Matrix Games Forums

Predictability of the AI

I ask about the predictability.

In a video I saw that the American player has ordered a destroyer in the Pearl Harbor harbor entrance.
Thus, the AI Japanese submarine was turned off.

Do this (I want to call it cheating) works every time?

What a nonsense! [:@]

... Which brings me back to my question, raised a few days ago.
What about the replayability?
Are the units in a scenario positioned in the same places and acting in the same way each time?

I would like to see more unpredictability, of course.

Any comment from the experienced players?

I've not finished the Allied campaign yet, but have had several goes at the Pearl Harbor scenario and it tends to follow a script in some respects, but not too closely in others. The Japanese submarine is always in the same place and always seems to fail to kill the destroyer before the destroyer sinks the sub. The air attacks on Pearl do seem to vary and this may be in part dependent upon how many of the attackers you manage to kill off early. I think of that scenario as a sort of appetizer and it is not a badly done one given the constraints that apply to a historical debacle like Pearl Harbor - how many other ways could it have gone, honestly? At least without getting into a lot of what-ifs that the game is ill-prepared at this point to ask and resolve.

I think the ground AI is the best part of the game because I see AI units attempting flanking and encirclements specifically to take advantage of the new game rules. I'm frankly impressed with how competent the AI can be on the tactical level on the battlefield. This part of the game is really well done.

All in all, it is at least an A- game in my book, and is working towards a solid A with patching and some TLC to a few areas like the UI...which they are already beginning to address.

The sub is not 'switched off'. If you block the path with a ship specialised in destroying subs, and the AI does not blindly try to push through, I would say the AI is being less predictable, and a better player.

Would you really want the midget sub to follow its script regardless of the tactical situation?

Surely a human player would do the same thing?

Naval scenarios have the AI ships in somewhat random places, so there is some unpredictability there for replay.
Not sure about the land battles, but I'd be surprised if everything was scripted in stone.
Maybe Lucas can share some general thoughts about this.

I've done the Coral Sea scenario about, um, four times; it took that long to win it, I confess, as the US. Each time it played out fairly differently, though some units are pretty much in the same general areas. You know form the scenario briefing and history about Tulagi and Port Moresby, and you know there are IJN carriers out there. But beyond that you still have to find 'em, and once the AI sees you or knows you see it, stuff starts to happen that isn't graven in stone.

Slightly off topic, but this issue is why I will not watch extensive video game plays because I do not want to see too much revealed before I play it...