Does it always go like this??

[wild_Willie2]

Hi, I have been playing WITP for several months now, and reading this forum was of great help to me.
But now I have a question. I have been playing as the allies’ in scenario 15 now for the last few weeks, and am now somewhere in October 1942. By now my heavy’s (B17, 24’s with a little help of Hudsons and B25’s) have literally decimated the cream of the Jap air force on the ground at Kendary and Rabaul. I have destroyed a total of 1300 zeros (1000 on the ground), 1100 Betty’s (950 or so on the ground) as well as a score of other airplane’s. The AI would send new meat to the B-heavy grinder as fast as I would blow them up on the ground… It was even stupid enough to send a couple of carries into range of my 200 + B17’s and 120+ B26’s, with had (of course) a predictable outcome. (scratch’s 3 flattops). The result is a decimated Jap air force and KB…….. While I still have my carriers and my air force even gets stronger by the day (just recaptured Kendary, and surrounded Rabaul by the way The AI keeps sending al its subs into the Coral sea, and I keep blowing them out of the water there with my ASW taskforces stationed at Munda.
The worst part is: I AM PLAYING THE AI ON VERY HARD…..

Are the scenario’s always as easy when playing against the AI?, if so, there is no real reason for me to continue playing this game because there is no challenge. Once Kendary is fully operational, I will station my 200 + heavy bombers there and that will be the end of it….

Is this outcome just a fluke, or is this result normal when playing the TERRIBLE AI………..?

Maybe I will try the war once more playing as the Jap, maybe a challenge there (although I doubt it playing the AI) [>:]

[Ron Saueracker]

You have internet access, try PBEM. The only way to fly. Totally different experience.

[pompack]

I should learn to read the entire post before I answer

[strawbuk]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

You have internet access, try PBEM. The only way to fly. Totally different experience.

Yep - and see the stuff about setting yourself house rules/historic limits vs AI for a more fulfilling experiecnce. No AI is great, patch (aaaargh) should help it a bit.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

You have internet access, try PBEM. The only way to fly. Totally different experience.

Hey Ron, that reminds me. Once 1.3 is out, are we stil on for our game?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

You have internet access, try PBEM. The only way to fly. Totally different experience.

Hey Ron, that reminds me. Once 1.3 is out, are we stil on for our game?

Yep...I'll suck it up and eat rice cakes, raw fish, generally hang out with the little people.

[Tankerace]

[:D]

[Buck Beach]

This is definately not good news!! I don't want to be a PBEM player, I want to have fun playing the AI. If what you say is typical this game is not going to be any more fun for me. It means that we can over exploit the AI weakness. Christ there are other games out there that offer a better challange for us AI player. Please someone say this is a mistake.

[kaleun]

The AI is supposed to be better in the patch, but that is provided that you play historically; if you stray too far of historic pathways, then it cannot compensate.[:(]

I used to be mostly AI player, but have since moved to exclusively PBEM so this is not a problem for me, but I understand the frustration.....

[Thayne]

Since you mention B17s and B24s, I would like to know the altitude that you were bombing at.

There is a bug (to be fixed in the patch) that allows these bombers to do a significant amount of damage if they bomb above 32,000 feet.

I was doing a significant amount of damage to Japanese airplanes at Rangoon using this tactic, until I found out about the bug. Since then (and until the patch comes out), I have given B-17s a ceiling of 30,000 feet.

[Charbroiled]

I started the campaign, but stopped once I heard about the patch. Tried a few of the scenerios, and did pretty good as the Allies. I'm sure the Japanese would be a challange because of lack of replacements. I'm trying to get a friend I've known for 20 years up on the game so that we could PBEM, because I figure that I could only get it 3-4 turns per week...times 52 weeks/year = 208 days of WITP a year. When the War actually lasted around 54 months.....times 30 days/month (more or less) = 1620 days of war.......1620/208=.....it would take us a little under 8 years to finish a campaign. It looks like I'll have to keep this guys as a friend for awhile.....unless he kicks my butt.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

This is definately not good news!! I don't want to be a PBEM player, I want to have fun playing the AI. If what you say is typical this game is not going to be any more fun for me. It means that we can over exploit the AI weakness. Christ there are other games out there that offer a better challange for us AI player. Please someone say this is a mistake.

Hey, Buck. Have you even tried PBEM? I'm not sure why you have an aversion to it but I was the same for awhile. Would I have to wait too long, would my opponent drop after a setback, whatever? Well.......it's the only way to go for me now. I especially like the banter.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

This is definately not good news!! I don't want to be a PBEM player, I want to have fun playing the AI. If what you say is typical this game is not going to be any more fun for me. It means that we can over exploit the AI weakness. Christ there are other games out there that offer a better challange for us AI player. Please someone say this is a mistake.

You've got a staunch ally here, Buck. Nearly all computer wargames used to be designed as "you against the computer." That was the whole idea. Now, we see poor AI design apologized for by "PBEM is so much better" and "Well, the AI just doesn't have the capability to be competitive."

I didn't come to Grigsby's games for that. I've been buying them for twenty years, and now, in the long run, I feel short changed.

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
You have internet access, try PBEM. The only way to fly. Totally different experience.

I can't understand why anybody would waste their time playing against the AI. Even if the AI were good. (Which I don't think it can ever be in a game this complex).

[Charbroiled]

I don't feel short changed at all myself. I think that this AI is much better then the original PacWar, and I had many hours of enjoyment with it. I just don't expect much of a tactical challenge from a computer AI on ant game other then chess. (p.s. I think I over estimate the length of the war on my last post)

[kaleun]

And the reason why a computer can give you a good game of chess is the AI's use of a database, plus the limited number of pieces limits the total amount of moves.

I wonder if Deep Blue (I think that was it) would have beaten Ksparov, had Kasparov been allowed access to a database.
[8|]

[pad152]

Some things to do with the editor to help the AI (Japanese).

1. Give the AI more and better pilots. Operational losses alone will eat all of the replacement pilots.

2. Allow all Japanese airgroups to upgrade to better planes.

3. Give the Japanese some extra (oil, industry, aircraft production).

4. Reduce the accuracy of allied bombs (devices).

5. Increase the accuracy of Japanese bombs (devices).

6. Allow better Japanese aircraft to become available sooner.

7. Give Japan some extra airgroups and ships.

8. Increase the AV support from 30 to 90 for all AV engineer units.

9. Increase support for all land units.

10. Allow all air groups to start with max aircraft.


==================================================================
Play the Japanese against the Allied AI on hard! You'll be suprised just how little Japan gets vs. the allies.[X(]

Just remember playing the Japanese is like sitting at a blackjack table in vegas with all of your money, sooner or later you are going lose it all. [:D]

[Titanwarrior89]

Because ive gamed on line for years- and basicly some players can be real jerks. Every thing has too be just right for them ,especially if their losing. I enjoy playing against the AI, but will one day Pbem, and i am not saying that all players are this way. But i have played against (on line) some real winners. If they drove a car , they would be tailgaters.[:D]

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
You have internet access, try PBEM. The only way to fly. Totally different experience.

I can't understand why anybody would waste their time playing against the AI. Even if the AI were good. (Which I don't think it can ever be in a game this complex).

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

This is definately not good news!! I don't want to be a PBEM player, I want to have fun playing the AI. If what you say is typical this game is not going to be any more fun for me. It means that we can over exploit the AI weakness. Christ there are other games out there that offer a better challange for us AI player. Please someone say this is a mistake.

You've got a staunch ally here, Buck. Nearly all computer wargames used to be designed as "you against the computer." That was the whole idea. Now, we see poor AI design apologized for by "PBEM is so much better" and "Well, the AI just doesn't have the capability to be competitive."

I didn't come to Grigsby's games for that. I've been buying them for twenty years, and now, in the long run, I feel short changed.

I would like to be able to play vs the AI as well, as I can pick and choose when and how long I wish to play. But a good AI is probably never going to happen for a game of this scale...ever. I am finished investing time vs the AI in games of this size because they are just simply disappointing. So, it's PBEM, head to head, or solitaire.

[fbastos]

I am finished investing time vs the AI in games of this size because they are just simply disappointing. So, it's PBEM, head to head, or solitaire.

Solitaire you mean you against yourself??

F = confused

F.