Matrix Games Forums

i can play big b mod against the pc. Some said it couldt but it can.
Does it also work or dont with others?

I'm not quite sure what the question is - but I think you're asking "if the mod works against the AI - then why don't other mods work against the AI"? - or maybe I misunderstand.

Anyway, B-Mod works as well against the AI as a stock scenario will - as I believe most other mods do, with the possible exception of RHS - I'm not entirely sure about that one (but it probably does also).

B

ORIGINAL: MAARTENR

i can play big b mod against the pc. Some said it couldt but it can.
Does it also work or dont with others?

What is "stock"scenario for the question i ask your right.
Sorry for mine bad english.

ORIGINAL: MAARTENR

What is "stock"scenario for the question i ask your right.
Sorry for mine bad english.

The alternate map scenarios work well on mods too.

Don't feel bad about your English - at least you can speak another language - I can't. [:D]

EDIT: a stock scenario refers to the generic scenarios that the game comes with

I like Big B for the variety of aircraft and the changes to the aircraft values that make losses a bit more realistic.  It works fine against the AI, but I find it's a tad to easy to beat it as the Allied player.  The changes to the cargo limits slow the pace of operations down to the point that Japan has a hard time taking the Phillipines and the DEI before the Allies can set up good defense lines in those areas.
 
The aircraft replacement rates have been adjusted for the Allies as well, but by mid-42 they still can cream the KB when it strays to close -- and it always seems to.
 
But, overall, it's more fun than stock, I believe.
 

Any of the mods that use alternative maps may end up with problems in games against the AI because some of the bases that the AI was coded to use for replenishing have had their base size adjusted to a size that prevents the TFs from fully replenishing their weapons (torps on DDs, for example). This information came from a post by Mike Wood some years ago.
 
I have noticed in my games versus the AI that as the war gets into late 1942 (or later) the KB seems to steam around and do next to nothing. What attacks it launches are usually tiny affairs - 5 to 6 planes max. I have often wondered if this is because the carriers have been unable to refresh their "sorties remaining" due to the port they're using being too small...

Really? I always wondered about that. I lowered all of the cargo capacities because CHS and other mods did - as a way to slow down pace of operations. Everyone seemed to accept the idea as a standard modification. I wasn't so sure, but no-one ever raised the issue before.

Well, if there is ever a new version I'll reset cargo capacities.
Thanks for the input.

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan
{snip}
  The changes to the cargo limits slow the pace of operations down to the point that Japan has a hard time taking the Phillipines and the DEI before the Allies can set up good defense lines in those areas.

...

Interesting, I had never heard that before - though it makes sense.

Of course that would all depend on if bases were reduced in port size from stock.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Any of the mods that use alternative maps may end up with problems in games against the AI because some of the bases that the AI was coded to use for replenishing have had their base size adjusted to a size that prevents the TFs from fully replenishing their weapons (torps on DDs, for example). This information came from a post by Mike Wood some years ago.

Exactly... after he posted that info I asked if he could give us a list of the pertinent bases but that question was never answered. I suppose it's because he didn't want to give away the AI's secrets.
 
I've never worked with the editor, but my thought would be to take any bases which have had their port size reduced below a minimum for any ordnance loading and reset to their original size.
 
 

For the stock map scenarios - I never downsized any port sizes. Now for the AB Extended Map scenarios, Andrew may have downsized some - it's worth looking at.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Exactly... after he posted that info I asked if he could give us a list of the pertinent bases but that question was never answered. I suppose it's because he didn't want to give away the AI's secrets.

I've never worked with the editor, but my thought would be to take any bases which have had their port size reduced below a minimum for any ordnance loading and reset to their original size.

Since his comment was so long ago, I am sure that it was pertaining to AB's map - which is the one I use (can't stand the inaccuracies of the stock map). How many locations this involves I have never spent the time to figure out...

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Any of the mods that use alternative maps may end up with problems in games against the AI because some of the bases that the AI was coded to use for replenishing have had their base size adjusted to a size that prevents the TFs from fully replenishing their weapons (torps on DDs, for example). This information came from a post by Mike Wood some years ago.

I have noticed in my games versus the AI that as the war gets into late 1942 (or later) the KB seems to steam around and do next to nothing. What attacks it launches are usually tiny affairs - 5 to 6 planes max. I have often wondered if this is because the carriers have been unable to refresh their "sorties remaining" due to the port they're using being too small...

I noticed this too in my stock game vs. AI. I think the problem is with the AI not the mod. As far as I can tell, the AI has a hard time on the defensive. It knows how to conquer but not defend. I my AI game KB kept showing up cruising the Coral Sea and Gulf of Carpenthia looking for something to do. If I am correct, then I don't think it matters much which scenario you are playing, the AI just breaks down after June 1942 no matter what. Just OMHO

That seems to be a common occurance in a lot of games. The AI often reaches a point in just about any game I have ever played  where it just seems to start acting in a somewhat aimless manner. Or at the very least it doesn't really react well tactically, much less strategically. That's where you either tend to lose patience, or maybe play very " historically " and focus on achieving victory in narrowly defined ways.  Or better yet, I start pestering someone to play a PBEM game, usually my brother [:)]

ORIGINAL: Big B

For the stock map scenarios - I never downsized any port sizes. Now for the AB Extended Map scenarios, Andrew may have downsized some - it's worth looking at.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Exactly... after he posted that info I asked if he could give us a list of the pertinent bases but that question was never answered. I suppose it's because he didn't want to give away the AI's secrets.

I've never worked with the editor, but my thought would be to take any bases which have had their port size reduced below a minimum for any ordnance loading and reset to their original size.

Oh - it has been eons ago, but I did do a compare with some port sizes of the Big B/AB extended map scenario with stock and noticed some differences. These were not due to B's mod (which is excellent), but part of the original 'extended map' scenario data. I adjusted them back to the stock levels and the Japanese AI (which I was playing) seemed to do ALOT better. Don't ask me which ones they were, as that was too long ago, but they were located in the DEI.

TOMLABEL

ORIGINAL: Big B

Really? I always wondered about that. I lowered all of the cargo capacities because CHS and other mods did - as a way to slow down pace of operations. Everyone seemed to accept the idea as a standard modification. I wasn't so sure, but no-one ever raised the issue before.

Well, if there is ever a new version I'll reset cargo capacities.
Thanks for the input.

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan
{snip}
  The changes to the cargo limits slow the pace of operations down to the point that Japan has a hard time taking the Phillipines and the DEI before the Allies can set up good defense lines in those areas.

...

Big B

Please don't change your merchant ship cargo amounts.

The merchant cargo capacities are fine as they are in your v155 scenario. The game places at a slower pace with the lower cargo amounts - this makes the game far more realistic than the stock scenario. It makes no sense to allow the allies or the japanese too much freedom to load up vast amounts of supply and then go invading half the map. Logistics should be a constraint on both sides and the smaller cargo amounts is the best way to achieve this in the current game.

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

ORIGINAL: Big B

For the stock map scenarios - I never downsized any port sizes. Now for the AB Extended Map scenarios, Andrew may have downsized some - it's worth looking at.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Exactly... after he posted that info I asked if he could give us a list of the pertinent bases but that question was never answered. I suppose it's because he didn't want to give away the AI's secrets.

I've never worked with the editor, but my thought would be to take any bases which have had their port size reduced below a minimum for any ordnance loading and reset to their original size.

Oh - it has been eons ago, but I did do a compare with some port sizes of the Big B/AB extended map scenario with stock and noticed some differences. These were not due to B's mod (which is excellent), but part of the original 'extended map' scenario data. I adjusted them back to the stock levels and the Japanese AI (which I was playing) seemed to do ALOT better. Don't ask me which ones they were, as that was too long ago, but they were located in the DEI.

TOMLABEL

The really strange thing about this is that the only port size that should matter is size eight: below this no-one can reload torpedoes. And there aren't that many size eight bases to begin with. One of these days I'll have to reinstall the stock game to look at that map for comparison...

I'm farting around with a CHS extended map vs the retard...ooops, AI as Japan, and I've not really lost anything aside from Malaya Peninsula(Singapore holds) and Borneo and parts of the PI. Hong Kong is still holding and it is mid July 42. Moulmein/Rangoon has not even been approached by troops yet. A complete POS currently. Hopefully the revamped AI in AE has a much more sophisticated script or whatever GG claims his AI is (though I don't trust any of it as he couldn't even get the auto convoy to work for Fsakes)

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm farting around with a CHS extended map vs the retard...ooops, AI as Japan, and I've not really lost anything aside from Malaya Peninsula(Singapore holds) and Borneo and parts of the PI. Hong Kong is still holding and it is mid July 42. Moulmein/Rangoon has not even been approached by troops yet. A complete POS currently. Hopefully the revamped AI in AE has a much more sophisticated script or whatever GG claims his AI is (though I don't trust any of it as he couldn't even get the auto convoy to work for Fsakes)

With CHS and the extended map (incl. Aden and Panama) - it is CLAIMED that if you are Japan playing against the Allied AI that the AI doesn't fully "realize" it has other bases, and so won't handle things well... i suspect that if you are Allies playing against Japan AI in similar circumstances that the AI also won't realize there are more Allied bases and this might also cause problems... for instance, i've seen instances where the KB will sit near the "maze" of "land" in the NW corner of the board and bomb/torpedo ships near Aden... clearly it would be gamey if a human player did this, but the AI just sees the enemy within range...

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm farting around with a CHS extended map vs the retard...ooops, AI as Japan, and I've not really lost anything aside from Malaya Peninsula(Singapore holds) and Borneo and parts of the PI. Hong Kong is still holding and it is mid July 42. Moulmein/Rangoon has not even been approached by troops yet. A complete POS currently. Hopefully the revamped AI in AE has a much more sophisticated script or whatever GG claims his AI is (though I don't trust any of it as he couldn't even get the auto convoy to work for Fsakes)

With CHS and the extended map (incl. Aden and Panama) - it is CLAIMED that if you are Japan playing against the Allied AI that the AI doesn't fully "realize" it has other bases, and so won't handle things well... i suspect that if you are Allies playing against Japan AI in similar circumstances that the AI also won't realize there are more Allied bases and this might also cause problems... for instance, i've seen instances where the KB will sit near the "maze" of "land" in the NW corner of the board and bomb/torpedo ships near Aden... clearly it would be gamey if a human player did this, but the AI just sees the enemy within range...

Never seen that Aden camping thingy yet. KB justs cruises through the DEI until it has been annihilated by LBA. Pointless really, but so is my existance lately.[8D]

I play CHS as allies against the AI.  No, it will never be a nerve racking, nail biting experience.  But I still enjoy it.  A couple House Rules make it better, but there are still a couple areas that would need help.
 
Hong Kong will never fall.  For some reason, supplies keep getting added so it will never run out of supply and surrender.  Also, the AI will not reinforce the attack.  And the Japanese do not have enough artillery {or the allies have too much}.  Editing more for Japan or less for the allies is a good idea.  Also, you will need to reduce the fortifications at Hong Kong.  Reducing them to 2 is not enough.  I haven't tried to reduce them to 1.
 
Upgrading Dutch bombers to B-25s might be a bad idea against the AI.  The constant bombings of any japanese shipping in the area and of any LCU in range will quickly increase the skill levels of the Dutch pilots.  Add the B-25s and the Dutch are soon carrying 2000lb bombs and able to drop them through open portholes on the target.