Can patch address these

[Paul Goodman]

OK, I've got PacWar back on my computer and I am trying to figure out what is really happening in this game in the combat situation. Will the patch address any of the following examples, which seem odd to me.

1. When playing against Japanese AI, Allied aircraft losses seem totally unreal. I assume this in a built-in AI advantage, as results don't seem odd when playing both sides as human.

2. The following example is interesting, as it not only involves an understandable AI cheat, but something really odd. It is early 1943. The entire Japanese carrier force is in port in Saipan (observed with both human players). With Japanese AI, Allies attack Saipan, these carriers, which were in port, are suddenly in task forces and have a reaction move which inflicts substantially losses on the Allied carrier force, with U.S. fighters (about 80 experience) dropping like flies. Reset the scene and change to both human players. Same attack by U.S. Carriers on Saipan. This time there is no reaction move by the Japanese. In fact, there is no one home in Saipan. A look around finds the carriers in port in Truk. Not in task forces, in port. Hmmm. Keeping on, the U.S. carriers task force is then targeted to Truk. As you might guess, no body home. In fact, the Japanese carriers are now in Guam.

I really don't know how you guys play this game with this stuff going on. I've known for a long time that if you want to attack the enemy carriers, you have to occupy a nearby port and set up for a reaction move. It would really be nice to be able to apply some strategy and tactics.

Will the patch address these areas?

[babyseal7]

Well, it's pretty much suicide to attack the Jp. carriers in the early war with your U.S. carriers anyway. I usually try to hold/fortify Indonesia and/or Truk (Rabaul?) and the surrounding areas and wear/beat them down with landbased aviation before I let my carriers anywhere near them, and not till I've got 2 carrier TF's working in conjunction, with the first AA upgrade in effect. Until then I leave them parked someplace safe with the air units set on "training".

The game might be weighted to give the Jp. naval aviation an edge (and amazing how often they manage to limp home after being hammered to scrap), but let's face it, once you've zapped their carriers the game is pretty much overwith anyway...the rest is just tedious time killing as the Jps. go kicking and screaming to defeat.

One thing I'd like to see in the patch in the air units not "auto-upgrading" to the next new class aircraft...you end up with understrength units for months waiting for production to catch up with losses. This is especially crucial in the naval aircaft and the Wellington bombers.

[Paul Goodman]

I really wasn't doing this as an example of sound strategy. I am trying to understand what is going on inside the game. The real interest in the strategy, I think, is that Midway was truly a "miracle." It should not be repeatable under gaming conditions, or at least, only one time out of a hundred tries or so. Then what? Hawaii? Australia?

The U.S. carriers carried out numerous raids during 1942 and 1943 against Japanese island bases. These raids resulted in the wearing down of Japanese air power and necessitated spreading out of air defense forces. In PacWar, numerous attacks by Zero fighters, each inflicting losses on the U.S. forces at a rate of 2 or 3 to one (even after Hellcats are available) result in a greater degradation of the quality of U.S. fighters than of Japanese fighters. And the performance of the P-38 (which devastated Japanese air power in the South Pacific) against the Zero is more like we would expect from a Sopwith Camel. Surely this kind of stuff can be fixed.

Paul

[babyseal7]

Pretty sure it's hardwired in, and neccessary. Toward the latter 2 years of the war or so, the Allies get much better performance out of their aircraft in game. It wasn't just the superiority of the hardware...tactics, experience, and training played a major role. First coupla years the Allies sucked pond water, until you loose the Buffalos and other crap A/C, and gain a high experience level they just plain screwed. P40's and F4F's need a very high experience level to be effective at all, and Allied fighters without an experience level in the 80's and above are hurting. You really don't lose that many A/C in actual combat, a considerable number are "damaged". Repairing those A/C eats up supplies and points. Check your carrier stats after combat for example...you DO lose alot of A/C on the ground after a losing defense of an airbase against an air attack, or from naval gunfire.

You tend to get more Jp. carrier TF "reaction moves", especially early in the game because you're operating almost exclusively in Jp. AZOCs. That's the point I was trying to make about setting up in Rabaul for example...build up the airbases in all the surrounding bases as quickly as possible and shuffle A/C in to give you a local AZOC. Then it's the Jps. eating up points and aircraft fighting off your landbased air attacks, and with luck once they move close enough to Rabaul your carriers parked out of the way to the South will make a reaction move and attack. With even more luck they won't get mauled to badly.

After a major Jp. carrier TF (or two) makes a reaction move and hits your carrier TF with pre-emptive airstikes you usually deadmeat because your fighters are gone, half your fleet is sinking, and your game points for mounting a full scale return strike have been greatly reduced by your activities setting up that turns movements. Never move carrier TF's into enemy AZOC's unless they have a "full load" of game points. HQ management is crucial in conserving points.

The game's weighted against "Midways", and against US airpower, at least in the early game, because without it there is no gameplay. Once US production kicks in, and without a strong carrier fleet the Jps. are defenseless against a coordinated "island hopping" campaign, with the US able to project overwhelming airpower against any particular point.

Once the Jp. carriers are gone or neutralized, the game deteriorates into "bean counting"; ie. trying to make sure your forward bases are well enough supplied with points and supplies to upgrade the airbases and mount air ops, and stockpiling supplies and troops to mount your next amphibious assault.

[Peter Bollmann]

The AI in WIR is also cheating. Is it really bad if the AI is cheating? At first I thought yes. But if you watch a magician in a show it looks like magic. The only difference is that we know that there is no magic. Nevertheless we enjoy the show. If the AI is cheating we get the illusion of a competent AI opponent. We only find out the difference by systematic testing. But in a virtual reality like a game it is maybe not so important wether the AI is intelligent or simulates intelligence by cheating. At least as long as it is not overdone.

[Rich Dionne]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Goodman:

"1. When playing against Japanese AI, Allied aircraft losses seem totally unreal. I assume this in a built-in AI advantage, as results don't seem odd when playing both sides as human."

The AI definitely cheats in this way. It augments the performance or experience or both to make it tougher on human opponents. If you don't like the extra challenge (which can be frustrating), you can set the play during execution to "Both human" to even the score. See the Pacific War list for ideas on this (http://www.halisp.net/listserv/pacwar/date.html)

"2. ...With Japanese AI, Allies attack Saipan, these carriers, which were in port, are suddenly in task forces and have a reaction move which inflicts substantially losses on the Allied carrier force..."

During the AI orders phase, the computer will set up task forces; of course, it won't do this on "All human mode". In addition, the computer will use something akin to the "Reinforce HQ" command to move its forces around the map during it orders phase. This is why you see ships in different locations when you observe the game using different player modes.