Page 4 of 8
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:42 am
by John Lansford
ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
This retaking of Canton after all the effort I went to to take it is realy not on - <note to self to do something about it>
Heh; no matter what you send to Canton, without any LBA in range to support or a CV or two lurking to the west, there's no way the AI can put enough troops there to keep me from taking it back. I sent what few CA's I had floating in to bombard for multiple turns, then my 3 CV's pounded it for a while, then the NZ troops made a landing and took the base. Had the NZ troops not been in Suva (yes they're headed back very soon, there's other guys there already too...) I have two regiments from Oahu headed there to do the job.
Canton is just too far forward for the AI to grab that quickly. I would have been much more alarmed if it had taken Apanama and Baker first, since they are close enough to Tarawa/Makin for support and surface TF's from Kwajalein could still intervene. Canton, though? That was isolated and easy pickings for my resources, and gave us Allies a boost to morale too!
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:49 am
by EUBanana
ORIGINAL: John Lansford
Canton is just too far forward for the AI to grab that quickly. I would have been much more alarmed if it had taken Apanama and Baker first, since they are close enough to Tarawa/Makin for support and surface TF's from Kwajalein could still intervene. Canton, though? That was isolated and easy pickings for my resources, and gave us Allies a boost to morale too!
The AI did take Baker first in my game, though it got beaten horrifically by CAs from Canton doing so.
Then it tried to take Canton, and got beat by the same CAs, who are based there. It has tried a couple of times now, but those CAs are not moving!
Very long range Betty intervention seems quite hit and miss, I loitered at Baker for a while and got away with it. Might be the AI being stoopid but it's been very good with the Betties so far...
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:03 am
by Andy Mac
Just watch this space next time the AI will do better.
I have a cunning plan.
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:12 am
by oldman45
ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
This retaking of Canton after all the effort I went to to take it is realy not on - <note to self to do something about it>
Don't spend too much effort on it, there were enough surprises in that region [;)] [8D]
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:45 am
by Grollub
ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
Yup but it does leave TF's exposed but I has a cunning plan !!!
Is it as cunning as the one refrerred to in my sig?
If so, then I'm worried ... [X(]
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:45 pm
by John Lansford
I'm rushing several defense battalions to Canton in my current turn; I've seen enough of the AI so far to realize once it decides it wants something, it brings a bigger hammer on the 2nd try. Also Canton is not that far from either Palmyra or Pago Pago and I'm building both up so ships bigger than a DD can hang out for a while too. Suva is already well defended but I'm sending more men there as well, just in case.
I'm actually hoping the AI decides to send a couple of CV's in that direction; as long as it's not the full KB I feel able to match them or even outnumber them with my 4 CV's in the area.
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:15 pm
by thunar
This just happened in my game too. It's not such a big deal when they sneak an AP over to Fanafuti with a raiding force, but when they attack Koumac with no escorts when I've got quite a few cruisers and destroyers off Noumea...
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:57 pm
by medicff
Andy, do you recommend scenario 2 for a better long term challenge?
Thanks
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:12 pm
by Andy Mac
Yes I think so it will give you a better game v the AI
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 6:07 pm
by bradfordkay
How is the AI in the Dec8 grand campaign?
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 6:12 pm
by jhdeerslayer
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
How is the AI in the Dec8 grand campaign?
Was wondering that too with maybe Hard or Very Hard thrown in as well for comment.
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 6:35 pm
by Weidi72
AI landed in San Francisco and caused to activate the counter invasion force. But only with 4 guns. [&:]
Ground combat at San Francisco (218,70)
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 0 troops, 4 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1
Defending force 59058 troops, 745 guns, 1978 vehicles, Assault Value = 579
Japanese ground losses:
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Assaulting units:
Defending units:
754th Tank Battalion
SF Harbor Defenses
57th Coastal Artillery Regiment
Americal Infantry Division
193rd Tank Battalion
7th Mot Infantry Division
811th Engineer Aviation Battalion
96th Coast AA Regiment
95th Coast AA Regiment
226th Field Artillery Battalion
810th Engineer Aviation Battalion
216th Coast AA Regiment
70th Coast AA Regiment
West Coast
223rd Field Artillery Battalion
San Francisco Base Force
197th Coast AA Regiment
208th Coast AA Regiment
255th USN Base Force
198th Field Artillery Battalion
IV US Bomber Cmnd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wiped Out at San Francisco by attrition!!!
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 6:52 pm
by Andy Mac
Huh I need a save of that one please ASAP
a.mcphie@btinternet.com
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:00 pm
by Scott_USN
ORIGINAL: Weidi72
AI landed in San Francisco and caused to activate the counter invasion force. But only with 4 guns. [&:]
Ground combat at San Francisco (218,70)
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 0 troops, 4 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1
Defending force 59058 troops, 745 guns, 1978 vehicles, Assault Value = 579
Japanese ground losses:
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Assaulting units:
Defending units:
754th Tank Battalion
SF Harbor Defenses
57th Coastal Artillery Regiment
Americal Infantry Division
193rd Tank Battalion
7th Mot Infantry Division
811th Engineer Aviation Battalion
96th Coast AA Regiment
95th Coast AA Regiment
226th Field Artillery Battalion
810th Engineer Aviation Battalion
216th Coast AA Regiment
70th Coast AA Regiment
West Coast
223rd Field Artillery Battalion
San Francisco Base Force
197th Coast AA Regiment
208th Coast AA Regiment
255th USN Base Force
198th Field Artillery Battalion
IV US Bomber Cmnd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wiped Out at San Francisco by attrition!!!
4 lonely Japanese soldiers against 59,058 troops, 745 guns and 1900 APC's Jeeps and Tanks
LMAO
They are brave....
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:01 pm
by USSAmerica
ORIGINAL: Weidi72
AI landed in San Francisco and caused to activate the counter invasion force. But only with 4 guns. [&:]
Ground combat at San Francisco (218,70)
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 0 troops, 4 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1
Defending force 59058 troops, 745 guns, 1978 vehicles, Assault Value = 579
Japanese ground losses:
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Assaulting units:
Defending units:
754th Tank Battalion
SF Harbor Defenses
57th Coastal Artillery Regiment
Americal Infantry Division
193rd Tank Battalion
7th Mot Infantry Division
811th Engineer Aviation Battalion
96th Coast AA Regiment
95th Coast AA Regiment
226th Field Artillery Battalion
810th Engineer Aviation Battalion
216th Coast AA Regiment
70th Coast AA Regiment
West Coast
223rd Field Artillery Battalion
San Francisco Base Force
197th Coast AA Regiment
208th Coast AA Regiment
255th USN Base Force
198th Field Artillery Battalion
IV US Bomber Cmnd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wiped Out at San Francisco by attrition!!!
Feinder himself couldn't have come up with a better anomaly. [:D]
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:02 pm
by USSAmerica
Where's John Belushi when you need him? [:D]
Oh, that's right! He's hiding behind the sunglasses on the loading screen. [;)]
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:14 pm
by HMS Resolution
My eternal regards to the man who mods AE to replace the loading screen pictures with John Belushi in his P-40.
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:33 pm
by Laxplayer
ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution
My eternal regards to the man who mods AE to replace the loading screen pictures with John Belushi in his P-40.
Either that, or a pic from his Samurai Deli days and flying a zero.
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:47 pm
by Ketza
Maybe it was just some Japanese POWS that got off "The Rock".
RE: AI a little /too/ aggressive?
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:53 pm
by langleyCV1
The AI seems to sent jap bombers out without an escort far too often in my eyes is anybody else seeing this!
MJT