Matrix Games Forums

Looking at the other posts, I'm almost afraid to ask this as many players seem to have technical problems w/GoA, but for those who haven't, how's the AI?

Hi Folks....any takers on answering about the AI? [&:]  This REALLY, REALLY is important for a number of us. 
 
Thanks!  [:)]
 
-Longstreet

I cannot comment on the AI, but what are the technical problems mentioned?

I have not heard of, or experienced, any...

I guess he means the Vista issues.

I played as the CP through 1916 and decided to restart.  Why?  Although I captured Paris, I was getting thrashed.  The handwriting was on the wall.  The AI seems to be very good at defending--it plugs holes and launches counteroffensives whenever an important objective is threatened or captured.  I decided to pull a "Moltke" and transfer 3 corps from the Western Front to the Eastern (I know, I know, he only transferred one, historically).  The result?  The Russians launched a limited Masurian Lakes campaign, which is different than they did in an earlier game where I had left the eastern front very loosely guarded.  In that game, the Russians went all out.  So far, I'm not finding any problems with the AI.  Yet to do:  play a game as the Entente to see how the AI handles a sustained offensive.

I normally do not even bother with an AI - I just play against it long enough to understand the game well enough to PBEM against a person.

Might have to change that...

Question for Mr. Hunter...does the AI cheat at all?

Will it do a Gallipoli?

ORIGINAL: CLEVELAND

Will it do a Gallipoli?

Why would you want it be so stupid?

Gotta give the Central Powers a fighting chance.

But didn't France land some troops in Greece as well? Interesting to see if the AI will reinforce far flung fronts.

The TE based close to 500,00 soldiers at Salonika at peak. The Germans joked that it was their largest military prison.

I had the AI land in Cherbourg during one game when it was behind my lines and unmanned.  The same thing happened in another game when the BEF landed in Dunkirk (there's irony in that...).  From what I can tell, troops have to land in ports.  The manual states that they can land in unfriendly ports, and if occupied, will have to fight it out.  The designer included a port in the same geographical location as Gallipoli, so my answer would be "yes," Gallipoli is possible.  And...let's not forget that had a better leadership been present at that landing, it very well could have resulted in Turkey being knocked out of the war.

Interesting fudge for Gallipoli (unless there was an actual port there)

Not really a port--a bay that served as a convenient anchorage.  I think there was a fishing village somewhere nearby, so fudge is the right word.  Either way, the effect is what's important.

Question for Mr. Hunter...does the AI cheat at all?

Bite your tongue my good man, I'll never write an AI that cheats because a big part of what makes it interesting is writing an AI that works under a "fog of war" situation.  The AI makes guesses.

The AI is best on defence and at its worst as Germany when fighting on multiple fronts.  I would have liked another 6 months or so to work on how the German AI prioritizes but I couldn't really justify that to myself being as I didn't know for sure if I could improve it.

The AI:

I played as central powers. Lost first game after getting my western front and italian fronts kicked in

playing game 2 also as central powers, mid 1915 stalemate - and italy is about to attack me. ah not easy against the AI and as a pre-patch AI thats probably the hardest i have seen in a while. years in fact

I like the sounds of this.

There's no anchorages worth mention of hte name on hte Gallipoli Penninsula - the TE fleets anchored at various islands in the Aegean.
 
Gallipoli was not a mistake - it was almost the most brilliant strategic stroke of the war - it came within the proverbial gnat's private parts of succeeding on 18 March and would have forced Turkey from the war if it did so.
 
A couple of thoughts -
Had the TE forces attacked the straights again on the 19th the Turks would ahve run out of ammo (they had an average of 4 shells per gun left) - the mines that sank the Bouvet and other ships on the 18th were not a surprise - they had been seen, but nothing was done about them - had they done somethign about them then at least some of those ships would not have been sunk, and the Admiral would not have worried so much about having been in charge of the greatest loss to a British gfleet since Trafalgar, and might have renewed the attack!!
 
Had the TE forces used destroyers to sweep the mines they could have sailed stright to Istanbul (they planned to use trawlers capable of 7-8 kts, sweeping against a 2-3 kt current...real slow, but they had a dozen destroyers fitted with 1 1/2" sweeps in the fleet that could have swept against the current with ease.  Most Turkish guns were very old and lacked proper sights - they would ahve been little threat to fast moving destroyers.
 
 
 

One of the great "what ifs" of the war.

Maybe anchorage was a strong word.  Suva Bay was a partially sheltered waterway, however.  That's why I say anchorage.  The Allied fleet anchored in the Greek Islands, not because it was a better place to do so, but because it wasn't exposed to Turkish artillery fire or mines floated down the Bosporus.  If those two realities didn't exist, it would have made a fine anchorage; hence, its choice as a landing point and hence its representation as a "port" in the game.  Not quite so about the Bouvet--that was probably the work of a released mine, not one of the anchored mines further up the Bosporus.  There's no way the TE would have exposed their fleet to a known minefield.  I agree about the destroyers.  As an Admiral, though, the last thing you want to do is expose any fighting units to destruction.  The problem was a certain timidity and a lack of imagination from career officers.

I did a paper on March 18 - ther are extant papers where allied picket boats saw the line of mines anchored in Erin Koy Bay, but they literally did nothing about it.  I don't recall off hand whether the information was passed up to teh commanders, but they had definitely been seen.
 
There is no question of any mines having been floated down the current - that was a suggestion at the time to explain what had happened when the information about the moored mines was not widely known or possibly was used to cover up that it was known because of the gross imcompetance that would have revealed.