Matrix Games Forums

An interesting question...I have been seeing some comments that seem to indicate War Plan Orange may be very closely the same model as WITP but with likely less hard coded elements controlling the AI responses.

Is it possible, in general, that we are modding the wrong game? That perhaps we should be modding WPO?

I do not own WPO so I am unsure of what changes in the game engine were made, if any.

The AI in WPO is, if this is even possible, a bit weaker...

Oh, and WPO isn't moddable to the end of WWII. I believe it can't be modded beyond 1940.

Also from what I read WPO does not have radar.

Correct (for obvious reasons). All radar effects were edited out...

The author of WPO used the WIP campaign editor and rewrote the AI. Many mod and scenario authors forget that they can do this and used the hard coded AI set for the main WIP campaign.

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: donnie_1974_texas

An interesting question...I have been seeing some comments that seem to indicate War Plan Orange may be very closely the same model as WITP but with likely less hard coded elements controlling the AI responses.

Is it possible, in general, that we are modding the wrong game? That perhaps we should be modding WPO?

I do not own WPO so I am unsure of what changes in the game engine were made, if any.

Don't think they forget, I think they're intimidated by it. I know I am...

me too

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

The author of WPO used the WIP campaign editor and rewrote the AI. Many mod and scenario authors forget that they can do this and used the hard coded AI set for the main WIP campaign.

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: donnie_1974_texas

An interesting question...I have been seeing some comments that seem to indicate War Plan Orange may be very closely the same model as WITP but with likely less hard coded elements controlling the AI responses.

Is it possible, in general, that we are modding the wrong game? That perhaps we should be modding WPO?

I do not own WPO so I am unsure of what changes in the game engine were made, if any.

Where is the WIP campaign editor? Is it a part of the scenario editor?

Yes... There's a series of buttons for manipulating the different AI modules. I remember Tankerace have a HORRIBLE time beating on them...

I think the AI in WPO & WITP are similar, both are acceptable in the smaller scenarios and early in the campaigns. I've had funny things happen in WPO as I have in WITP.
 
Breaking the back of this, would make WITP an excellent game for the vast number of solo players.
 
An aid may be to compress/delete/combine the number of units and bases, I think AI gets flustered easily and given too many options, fails. (But in Oct 43, scen 155, I left Jesselton ungarrisoned, the troops were on a slow convoy[:)], and the Jap AI recaptured it.) Play to its script and it works, the problem is how to improve its script.
 
As I've mentioned, Drongo did an excellent scenario where the AI got aggressive. He deleted a lot of smaller bases and forced the Allies into a more set channel. This allowed the AI to react better and made it a harder task for the Allies.

ORIGINAL: JeffK
An aid may be to compress/delete/combine the number of units and bases, I think AI gets flustered easily and given too many options, fails. (But in Oct 43, scen 155, I left Jesselton ungarrisoned, the troops were on a slow convoy[:)], and the Jap AI recaptured it.) Play to its script and it works, the problem is how to improve its script.

As I've mentioned, Drongo did an excellent scenario where the AI got aggressive. He deleted a lot of smaller bases and forced the Allies into a more set channel. This allowed the AI to react better and made it a harder task for the Allies.

While this sounds very logical, making it smaller would destroy much of the detail and complexity that really make the game what it is (IMHO). I'm not very optimistic but would hope some sort of code and or script stimulus to get the AI react better would eventually be a reality. Ideally, from a very layman's point of view. I would like to see the AI respond much like in the game Civilization IV (w/o the SigInt cheating by the computer). However, I am not so dumb to see that WITP is significantly more complex in its options than Civ IV and this is an over simplification of the issue.

I can hope can't I.

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I think the AI in WPO & WITP are similar, both are acceptable in the smaller scenarios and early in the campaigns. I've had funny things happen in WPO as I have in WITP.

Breaking the back of this, would make WITP an excellent game for the vast number of solo players.

An aid may be to compress/delete/combine the number of units and bases, I think AI gets flustered easily and given too many options, fails. (But in Oct 43, scen 155, I left Jesselton ungarrisoned, the troops were on a slow convoy[:)], and the Jap AI recaptured it.) Play to its script and it works, the problem is how to improve its script.

As I've mentioned, Drongo did an excellent scenario where the AI got aggressive. He deleted a lot of smaller bases and forced the Allies into a more set channel. This allowed the AI to react better and made it a harder task for the Allies.

I think more bases HELP the AI. For example, it retreats better. Economically, a stupid AI has more to lose - so more = better that way too.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I think the AI in WPO & WITP are similar, both are acceptable in the smaller scenarios and early in the campaigns. I've had funny things happen in WPO as I have in WITP.

Breaking the back of this, would make WITP an excellent game for the vast number of solo players.

An aid may be to compress/delete/combine the number of units and bases, I think AI gets flustered easily and given too many options, fails. (But in Oct 43, scen 155, I left Jesselton ungarrisoned, the troops were on a slow convoy[:)], and the Jap AI recaptured it.) Play to its script and it works, the problem is how to improve its script.

As I've mentioned, Drongo did an excellent scenario where the AI got aggressive. He deleted a lot of smaller bases and forced the Allies into a more set channel. This allowed the AI to react better and made it a harder task for the Allies.

I think more bases HELP the AI. For example, it retreats better. Economically, a stupid AI has more to lose - so more = better that way too.

I hear you Sid, but isn't it the limited number of options or responses in a computer chess game that enables the computer to play the game so well. This may be a apples and oranges comparison, but does seem logical.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Don't think they forget, I think they're intimidated by it. I know I am...

Good point! I'm not intimidated, i don't know how to do it. It's a different thing.

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: JeffK
An aid may be to compress/delete/combine the number of units and bases, I think AI gets flustered easily and given too many options, fails. (But in Oct 43, scen 155, I left Jesselton ungarrisoned, the troops were on a slow convoy[:)], and the Jap AI recaptured it.) Play to its script and it works, the problem is how to improve its script.

As I've mentioned, Drongo did an excellent scenario where the AI got aggressive. He deleted a lot of smaller bases and forced the Allies into a more set channel. This allowed the AI to react better and made it a harder task for the Allies.

While this sounds very logical, making it smaller would destroy much of the detail and complexity that really make the game what it is (IMHO). I'm not very optimistic but would hope some sort of code and or script stimulus to get the AI react better would eventually be a reality. Ideally, from a very layman's point of view. I would like to see the AI respond much like in the game Civilization IV (w/o the SigInt cheating by the computer). However, I am not so dumb to see that WITP is significantly more complex in its options than Civ IV and this is an over simplification of the issue.

I can hope can't I.

Fair enough, when playing PBEM.

But having too many "beach" spots allows the Human player to land at places the AI will not consider defending, taking these away forces the Human to attack the key targets and also allows the AI to defend them.

A major change to the AI would be to stop it from amassing hundreds of ships in ports too close to enemy LBA, seems to do it for both sides. Would this be because the ships are allocated to a higher command that in turn, sets up too close to the front??

IMHO, fixing the AI will take the game to an even higher level.

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: JeffK
An aid may be to compress/delete/combine the number of units and bases, I think AI gets flustered easily and given too many options, fails. (But in Oct 43, scen 155, I left Jesselton ungarrisoned, the troops were on a slow convoy[:)], and the Jap AI recaptured it.) Play to its script and it works, the problem is how to improve its script.

As I've mentioned, Drongo did an excellent scenario where the AI got aggressive. He deleted a lot of smaller bases and forced the Allies into a more set channel. This allowed the AI to react better and made it a harder task for the Allies.

While this sounds very logical, making it smaller would destroy much of the detail and complexity that really make the game what it is (IMHO). I'm not very optimistic but would hope some sort of code and or script stimulus to get the AI react better would eventually be a reality. Ideally, from a very layman's point of view. I would like to see the AI respond much like in the game Civilization IV (w/o the SigInt cheating by the computer). However, I am not so dumb to see that WITP is significantly more complex in its options than Civ IV and this is an over simplification of the issue.

I can hope can't I.

Fair enough, when playing PBEM.

But having too many "beach" spots allows the Human player to land at places the AI will not consider defending, taking these away forces the Human to attack the key targets and also allows the AI to defend them.

A major change to the AI would be to stop it from amassing hundreds of ships in ports too close to enemy LBA, seems to do it for both sides. Would this be because the ships are allocated to a higher command that in turn, sets up too close to the front??

IMHO, fixing the AI will take the game to an even higher level.

The problem you can land at many points is the reality. You cannot defend them all and be strong everywhere. NOT to have the beaches is poor simulation of this reality IMHO. IF I had more slots you would see EVERY beach of value to a major landing force. The AI is right to focus defense on major points IMHO as well. That is not a problem as far as I am concerned.

We do not know how AI controls ships? But for LAND and AIR units, it allocates to LOWER HQ than we can. I think the ship AI routines are way too simple to work well - and do not recommend letting AI control them - even in a "computer controlled" game. You need to aid the AI or MOST of your shipping will be wasted and then lost.

This thread is about modding to aid the AI. We are strictly limited in that regard. And there is probably not a high demand to fix the code. It is a hard thing to do this - and not very visible - not "chrome" but the "guts" as it were. Hard = time consuming = expensive to do. Not done by modders = not done for free either.