Helping the AI to Challenge Me

[Anthropoid]

I was gonna start a game with RHS but got frustrated with map issues . . . and besides, AI is probably better at playing stock vanilla. So I'm now up to Dec 11, 1941 in perhaps my LAST game ever with WiTP! (that is until AE comes out). Be interesting to see how far I get before AE comes out . . .

Since I once played a game against Jap AI in which I got up to late 1942 (perhaps early 43) and was creamin' 'em (Manila never fell; Singapore barely fell; etc.; I had a gigantic stack in Batavia, etc.) I thought I'd try to set it up so the AI challenged me a bit more in this one.

So instead of just Hard I've got it on Very Hard. US is disadvantaged by sub doctrine, but Japan isn't (left US damage control on though), and also US has variable new units and Japan doesn't. I did a couple turns with HTH and set Japan up to hit Midway asap. We'll see how that works out.

Main question: any suggestions on things I could do if I play a turn here and there in HTH mode in the first six months or year that would help Japan AI? I don't know Japan economy very well.

[R8J]

Three day turns.
Do not bomb any airfields. It's to easy to destroy the AI airforce on the ground.
All units involved in an invasion (air/sea) must be preped to 100.
Max aircraft at an airfield is size x 50.
All ships with sys damage 20 or higher must return to base and can not sail until in the green.
No air missions unless morale 60 or higher.
LCUs can not be committed to new combat until fatigue/disruption is down to around 0/0.
Units must be assigned to HQ before being comitted to combat.
All convoys must have an escort ratio of 5:1 (5 transports: 1 escort).
Do not upgrade aircraft until pool is exhaused.
Stick to above rules!

[Anthropoid]

Excellent set of House, er I mean "Self" Rules RBJ!!  Thanks!

[HMAS Sydney]

Only play while heavily drunk. 

[Przemcio231]

yech the last a solution[:D]

[stuman]

I have variations on the above ( subject to being lazy) . I do use PPs everytime I move a unit into a new theatre. It makes me think ahead. I also do not take advantage of really dumb AI mistakes. E.g., if the KB sales in circles near a bunch of LB air I don't go for the easy kill. For that matter I found that purposely leaving the KB alone through '42 and well into '43 keeps you on your toes a bit.
 
The last suggestion is vague, but I do my best to only take actions that I think would be prudent if I were playing against someone else.  As Allies I try to think about what I would be doing if I were playing the Japanese. I still end up making supply runs and invasions that I probably would not ordinarily, but I keep it to a minimum.
 
Also, I do not really bother the Jap. economy directly other than to continue to learn game mechanics. Thus I do minimum amounts of HI, oil center bombing. Even given the above I still find that after a year, year and a half it is well over. But for me this is all a run up until some PBEMs so I keep playing the AI in order to more fully grasp the  mechanics. I have seen too often various games won or lost not because of superior strategies or tactics, but instead because one side had a much better understanding of the rules.

[R8J]

I forgot this one.
 
Every major city must have at least one fighter unit (squadron or group) and an engineer unit to keep it operational. This'll cut down on the number of fighters on the front and give AI bombers a better chance of doing you some damage.

[Canoerebel]

As Miller (a former opponent in a long PBEM game) recently observed, "Playing the AI is like playing against a three-year-old."
 
Why play against a three-year-old?  I'd rather have a PBEM that I could only play once a week, or dozens that only ended up getting into early 1942, or ANYTHING, rather than 200 games against an AI that was like a three-year-old.
 
If any of you AIers out there haven't played a PBEM, you just can't imagine the difference it makes - not only in the skill of your opponent, but the incredible excitement of facing a human opponent.

[R8J]

"The last suggestion is vague" are you talking about this "Do not upgrade aircraft until pool is exhaused."?

Tthis will keep older allied aircraft in action longer and give the AI a chance in the A2A arena. But you'll have to make decisions on a couple of aircraft. I don't think the F4F-4 pool can be depleted and maybe a couple of others......Wirraway, SBD, Hurricane come to mind.

[OldCoot]

Try giving computer control of some allied forces.

I once gave computer control of PI area and the AI scuttled 40+ ships and surrendered Manila on 20 December 1941!

[Grotius]

Canoerebel, I've played both PBEM and the AI, and I wouldn't say playing the AI is like playing a three-year-old. If you impose house rules on yourself, and if you play historically, the AI can give you a decent game. In some ways, a more historical game than a PBEM might. The AI doesn't do blitzkriegs in China, doesn't invade India, doesn't seize Iwo Jima in April 42, whatever. I'm in late November 1942 in my current game against the Allied AI, and while I will probably win an auto-victory, it hasn't been a complete romp. The "100 prep" house rule really has slowed me down.

Yes, a PBEM is more exciting, but even that isn't a complete plus. I'd agonize for hours about my PBEM games. Against the AI, I make moves fast, I can do 6 turns in a day, and it's just an enjoyable game, not a life-consuming, blood-pressure-raising, family-neglecting experience.

[R8J]

I gave the AI control of China several times. Nothing happened. Nothing. In my current AI game I took over China in mid 43. The Japanese AI went on the offensive...with a vengence!

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: OldCoot

Try giving computer control of some allied forces.

I once gave computer control of PI area and the AI scuttled 40+ ships and surrendered Manila on 20 December 1941!

[X(][&:][:'(]

[R8J]

That may not be a bad idea. Give the AI China, ABDA, PI, maybe Allied forces on the Malaya Peninsula.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Canoerebel, I've played both PBEM and the AI, and I wouldn't say playing the AI is like playing a three-year-old. If you impose house rules on yourself, and if you play historically, the AI can give you a decent game. In some ways, a more historical game than a PBEM might. The AI doesn't do blitzkriegs in China, doesn't invade India, doesn't seize Iwo Jima in April 42, whatever. I'm in late November 1942 in my current game against the Allied AI, and while I will probably win an auto-victory, it hasn't been a complete romp. The "100 prep" house rule really has slowed me down.

Yes, a PBEM is more exciting, but even that isn't a complete plus. I'd agonize for hours about my PBEM games. Against the AI, I make moves fast, I can do 6 turns in a day, and it's just an enjoyable game, not a life-consuming, blood-pressure-raising, family-neglecting experience.

I wasn't the one who said it was like playing against a three-year-old; it was Miller who said that. But I agree with him. You can play a three-year-old in chess and if you impose enough house rules I guess it might be competitive; but it's so much richer and challenging to face the real thing. However, I very much understand and respect your reasoning. You're right, playing a human opponent is so consuming that it has lots of unforeseen costs.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

As Miller (a former opponent in a long PBEM game) recently observed, "Playing the AI is like playing against a three-year-old."

Why play against a three-year-old?  I'd rather have a PBEM that I could only play once a week, or dozens that only ended up getting into early 1942, or ANYTHING, rather than 200 games against an AI that was like a three-year-old.

If any of you AIers out there haven't played a PBEM, you just can't imagine the difference it makes - not only in the skill of your opponent, but the incredible excitement of facing a human opponent.

No question about the difference in playing someone in this, or just about any game. But in a game this complex, I do not want to start up a PBEM until I actually know a lot about how it works. I find it frustrating for both sides if one is constantly making "mistakes " do to simply not knowing how things work. Asking for too many redos, or having disasters constsantly occur due to nothing more than being unaware of a few buttons to push or settings to attend to ultimately leads to an unsatisfying experience.

Not to mention that for all sorts of reasons some folks just prefer to play the AI at different times. Even when I start PBEMs, I often have an AI game going, either because I like the immediancy of responce, or I jusr do not want to concern myself with someone else's schedule. But I am still looking forward to my first WiTP PBEM .

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: R8J

"The last suggestion is vague" are you talking about this "Do not upgrade aircraft until pool is exhaused."?

Tthis will keep older allied aircraft in action longer and give the AI a chance in the A2A arena. But you'll have to make decisions on a couple of aircraft. I don't think the F4F-4 pool can be depleted and maybe a couple of others......Wirraway, SBD, Hurricane come to mind.

No, sorry for the confusion. I meant MY last suggestion, that is to play against the AI as it were really another person, is sort of vague. I was not referring to your suggestions, they all good advice.

[R8J]

"Not to mention that for all sorts of reasons some folks just prefer to play the AI at different times."
 
I have PBEM games of UV, WITP and WPO going. I have a AI campaign to play in between PBEM turns.

[R8J]

No problem. I did not think your last was vague so I reckoned it was mine.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: Grotius
Yes, a PBEM is more exciting, but even that isn't a complete plus. I'd agonize for hours about my PBEM games. Against the AI, I make moves fast, I can do 6 turns in a day, and it's just an enjoyable game, not a life-consuming, blood-pressure-raising, family-neglecting experience.

I've done plenty of PBEMs in various games (CivIII, Civ4, TOAWIII, FoF, etc.) so I know all about how they 'feel.' They _can_ be a helluva lot of fun.

I had two TOAWIII matches against a 'cyber acquaintance' whom I think I 'met' on Matrix. Mikko from Finland IIRC. He was a great guy. We played the "1979 Tension" scenario in TOAWIII (Western Europe "what if" WWIII had broken out in 1979 scenario). I played Soviets and kicked his butt as Allies, then he played Soviets and kicked my butt as Allies. We both had a fun time exploring the scenario a bit beyond what we already had done against the AI. Because of serendipity, we both happened to have had about a week or two where we were on vacation, and we cranked through turns fast. Finished two matches in about two weeks, and then we were done. I think I still have his email, and since we get along, have similar attitudes about PBEM ethics and 'gameyness' I'd play him again if the situation were ever 'right,' i.e., if I felt like playing a TOAWIII scenario and he felt the same.

A couple that were quite different but equally fun were in CivIII and a CivIII mod of the Cold War. This was with a big bunch of guys who are regulars on some Civ forums I frequented. One was the CivIII version of Pacific War, I played Japan against three other guys (Commonwealth, Allies, China) kicked their butts royally, but was nice about it, they had fun seeing how much difference knowing that scenario can make, I had fun testing out my knowledge against human opponents, in sum it was fun. The other one had about 8 guys and went on for like 2 years. In that one, there were actually some sparks and bad feelings, but only with one or two of the guys (the scenario designer to be specific). On the whole, positive fun experiences for (most) all involved.

But . . . I've also had PBEM experiences that were decidely _unfun_. Did a TOAWIII match against some guy who basically had a virtual professional understanding of this one scenario and he ate me for lunch! Not what I was looking for frankly, though he was reasonable nice about it, when I asked him to play a scenario that _I_ knew better than he did, he said "Nah, thanks. I don't know that one [well enough to kick your arse royally] very well, so I'm not interested in playing it." In my experience, this kind of megalomaniac "Its all about winning" attitude seems to be quite common among wargamers who prefer PBEMs, and that is not me. I like to explore the ecology that is simulated in wargames, not gain some false sense of superiority from smashing someone else who just doesn't know the rules as well as I do.

I have worse experiences too. One FoF matchup that was more or less random from Blitzkrieg or something like that, I said to the guy "What ever rules you want is fine." Okay fine, so the guy sets up the match so that Union has a HUGE economic advantage! European powers cannot enter the war! Not being a cagey suspicious type I didn't actually look at what he had set up for the game until we were 3 or four turns in (when I notice that his Union troops have an inordinate quality of weaponry and prodigious quantities of cannon already in summer of 1861). Whoo hoo, THAT was a lot of fun.

Unless you _KNOW_ that someone is a good matchup for you at PBEM, you might be getting yourself into a match with someone who does not share (a) your basic philosophy of what is fun; (b) your sense of urgency, timing, flexibility on turnaround on turns, and long term duration of the match; (c) your skill level, and either disparity can be unfun here, after all what semi-pro wants to 'play a three-year old' and what 'three-year old' would find it fun to go up against a semi-pro? or lastly (d) your sense of what is gamey and what is 'historical'/acceptable.

The AI doesn't care if I dont' finish a match.
He doesn't care if I 'cheat.'
He lets me finish as many turns in one evening as I want.
He doesn't disappear for weeks with no email when he starts losing.
He is unlikely to pull something like the one FoF player I matched up against (tweak game settings to give him a huge advantage then proceed to play his game so as to capitalize on that huge advantage and not even bother to say 'Hey, I'm kind wondering about this one flavor of 'what if.' Would you mind if we tried it that way?")
etc.

In short, human opponents can be either a great buddy or a terrible hassle/frustration.

AI is always going to be mediocre at best, but at least you can predict how.