|
Post by theexecuter on Sept 12, 2018 11:48:58 GMT -6
I've noted that the battle selector is rough on the human player.
When the enemy outnumbers me...they always bring more ships. When I outnumber the enemy, my admirals rarely bring more ships than the enemy has to bring.
Could it be that the battle generator pulls ships into battle based on tonnage and not number of ships? My ships are usually bigger than my enemies...
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Sept 12, 2018 17:41:21 GMT -6
As for ammo, I've had several very long cruiser battles, when enemy run out of ammo (maybe, except 1-2 turrets), while my ship not yet, so I'm nearly sure, that it is mostly aberration "Enemy always fires twice faster and twice more accurate". Sometimes I'm close to believe that AI cheats in turret hits - my ships too often lose turret after hit, while enemy ones became only jammed. Though it may be the same aberration as I didn't check the battles where luck was on my side
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 13, 2018 0:57:47 GMT -6
I've noted that the battle selector is rough on the human player. When the enemy outnumbers me...they always bring more ships. When I outnumber the enemy, my admirals rarely bring more ships than the enemy has to bring. Could it be that the battle generator pulls ships into battle based on tonnage and not number of ships? My ships are usually bigger than my enemies... I do not think so. My last game as UK I use strategy of numbers with lower tonnage but comparable to enemy ships due to technological advantage. And as I have numerical superiority I usually have numerical superiority in battle. It could be seen mostly in cruiser battles where I have usually numerical advantage 2:1 at stage when my numerical advantage in that area was higher. It seems logical as patrolling needs more ship that can be taken into battle. So for cruisers the numerical ratio in area should be higher than in the battle.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 13, 2018 1:04:13 GMT -6
Why do you consider it suspicious? My experience is that when you keep a specific computer-designed and -built ship continuously engaged long enough for a player-designed ship that has significantly more ammunition than is typical of computer designs to get a 20% main battery ammunition remaining warning, the computer's ship tends to want to run away and often doesn't appear to be firing its main battery guns much, if at all, suggesting that it's short on or out of main battery ammunition.
Also, my understanding is that 90 rounds per gun is about right for historical battleship main battery ammunition stowage in the period covered by the game.
It looks suspicious to me because in early battles, before Director fire control, I frequently have to order my ships to hold fire to conserve ammunition at long range. By comparison the AI ships open fire as soon as they enter range, and then keep firing throughout engagements, including for example in long and distant stern chases when again I will have ordered my ship(s) to hold fire.
It looks odd to me that the AI can fire indefinitely carrying 90 rounds per gun whilst my ships cannot do so with 140 rounds per gun.
I do not think so. Graphics of fire on global map do not tell the whole story. I can see AI out of ammo in cases of long time pursuit when finally AI cruiser is slowed you can catch and you can fire from point blank with any retaliation from aft angles as AI is out of ammo. And in cases I were not cautions and go to much I get hits from broadside so I think this works fine.
|
|
|
Post by director on Sept 13, 2018 7:02:32 GMT -6
The one place where I am certain the AI 'cheats' is in the structure of the turn: the AI ships will spot mine and fire guns and or/torpedoes without my being able to recognize them or return fire. As I say I think this is more in the nature of how movement and firing events are structured rather than an actual cheat, but it does strongly favor the AI.
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Sept 14, 2018 11:27:25 GMT -6
The AI has France pick a fight with me, Russia. I have sacrificed budget and prestige to keep tensions with France low. I can't beat them. They have better technology and twice my budget. But I'm at war so I prepare to do my duty.
I find myself in a battle in the dialog immediately following the declaration of war. I have no choice about this battle. At first I have hope. My three modern capital ships are all there. It has taken years to build these ships, because: The Czar wants a new yacht The Czar wants a regatta The Czar wants me to build 15 submarines (I already have more submarines than anyone else in the world, but you're the Czar) The Czar wants me to build 15 cruisers. I don't need cruisers either, but you're the Czar.
Each time I have to change the Czar's diapers I have to halt construction on my dreadnoughts. They have not yet finished working up. I planned to immediately rebuild these ships because they are behind technologically. I have what I have.
BB one hits a mine. This is the deep ocean, no mines here but.... BB two has a flash-fire and blows up after being hit by a 6 inch gun from a CL. BB three is hit by a torpedo. There are no ships in range to launch a torpedo.
Within the first few minutes of the war, my precious BBs are all like Lucio Brazi. I am ++annoyed. Then the power fails and lose my game. After the storm I reload the game and continue. I am back to "War with France." The same battle starts. This time I immediately turn tail and run for port. Within 1/2 hour, game time, all three of my BBs are sleeping with the fishes. And yet again the power fails.
It takes my a while to re-boot everything. I do a full diagnostic to make sure the power failures haven't damaged anything. When I can, I continue. From the same point. Within the first few minutes of a battle I could not avoid with an enemy I tried to avoid fighting in the first place, The core of my navy is an artificial reef. I let the battle run out and resign. I checked the logs on the after action report on the last iteration. No subs in the area.
You are at war with France. The French have destroyed your capital ships by acts of sabotage. Okay. Stuff happens. But please stop sending me into battles where I've lost before the initial dialogue comes up, and then pretend it's fair.
Oh, yes, Mr. Developer. Sometimes the AI chooses the winner before the battle even begins.
|
|
|
Post by director on Sept 14, 2018 12:07:20 GMT -6
So invading an enemy province requires quite a lot of luck to be even offered the possibility. Usually you have to then give up quite a lot of money for the army. Then you have to wait months and months for a small chance at a success.
For the AI, it's "Japan has launched an invasion of Tsingtao" even before you get the warning of a surprise attack, not to mention a declaration of war. And then they conquer the place at the end of the turn, invade the Liaotung Peninsula the next turn and conquer it at the end of the turn.
Really?
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Sept 14, 2018 23:17:19 GMT -6
The one place where I am certain the AI 'cheats' is in the structure of the turn: the AI ships will spot mine and fire guns and or/torpedoes without my being able to recognize them or return fire. As I say I think this is more in the nature of how movement and firing events are structured rather than an actual cheat, but it does strongly favor the AI. Firing order is randomized each turn. And the AI does not spot better than a human playing ships with the same training level and national characteristics.
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Sept 15, 2018 9:49:32 GMT -6
I do believe there should be some choices the First Sea Lord should make:
How vigorously am I going to prosecute this war? From 10: I'm going to use underhanded tricks and put bengay on my enemy's condoms to 5: I'm going to fight hard but by the rules of war to 0: I'm going to avoid losses at all costs (sic)(Pun intended). I think this is a choice the human player should get. If I lose a war which I have Prosecuted like a Nazi I should get an all expenses paid trip to Nuremberg. If I fight a good fight and Lord-Herr-DaDa's regime collapses, maybe they make me the new PM ed. al.
Explicitly: Tension with Lower Slobovia has hit the Orange. I get a prompt. "Do you wish to plan a pre-emptive strike against Lower Slobovia?" If I do make the plan, then I get to make the first move in the upcoming war.
While at peace, every three months, game time, my peerless leader should ask me if we can/should try to take over a neutral possession or a valuable colony.
I should also get the choice to attack my enemy's bases in war. Whether or not to attack a base and which base.
There are choices I should make that are being made for me, and this creates the illusion of the AI cheating.
I have noticed that no-one complains: The AI crossed my T and I lost the battle. People do complain about things like "the computer's ships that carry 90 rounds get to fire 110 rounds, or Capt. Nemo torpedoed my capital ships. This perception is easy to fix. FIX IT
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 15, 2018 10:39:13 GMT -6
Perceptions are actually very, very difficult to "fix," especially when they're not based on anything more substantial than "well, it felt like the enemy ship was firing longer than it should have been able to ..." If you can find hard evidence that a ship that carries 90 rounds per gun can fire more than 90 rounds per gun in a battle, then there's something to work with. Otherwise, you're asking Frederick to chase ghosts.
Also, I personally don't mind that submarines not reported as present for the engagement can torpedo ships after the battle - presumably it represents submarines racing to the area or the ships crossing paths with a submarine that wasn't relevant to the battle on the way home or something like that - and if I invest about as heavily in submarines as the computer does, the computer's ships get torpedoed on the way home about as often as mine do. I do, however, mind that it's essentially a pure-RNG event that can significantly affect the outcome of the battle, especially as the interturn submarine attacks don't directly affect victory point totals.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 15, 2018 10:42:38 GMT -6
I do believe there should be some choices the First Sea Lord should make: How vigorously am I going to prosecute this war? From 10: I'm going to use underhanded tricks and put bengay on my enemy's condoms to 5: I'm going to fight hard but by the rules of war to 0: I'm going to avoid losses at all costs (sic)(Pun intended). I think this is a choice the human player should get. If I lose a war which I have Prosecuted like a Nazi I should get an all expenses paid trip to Nuremberg. If I fight a good fight and Lord-Herr-DaDa's regime collapses, maybe they make me the new PM ed. al. Explicitly: Tension with Lower Slobovia has hit the Orange. I get a prompt. "Do you wish to plan a pre-emptive strike against Lower Slobovia?" If I do make the plan, then I get to make the first move in the upcoming war. While at peace, every three months, game time, my peerless leader should ask me if we can/should try to take over a neutral possession or a valuable colony. I should also get the choice to attack my enemy's bases in war. Whether or not to attack a base and which base. There are choices I should make that are being made for me, and this creates the illusion of the AI cheating. I have noticed that no-one complains: The AI crossed my T and I lost the battle. People do complain about things like "the computer's ships that carry 90 rounds get to fire 110 rounds, or Capt. Nemo torpedoed my capital ships. This perception is easy to fix. FIX IT You are the admiral you command the whole fleet not individual ship. If AI cross your T you allowed it as you command the fleet. The AI has same decision scheme for your and for other nations. May be think it as you command unorthodox too much that your fellow captains are unable to catch you and thus as fleet you manage it not so well. However as commander you could not asked something that anybody are unable to do. On opposite I find it quite interesting that I cannot use so much hindsight in the battle as I am still limited to AI captains handle the rest of the fleet. However point that you can influence attitude of your navy is interesting point and in real history it has effects (e.g British cruisers in the Med against Italians)
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Sept 19, 2018 15:56:19 GMT -6
The AI does not cross my T. My issue is that after a resounding victory I get the message that an enemy sub has torpedoed my biggest battleship. I have the task of attacking a convoy. I find that I have 2 light cruisers and the convoy is guarded by A pre-dreadnought and two old CAs. I run away. No points is amuch better result than losing both ships in a battle I can't win. The consequence should NOT be: SS-555 is overdue and presumed lost. Subs are lost, but to append the loss of a sub onto a battle to turn a draw into a loss is the AI cheating. Normally a lost sub costs 5 vp. When appended to the end of a battle it costs much more.
My original point: I am not a ship's captain or even a Fleet admiral. My job is in an office issuing orders to subordinates. In this capacity I should be able to choose how vigorously I prosecute the war.
I should get a say in the invading of enemy territory. I should be allowed to choose enemy bases to attack. Maybe it will be a Gallipoli disaster maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Sept 19, 2018 16:39:02 GMT -6
The AI does not cross my T. My issue is that after a resounding victory I get the message that an enemy sub has torpedoed my biggest battleship. I have the task of attacking a convoy. I find that I have 2 light cruisers and the convoy is guarded by A pre-dreadnought and two old CAs. I run away. No points is amuch better result than losing both ships in a battle I can't win. The consequence should NOT be: SS-555 is overdue and presumed lost. Subs are lost, but to append the loss of a sub onto a battle to turn a draw into a loss is the AI cheating. Normally a lost sub costs 5 vp. When appended to the end of a battle it costs much more. My original point: I am not a ship's captain or even a Fleet admiral. My job is in an office issuing orders to subordinates. In this capacity I should be able to choose how vigorously I prosecute the war. I should get a say in the invading of enemy territory. I should be allowed to choose enemy bases to attack. Maybe it will be a Gallipoli disaster maybe not. Yorktown was torpedoed and sunk by a submarine in the aftermath of Midway yet its loss is still considered part of the battle. Now I don't know if the comparison is perfect because I don't know if your battleship was damaged during the battle or not but there are enough of examples of submarines affecting the beginnings and ending of battles including both Philippine Sea ( Taiho and Shokaku) and Leyte Gulf ( Atago, Takao and Maya) for the feature to be included in the game. I can't guarantee that these tactics would help prevent such incidents without the developers confirming but two things would historically minimize losses to submarines. Keep your fleet speed up at the end of the game (all scenarios continue for another 200 turns or so after the "end" of the scenario to see if progressive flooding or fires might ultimately cause the loss of a ship post battle and presumably the submarines attacks take place during those 200 turns as well if they occur) and perhaps build more destroyers so there are more available to act as screens during a scenario once that technology (or doctrine in this case) is researched. If your ships are moving slowly (<10 knots) at the end of the game to minimize the chance of flooding reinitiating then that would and should make the chance that the ships would be attacked by submarines more likely because now the submarines have a better chance of getting ahead of the fleet and achieving a good firing position. The difference in VP effect of submarines lost during scenarios vs. mid-turn as part of commerce warfare is a legitimate concern and I'm not telling you what you are allowed to consider to be frustrating or not frustrating but there is a difference in a feature being frustrating and one that is an active cheat. I believe you should be more careful of using the term cheating since it is inflammatory and accusatory. Your original point is somewhat incorrect. The game is actually two games. For the strategic level part you are correct but for the tactical scenarios you do take on the role of the fleet admiral. Regardless, one of the features being added to RTW2 is the ability to choose your targets for invasions. "Invasions You can select a possession as target for invasion planning. If the conditions for a successful invasion are met (a substantial force with 4:1 superiority in the area) there is a chance that the invasion will take place. Invasion preparations will cost 1% + 300 000 every turn. Note: There will be no spontaneous invasions like in RTW1. You have to select a target to make an invasion happen."
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Sept 19, 2018 16:56:29 GMT -6
My battleship was part of a fleet, all of the ships were undamaged. This is a situation where the hand of the AI came down and destroyed my ship to turn a major victory into a minor loss.
Yorktown was so badly damaged after Midway it was under tow. This allowed the Japanese submarine to strike from ambush. I have had ships not quite make it back to port before. I know the difference.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Sept 19, 2018 17:40:18 GMT -6
The other ships I mentioned were undamaged and travelling as part of a fleet. HMS Barham and Kongo were sunk by submarines while transiting. So was USS Indianapolis. Sometimes a surface ship just stumbles right over the sub. Stuff happens. Again, it's a random event not a conspiracy and shouldn't be described as such.
|
|