The AI

[cleveland]

It's been awhile since I played RTW but I have all the naval games in the series (Steam & Iron, Russo-Japan) and I can honestly say I've never been disappointed with any release.  Is the AI going to be much what we expect? Will it be overhauled?  I'd like to use this thread to get some feedback on what players thought of RTW's AI and what might be improved.

I'm really looking forward to RTW2!  

[axe99]

I thought RtW's AI was very good (exceptionally so, really, given the battles were relatively randomly generated), although as with AI there's always room for improvement - but I found the enemy tended to be sensible about when it would engage, withdraw, etc., and how it went about it. I'm guessing the air side of things will be the biggest focus of air work in RtW2 (and how ships react to this) - making sure carriers and their escorts behave sensibly, CAPs staying in a sensible location and strike wings doing what they do sensibly as well. I'm confident Fredrik will focus on what's important and do a great job .

[alexbrunius]

As long as the AI don't spend more time hugging islands than American Cruisers in World of Warships I will be happy..

[HolyDragoon]

Fortunately, in RTW hugging islands is highly unadvisable: it just gives the enemy one solid anvil to pound you flat.

[alexbrunius]

Jun 2, 2018 18:24:46 GMT -6 HolyDragoon said:

Fortunately, in RTW hugging islands is highly unadvisable: it just gives the enemy one solid anvil to pound you flat.

Which is why it's unfortunate that the AI enjoys engaging in this activity 

[psyentific]

pinning an enemy ship up against terrain is the surest way to dictate range. in certain areas it's pretty easy to do that so i hope the AI gets a bit better about extricating itself from that.

[director]

I have found the AI to be somewhat too eager to run instead of fight. The degree of eagerness for battle could perhaps vary (and be turned a notch more toward eager).

[axe99]

Jun 5, 2018 18:17:14 GMT -6 director said:

I have found the AI to be somewhat too eager to run instead of fight. The degree of eagerness for battle could perhaps vary (and be turned a notch more toward eager).

To be fair, if I came up against a fleet under your command, I'd be tending to run unless I had a significant advantage .  I'm not sure I've found the AI's preference for fighting too timid, but I think the idea of varying the eagerness by time and nation could lead to more dynamism in the game, and would be a good thing .

[director]

axe99 - funny, the sailors under my command don't seem to agree with you. LOL. Good to hear from you, btw - hope you are doing well.
What I refer to is the AI's tendency to run in single or small-number-of-ships engagements. I have found that by laying back I can sometimes tempt them into engaging, but usually they just run over the horizon unless I have the speed to catch them.

I'm running a USA campaign just now with a house rule that prohibits dreadnoughts. So I'm building massive semi-dreadnoughts that have 10" and 12" secondaries and relatively thin armor, and the AI (smartly) won;t close the range to engage. Just had a big fleet battle where I caught the enemy at night... heheheheh. I lost one semi to a secondary explosion and they lost a BB, a B, a CA and a CL. So far, it seems to be workable but I'm not sure it is a viable solution long-term.

[axe99]

Jun 6, 2018 10:03:44 GMT -6 director said:

axe99 - funny, the sailors under my command don't seem to agree with you. LOL. Good to hear from you, btw - hope you are doing well.
What I refer to is the AI's tendency to run in single or small-number-of-ships engagements. I have found that by laying back I can sometimes tempt them into engaging, but usually they just run over the horizon unless I have the speed to catch them.

I'm running a USA campaign just now with a house rule that prohibits dreadnoughts. So I'm building massive semi-dreadnoughts that have 10" and 12" secondaries and relatively thin armor, and the AI (smartly) won;t close the range to engage. Just had a big fleet battle where I caught the enemy at night... heheheheh. I lost one semi to a secondary explosion and they lost a BB, a B, a CA and a CL. So far, it seems to be workable but I'm not sure it is a viable solution long-term.

Cheers Director, hope you're doing well as well .  Is there a chance your 'big cruiser' approach (if still a thing) might be colouring experiences?  I've found that when the AI is outgunned, they'll often run pretty quickly, but usually close and have a go until it's clear they don't have much of a chance.  At least from memory (and my memory is sketchy), when things are 50/50 they'll usually 'have a go' and see if they can't get the advantage with good shots early (and sometimes they do, the cheeky blighters!)

Whether my memory is accurate or not, I like your idea of variation in aggressiveness - would keep players on their toes even more, as it would be harder to predict AI behaviour.

Also, that house rule sounds very interesting .

[director]

Oh, I still love my whacking-great 'light' cruiser. I think I'm no great shakes as a tactician, so I take every advantage I can get. Given that mine run 6500-8000 tons and the typical AI light is 3100-5000 tons, you could be right.

[axe99]

Jun 6, 2018 19:58:31 GMT -6 director said:

I'm no great shakes as a tactician

I'm sorry but there's no dimension in the multiverse where I'll agree with this .

[kungfutreachery]

The friendly AI's flaws are more glaring than the enemy AI. It would be nice to have a bit more input in how supporting forces and AI-controlled divisions behave, as a middle ground between admiral's mode and turning off AI divisions entirely. Basically more granular versions of flotilla attack and battle turn away. For example, being able to signal supporting forces to "converge on division X or Y" or "intercept enemy ship X" with an appropriate margin of error for whether they receive the signal and how they execute it.

More information about what friendly ships are doing would also be useful, like, instead of just knowing that the supporting Battle Division is somewhere over there, it might tell you (again with a margin of error) that the division is "engaging enemy ship" or "needs help" or something. For all I know, the supporting forces in RTW already do attempt to find and attack enemies which the player has already detected, but the game doesn't say whether or not they're doing so.

[director]

I would settle for the ability to form my ships into divisions and assign flagships. I grow weary of having to deal with forty divisions of battlecruisers, all out of my control.

More information on friendly ships (like sightings) would be welcome but only plausible after the deployment of radio.

[oldpop2000]

One item that I would like to see implemented is to be able to assign submarines to any mission I wish to assign them to. In other words, allow me to assign my submarines to different missions as is normally done in the real world. If I can now do that, somebody explain it to me please.

I would also appreciate the ability to assign any aircraft to any mission including some I just make up. I want flexibility in mission planning and execution. I especially want to be able to put torpedoes on my seaplanes.

BTW, if you have never been inside a Navy Blimp hanger, you haven't lived. They are a something to believe.