AI?

[wodin]

How is the AI in the game? GGWITE is apparently better against the AI, so I was wondering if WITP AE is also a decent game if paying against the AI?

Thanks

I was looking for a AAR against the AI but couldn't see any, so I was thinking the AI might not be upto much.

[wdolson]

I believe the amount of unit data WitP AE has to deal with is much greater than the War in the East. AE is one of the most data intensive games ever produced.

There are a lot of people on the forum who are strong advocates of PBEM and they put down the AI every chance they get. However, about 80% of players play against the AI and the game remains popular 5 years after release.

If you stick to roughly historical things, the AI stands up reasonably well. For example, if you're playing the Allies vs the Japanese AI and you stop the AI from taking all the oil centers in Borneo and the Dutch East Indies, the AI will begin to falter in 1943.

I've only played against the AI and I'd say it's decent, especially in the early war period. A human opponent would always be better, but my schedule doesn't really support one turn a day for a couple of years. I suspect that's the case with other AI players too.

I've puttered around with other games, but I keep coming back to AE. It has a very high re-playability and as my sig says, the cost per hour of play makes it a very inexpensive game.

Bill

[dr.hal]

I would agree with Bill but with one caveat. Once you start getting "good" at the game, the AI becomes predictable and less than a challenge. But while you are building up experience then it can be fun. Even in new mini-games (not the Grand Campaign) it can be a challenge to a vet player due to the unknown and the fact that there is less "flexibility" within one of the shorter games.

[wdolson]

Many scenarios have multiple AI scripts which does bring in variability from game to game. I have successfully defended Rabaul a few times as the Allies, but the last time I played, the AI decided to invade Rabaul in mid December 41, earlier than any previous game. Another time the AI got very aggressive in the South Pacific and took islands all the way down to Tahiti before I was able to get my carriers back in position. Most of them were helping defend Java. It was easy to starve out those footholds, but it did require putting some effort into taking them back.

I've also seen variations in how aggressive the AI is in Burma. In some games it throws a lot of resources at Burma fairly early and it is very tough to hold on. In my most recent game the invasion of Burma was late and somewhat anemic. I was able to get a couple of Australian divisions around Rangoon which stopped them cold.

What the AI does with Port Morseby will vary too. I have seen various attempts at naval landings, but in my last game the AI decided to do an overland invasion and marched a fairly sizable force over the Owen Stanley Mountains.

On a large scale, there are certain objectives the AI is always going to go after like Borneo, Malay, and the DEI. It needs to take those to keep the economy running and protect their resource centers. I suspect different scripts throw different force levels into that too. I have seen Malay fall apart fairly quickly and other times it takes a while to get down the peninsula.

Bill

[rockmedic109]

I've only played against the Japanese AI. It gives a decent game. While not excessively challenging to do well or win, it is challenging to move all the assets where they are needed and have them in place months BEFORE they are needed. Playing the Ironman or Hakko Ichiu {not sure on the spelling} makes it even better. It does make allow the AI to make a mistake and not be completely wiped out. Well worth the money spent. The game is a lifestyle.

You do not sit down and play the game for an afternoon.....you start in mid-life and finish by retirement age. It is important to finish before you retire because you can get a second game in with all your free time in retirement.

[Rising-Sun]

Well AIs will cheat in some ways, even without recons and knowing what is your weakness. For example if you have good fighters/interceptors on that airfields, chances are the bombers wont attack, but if you stand them down or upgrade them, they will hit you. Dunno about the rest of it, just gotta pay attention what you are doing.

[CaptBeefheart]

One thing you could do is set AI vs. AI and let the game play out a few months in continuous mode. That should give you a decent challenge as the Allies vs. IJ AI. H/T to Bullwinkle for the idea. The Ironman scenarios are also best as they give the AI some extra supply and extra goodies to play with.

Cheers,
CC

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: RisingSun

For example if you have good fighters/interceptors on that airfields, chances are the bombers wont attack, but if you stand them down or upgrade them, they will hit you.

The game behavior you describe is not a cheat, and at best is also not very reliable.

You can do the same as a player. The AI is just using the air superiority value for target/strike selection.

[Rising-Sun]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: RisingSun

For example if you have good fighters/interceptors on that airfields, chances are the bombers wont attack, but if you stand them down or upgrade them, they will hit you.

The game behavior you describe is not a cheat, and at best is also not very reliable.

You can do the same as a player. The AI is just using the air superiority value for target/strike selection.

Its a cheat, because i did this three times a row to see how AIs react and ever time i activate my fighters (CAP) they wont attack it, attack something else. I had alot of transport planes in Saigon and when i upgrade or standdown my fighters, here we go again. Best thing to do to counter-act this cheat is having another airfield nearby to jump on those bombers. Beside they never recon Saigon, believe came from Singapore, that retreat from Clark Field.

Awhile back send pm to wdolson about this issues, told me they had to come up a solutions to carry out AIs. I wanted to change that, so they photo recons then the next day, it would attack if no fighters present or low fighter/interceptor strength. If they got a good result from photos. Guess AIs is hardcoded

wdolson, is it possible if you or someone else can change the codes so the AIs make it moves first then players?

[LoBaron]

You probably finished reading after my first entence in post #8.

I´ll give it a final try: This is no AI cheat. The player can do exactly the same. Set up a H2H and try it out...

[Rising-Sun]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

You probably finished reading after my first entence in post #8.

I´ll give it a final try: This is no AI cheat. The player can do exactly the same. Set up a H2H and try it out...

Well you will have to try it out too, i already been there. Latest patch and no mod, its first scenario or grand campaign. It doesnt keep me from playing, but i will counter-act to it, like a mouse trap.

[HansBolter]

I'm one of the regular posters here who plays the AI. Not because I'm not man enough to play a human opponent as some of the more calloused PBEM players are want to allude to, but because like wdolson, I neither have the time, nor the internet connection at home to facilitate playing PBEM. Nor would the pace of a PBEM game appeal to me. I sit down on Saturdays and easily play through 6-8 turns in a day. This continuity of play from one turn to the next appeals to me.

Having made my soapbox speech about AI players NOT being second class gamers I'll add a big +1 to wdolson's post.

The AI when not abused is a viable enough opponent to make game play enjoyable for the most part.

One need to remember that it is following scripts and while it can and does react well tactically, it does not react nearly as well operationally.

It is easy to garner an impression that the AI sees and knows all and doesn't suffer from the FOW and intelligence lack the player does. I believe this isn't the case, but even if it was I wouldn't begrudge the AI this advantage.

I see many, many occasions where the AI blindly sends unescorted bombers into defended bases.

Just hold Wake in one game and watch how the AI sends unescorted Bettys from the Marshals every 2-3 days to be eaten alive by VMF 111.

I'm in May of '42 and have a 15 kill ace in VMF 111 who has gained every last kill in duck shoots against unescorted bombers.

Paxmondo is another regular here who plays against the AI with an affinity for the Japanese side that matches my affinity for the Allied side.

I play quite a few other games as well, but the AI in this game is sufficient to keep me playing it regularly so I can enjoy the unbelievably rich and deep mechanics and force pools.

This is indeed the ultimate grognard game of all time!

[btd64]

I played against the AI for years. Just started my first PBEM with JuanG and we do about 12 to 14 turns a week. Which isn't bad. It is new to me and things are different when playing a THINKING opponent. Just checked. 2nd turn of the day is in my inbox. But either way, This is the most enjoyable game I have purchased. Oh, by the way, For a real challege against the AI, Play one of Andy Macs Nasty scenarios. Real PAIN.[:@]... GP

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I'm one of the regular posters here who plays the AI. Not because I'm not man enough to play a human opponent as some of the more calloused PBEM players are want to allude to, but because like wdolson, I neither have the time, nor the internet connection at home to facilitate playing PBEM. Nor would the pace of a PBEM game appeal to me. I sit down on Saturdays and easily play through 6-8 turns in a day. This continuity of play from one turn to the next appeals to me.

Having made my soapbox speech about AI players NOT being second class gamers I'll add a big +1 to wdolson's post.

The AI when not abused is a viable enough opponent to make game play enjoyable for the most part.

One need to remember that it is following scripts and while it can and does react well tactically, it does not react nearly as well operationally.

It is easy to garner an impression that the AI sees and knows all and doesn't suffer from the FOW and intelligence lack the player does. I believe this isn't the case, but even if it was I wouldn't begrudge the AI this advantage.

I see many, many occasions where the AI blindly sends unescorted bombers into defended bases.

Just hold Wake in one game and watch how the AI sends unescorted Bettys from the Marshals every 2-3 days to be eaten alive by VMF 111.

I'm in May of '42 and have a 15 kill ace in VMF 111 who has gained every last kill in duck shoots against unescorted bombers.

Paxmondo is another regular here who plays against the AI with an affinity for the Japanese side that matches my affinity for the Allied side.

I play quite a few other games as well, but the AI in this game is sufficient to keep me playing it regularly so I can enjoy the unbelievably rich and deep mechanics and force pools.

This is indeed the ultimate grognard game of all time!

Fully agree with you.

I am from the complete other spectrum of players - playng PBEM nearly exclusively, but would never come to the conclusion that AI players are second rate. Quite contrary, often AI players have much more practical experience than PBEM players as the turnaround rate is much higher on average and situations can be repeated and sides be switched to better unerstand the context of a situation.

That said, I think for such a huge game the AI is astounding. It collapses in extreme situations, and it can be 'gamed' by player action or traps, but it is good enough to be a challenge to a new player, and it can be a good opponent for a vet if it is not the players sole goal to win, he abstains from abusing certain game elements the AI is not capable of, and from time to time supports it in case a script meets a dead-end. Not too much to ask for a campaign experience taking months.

[Andy Mac]

<Note to self next iteration of AI come up with nasty surprise for folk who hold Wake to shoot down unescorted Bettie>

[Grollub]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

<Note to self next iteration of AI come up with nasty surprise for folk who hold Wake to shoot down unescorted Bettie>

Shoo! [:D]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

<Note to self next iteration of AI come up with nasty surprise for folk who hold Wake to shoot down unescorted Bettie>

[&o][&o][&o]

[Dili]

If the AI had just some logic rules:

-Relationship LCU value transported by an amphibious TF vs its escorts combat value. A Division assault value would imply always a carrier/battleship escort.
-Capability of making air sweeps.
-Air combat TF's maximizing the carrier quantity in a TF.

[obvert]

For the OP.

It is worth it even if you only ever play the AI. Even just for testing or playing short pieces of a GC or scenarios. It's a fascinating game and the biggest challenge I've faced in years.

That said, there is nothing like the thrill of PBEM. Although I still play the Ai when I can to work on things, the PBEM game just adds more psychology and strategy to your decisions. And you can find virtually any preference in terms of time taken per turn. I'm playing one game that averages 5 turns a week and another that's around 12-15 turns a week. Each is equally fun.

[Andy Mac]

I just posted a new enhanced version of the ironman Nasty v jap AI scenario with reworked AI files

Andy