Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: LeeChard

An AI that would be able to change it's mission when it hits a brick wall would be my first choice.
I've had the AI attempt to take a position that I had strong forces at and it tries over and over while I'm sinking ships like target practice [>:]

You've never had a human opponent like that?

ORIGINAL: LeeChard
An AI that would be able to change it's mission when it hits a brick wall would be my first choice.
I've had the AI attempt to take a position that I had strong forces at and it tries over and over while I'm sinking ships like target practice [>:]

Not that much of a problem. Comparison of force in/before a given attack is rather simple. That is one of the downsides of a script AI. It tends to just "execute", no matter how suicidal it will be. Unless there are scripted checks for the situation.
The huge benefit of a script is that you can predefine smart moves, or the pace of conquest. AE does a very fine job with it's scripts.

But there are weak spots.
In AE I once won as japan by just using subs and defending territory from beginning. Did not capture much more than a few oil sources, shut down shipyards and most other industry. The allied AI kept sending AKs in a line south of Makin/Tarawa. By 43 I had victory almost by using subs alone. Plus there were a few attacks on strongholds, like described by you.
Playing the game vs. AI pretty quickly lost attractiveness to me. Especially if you played several times and recognize the AI actions early in game and know the script pattern for the rest of the game.

The downside of adaptive AI, on the other hand, is miscalculation, stupid moves, too slow pace, high CPU stressing during decision making. But personally I prefer unpredictably stupid over predictably suicidal.

does this belong here?

How about a 'training scenario' where the player can test the different mechanics of the game (without the allied player turn).
The concept is the same as for say like 'at a golf course' where there's a driving range and putting/chipping green where players can visit to help learn the game..

regards

~

ORIGINAL: jhyden

does this belong here?

How about a 'training scenario' where the player can test the different mechanics of the game (without the allied player turn).
The concept is the same as for say like 'at a golf course' where there's a driving range and putting/chipping green where players can visit to help learn the game..

regards

~

And how about one without the Japanese player turn........[8|]

A 8 week "War in the Pacific" bootcamp requirement.

You want to rearm MY Battleship at a level 1 port?!!!!!

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: jhyden

does this belong here?

How about a 'training scenario' where the player can test the different mechanics of the game (without the allied player turn).
The concept is the same as for say like 'at a golf course' where there's a driving range and putting/chipping green where players can visit to help learn the game..

regards

~

And how about one without the Japanese player turn........[8|]

of course! [:)]

~

One thing i would like is a notation for minimum airfield size for planes. Why do i have to figure out 4 + (max load of aircraft/4500)? Thats math. Im using a computer. Its job is to do math. Why do i have to calculate that seperatly?

Also, an in game note pad would be nice.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: LeeChard

An AI that would be able to change it's mission when it hits a brick wall would be my first choice.
I've had the AI attempt to take a position that I had strong forces at and it tries over and over while I'm sinking ships like target practice [>:]

You've never had a human opponent like that?

I've only played one game against another player. It went well but I'm retired and I tend to play at odd hours, sometimes I wake up at 3:00AM and play for a couple hours.
I'm not complaining about my opponent, he taught me how to play by email and we exchanged turns nearly every day but I find myself impatient to play when I'm waiting for the other side.
At the moment I'm playing the Japanese campaign. The complexities of the economic management is a game in itself!
This is my fourth attempt. I've made it to Nov.'42 without throwing in the towel.
A record for me[:D]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
I don't know if someone's mentioned this but I wish you could order naval bombardment missions' target priority by percentage for port, airbase and LCUs. Much of the time I'd put 100% on the airfield and I'd probably order more such missions.

Hi Gorn !

Is this picture aproximately what you imagined?

Rouge187: "Supply bases" would be done as supply TFs that take care of the needs 10*reaction range hexes around the home base.
Bases that stockpile stop the TF from shipping away supply. Would that seem fit?

Fatigue for subs added. Assigning a new CO sets a minimum fatigue to prevent player from exchanging duds before their first patrol.
Any Idea on how long sub crews did spend ashore after a war patrol?

It's what I would like to see....GP

A nice addition to subs would be a kill count like how aircraft squadrons keep track of total kills. You might be able to treat sub captains like pilots to see who are the most successful captains.

What I'd really like to see is some form of hour-by-hour intersection between the Naval movement and air attack phases, if not a way to combine the two so that the use of float planes as spotters or the continual presence of attack aircraft in a surface battle is modeled.

ORIGINAL: btd64

It's what I would like to see....GP

me too

ORIGINAL: CharlieVane

What I'd really like to see is some form of hour-by-hour intersection between the Naval movement and air attack phases, if not a way to combine the two so that the use of float planes as spotters or the continual presence of attack aircraft in a surface battle is modeled.

That would be excessive cpu computing burden

and franly not a necessary feature, ceirtanly not along the lines of a 2By3 game style

@RichardAckerman:

Any Idea on how long sub crews did spend ashore after a war patrol?

Depends on condition of the boat, length of previous patrol, repairs required, etc.
IRL it averaged between 2-4 weeks after patrols (usually shorter periods with light tender repairs on a forward base - there was almost nothing to do on Manus or Midway anyway - with longer period including refits, new gun mounts, radars, shears and scope rearrangements usually performed at major bases like Pearl, Brisbane or Fremantle). Major (stateside) overhaul generally took more than 4 weeks - sometimes with replacement of diesels, major hull repairs, etc. But the major stateside overhauls were not that much common. I doubt any active sub had more than 1 or 2 during the war.

ORIGINAL: CharlieVane
What I'd really like to see is some form of hour-by-hour intersection between the Naval movement and air attack phases, if not a way to combine the two so that the use of float planes as spotters or the continual presence of attack aircraft in a surface battle is modeled.

My game is hour by hour based, but the combats are separated - no air attack during surface combat. Launching idle spotter planes during naval combat might be doable.
Using subs during naval combat is possible. CS Chiyoda was designed to carry 12 midgets to be dropped like a mobile minefield in combat. I think they never actually did, but I included the ships ability to do so. I also thought about how to have all TF in a hex participate in one naval combat.

Thanks for the info, Barb. I was just looking for how fast to decrease the subs fatigue when in port. So I guess 14 days for an undamaged sub after 45 to 60 days patrol would fit it.

A device that would let you load a pre-saved first turn setup to a new game.

ORIGINAL: RichardAckermann

Thanks for the info, Barb. I was just looking for how fast to decrease the subs fatigue when in port. So I guess 14 days for an undamaged sub after 45 to 60 days patrol would fit it.

Probably the minimum would be 14, but should be more random between 14 and 28. Add damage repairs to that, but include most of the upgrades to fit in. One "Shipyard" repair per sub per war in 30-60 days duration should be included in ship upgrades.

ORIGINAL: Barb

ORIGINAL: RichardAckermann

Thanks for the info, Barb. I was just looking for how fast to decrease the subs fatigue when in port. So I guess 14 days for an undamaged sub after 45 to 60 days patrol would fit it.

Probably the minimum would be 14, but should be more random between 14 and 28. Add damage repairs to that, but include most of the upgrades to fit in. One "Shipyard" repair per sub per war in 30-60 days duration should be included in ship upgrades.

Why not , and simply, to introduce- FINALLY!- fatigue for ships crews, finally, finally!

ORIGINAL: Yaab
A device that would let you load a pre-saved first turn setup to a new game.

Basically possible, under the restriction that it would only work for "units" in existence at game start. I.E. No order import for new TFs, split airgroups, LCU, new Midgets, barges, etc that were created after scenario start.
This is due to the second player may create "units" that have the same slot ID# than what the first player used. Both players could create a TF using fleet slot #6 on their computer. Primarily the same problem that arises with the proposed "WEGO" game style.

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner
Why not , and simply, to introduce- FINALLY!- fatigue for ships crews, finally, finally!

I've done so for sub crews. +1 fatigue per day in any TF. I just had no idea how fast to decrease fatigue for disbanded subs. I'm not sure if fatigue does make sense for surface ships, though. They seem to be less long on mission. And less uncomfortable to their crews.