human LCUs experience gains from combat were capped to 50%. Those steps, and many others, would certainly allow no changes to be made to the AI at the harder levels but still achieve the intent of the human player who decides the default setting is too easy.

5. As you like to use the pejorative term "cheats", in the spirit of equality perhaps we could stop some of the human "cheats" which are not available to the AI. Cheats like PDU ON, where the human player can change the historical upgrade path which the computer player can't do, or the human player can downgrade a rear area air unit to flying obsolete airframes, thereby freeing top line aircraft models to be used on the frontlines, again an action which the computer player cannot do. There are several other human player "cheats" which unbalance the game against the computer who is unable to reciprocate. I've never seen you opposing their use.

6. There are quite a few forumites who only play against the computer and never get frustrated at what you call AI cheats. PaxMondo, Sardaukar, rustyi, to quickly name just three, don't complain. Perhaps because they are adults who take responsibility for their own actions. They don't emulate the behaviour of players like Remenents. The human v computer only group is much more diverse than your typical representation of them. Some of them wish for much greater assistance were to be provided to the AI; those players are very strong supporters of the non-historical Tier 3 Ironman scenarios.

Alfred

[Shellshock]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

So the terminology Remenents used was imprecise. Don't overlook the forest for the trees, Shellshock. It's very annoying playing the AI that cheats. I don't care the reason or rationale. But using other worldly tricks (and not letting the human know *how* it is doing them) is annoying as all get up. My personal (least) favorite is under 'hard' or 'very hard' where the AI doesn't have to worry about supply issues. That fundamentally changes the game for me, as it is no longer possible to starve out garrisons by cutting off their LOS.

So don't shoot the messenger. I totally understand the frustration that AI only players like Remenents feel.

Oh, I don't begrudge anyone being disappointed that the AI in the game has certain built in advantages the human player doesn't have. I'd love to have a programmed opponent that is as brutally honest as some of these modern Chess AIs are, but obviously WitpAe is far more involved than chess and hasn't been around nearly as many centuries. (although some games have felt that long)

However, human opponents are fraught with issues as well. They drop out, can't keep up the pace or lose interest and just start phoning it in. There are compromises on both sides. After all, humans use tactics against the AI that they can't against other people, such as opening up the game on the other side to see what is going over there.

Having played the both the Allied and Japanese AI I've seen the warts both have. The Japanese AI eventually bumps into points I've fortified to the hilt and bashes its self to death against them and eventually succumbs to the US material avalanche in the latter half of the game. ( Kinda how the actual war played out) The Allied AI finds itself facing qualitatively the best navy in the world in 1941 in human hands and that human wisely avoids any Midway-like debacles and racks up so many points with said navy that the game is usually over by the end of 1942.

So, if the AI gets a few perks along the way I can't resent it as much as I would with a human player.

[RangerJoe]

If you want a harder game as Allies, set up the Japanese economy including the research. Then check it every month before the next month begins so factories don't go into production. Also, play with Realistic Research off so you can switch factories producing obsolete aircraft to research newer models. Supersize air units if you can, set many to training as well. Think of a 90+ Zero unit escorting a 90+ Kate unit on a torpedo run . . .

Also, leave LOTS of fuel and supply at a base with a rail and/or road network to Japanese bases. The computer won't thank you but you may notice the difference.

[Ian R]

As an AI only player, I am glad it "cheats".

I also give the JAI a hand. One thing that really seems to help, in 42-43, is reorganising its tanker fleet from time to time to get oil'fuel flowing to the JHI.

That helps it then, and helps produce a stockpile for later.

[Shellshock]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

As an AI only player, I am glad it "cheats".

I also give the JAI a hand. One thing that really seems to help, in 42-43, is reorganising its tanker fleet from time to time to get oil'fuel flowing to the JHI.

That helps it then, and helps produce a stockpile for later.

One personal house rule idea I've toying with to slow down the tempo of the game against the Japanese AI is giving Allied subs a two-week vacation between patrols. According to the Hyperwar site:

Submarine crews, upon their return from a war patrol, were transferred to a Rest and Recuperation Camp for a period of two weeks while their submarine was being refitted by a relief crew. During this two week period the regular crew had no official duties to perform other than to rest and relax and divorce their minds from all thoughts of war and combat. There were some who criticized this practice as being in the nature of pampering. The submarine force commanders vigorously defended it as being not a luxury but a vital part of submarine warfare. War patrols, normally lasting from 45 to 60 days, introduced a protracted mental tension unknown to other types of warfare. Without the rest periods to ease this tension the personnel would soon have cracked up under the strain.

However, this would involve a certain amount of book-keeping either on paper or in a seperate program to track them. Plus, I don't think it would be applicable to that crazy, hectic period when the Asiatic Fleet subs were trying to defend the Philippines and the Malay barrier.

[Ian R]

However, you might notice that the exe will send manually set up TFs out for repeat patrols with upwards of 20% sys damage, and some engine damage (major)- although not to my observation float damage.

I personally house rule this by checking Adak (ADFB etc set up), PH, Brisbane and Freo (Perth), Colombo - any sub TF with damaged subs is taken offline and sent out later fully upgraded and at zero damage. You can also look at some incoming TFs and change their orders... in fact they usually have damage, so they go into a yard period.

One labour saver on this is to swap a fresh boat into a replenishing TF at port and take the damaged sub out. By checking every day, you can actually save time. That's what in Boston, we call a paradox. [/Frank Costello]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
That is a myth. I have been playing Ironman very hard the whole game, and have starved out countless Allied garrisons by cutting off supply.

Now that *is* interesting. Is this also possible on Sc. 1 and 2 (stock)? If so, has this changed in the last few years?

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
That is a myth. I have been playing Ironman very hard the whole game, and have starved out countless Allied garrisons by cutting off supply.

Now that *is* interesting. Is this also possible on Sc. 1 and 2 (stock)? If so, has this changed in the last few years?

I am not the best person to answer that question as my knowledge of releases and betas is exceptionally small compared to some others here.

I don't recall having seen it in the patch notes, but I didn't search for it which is my primary method of reading patch notes now.

The AI does get supply advantages in very hard...just not as severe as you thought.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
That is a myth. I have been playing Ironman very hard the whole game, and have starved out countless Allied garrisons by cutting off supply.

Now that *is* interesting. Is this also possible on Sc. 1 and 2 (stock)? If so, has this changed in the last few years?

He does specify Allied garrisons. Is it possible that only the Japanese AI gets extra supply in the Hard and Very Hard settings?