How the hell........

[ddiplock]

Running the new TMO 2.5 with RSRD too.

Its January 1942, and I was tasked to perform choke point patrol ops in the Makassar Straight, when I ran into what appeared to be what I can only describe as a dedicated Japanese Hunter-Killer group, what I ascertained to be 4 Destroyers operating as a group.

It was approaching dark, with the sun setting in twilight, but the darnest thing is.....no sooner had my lookouts spotted them and I was trying to ascertain what they were through my binos, the two lead destroyers opened fire pretty much immediatly!!!

It was no big deal, I just dove down to 350ft and snuck away in my Sargo class.

But.....how did they know I was there!!! They spotted me from a ridiculous range and opened fire!!

[Hinrich Schwab]

The TMO AI is pretty brutal. From what I have read (I use RFB, BTW.) the AI is operating at relative peak despite the historically variable level of performance from the IJN. It will capitalize on the slightest mistake you make. It is one of the big selling points or chief complaints (depending on your view) of TMO is that the IJN performs as well as the Royal Navy in the game. I am not a fan of that concept because the quality of ASW varied greatly amongst the IJN. One moment, you could have IJN's equivalent of Bernard on you and the next encounter could drop Bungo Pete in your lap. The uncertainty is missing. Everything I have read about the TMO AI says that your chance of detection is very high and the punishment is coming when they do find you.

If a veteran TMO player wishes to override anything I have said, I will gladly step aside as I do not use TMO. From what I read in the manual, the AI boost was to add extra "action" to encounters.

Originally Posted by TMO Manual, Page 10

The games AI has more sensitive sensor settings then [sic] in the stock game, and has one philosophy in
mind. That being, attacking a convoy, and not getting depth charged to some degree, is anti climatic,
and boring.

I personally think this philosophy is flawed. Not getting depth charged is not necessarily a sign of a flawed AI. It may be a sign of a competent player. Granted, the stock AI is a bit on the weak side, but boosting the sensors to compensate is not my idea of balance. Quite frankly, this is what prevented me from selecting TMO as my megamod. Historically, the IJN's successes in ASW were not as remarkable as their British counterparts and I expect the emulation to be as much.

Another thing you haven't stated was how far away you were when you were spotted, your speed and, more importantly, where the sun was as it set. If the sun was behind the hunter-killers in relation to you, their visibility was excellent.

[TorpX]

I'll go along with the previous post, and add a couple things:

1. TMO increased the range that IJN ships can fire at you. Some people had the view that because cruisers have guns that range 20,000 yds., they should be shooting 20,000 yds. Also, as has already been said, there was a desire to "spice up the game".

2. Schwartzritter's caution about sunlight applies to the moon, as well. I was spotted after patiently tracking a TB on the surface in the middle of the night. Since it was several hours before sunrise, I figured I was safe. However, the moon was rising behind me and while it had not yet appeared above the horizon, the sky behind me had begun to lighten. This was just enough for them to spot me. BTW, this happened in RFB.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by TorpX

I'll go along with the previous post, and add a couple things:

1. TMO increased the range that IJN ships can fire at you. Some people had the view that because cruisers have guns that range 20,000 yds., they should be shooting 20,000 yds. Also, as has already been said, there was a desire to "spice up the game".

2. Schwartzritter's caution about sunlight applies to the moon, as well. I was spotted after patiently tracking a TB on the surface in the middle of the night. Since it was several hours before sunrise, I figured I was safe. However, the moon was rising behind me and while it had not yet appeared above the horizon, the sky behind me had begun to lighten. This was just enough for them to spot me. BTW, this happened in RFB.

I am glad I am not the only one that sees TMO's uber-AI as flawed. If I take a pounding, I want it to be because I legitimately made a mistake, not because of fake difficulty because someone else thinks that the game is dull. If I smoke a convoy and slink away without a scratch, it is because I did something right, not because of a wimpy AI. I played the U-boat missions and had a pretty nasty go with 5 destroyers with the stock AI while I was in the Type IXD2 pig. Luck and skill allowed me to sneak away after sinking an objective troop carrier and I was grazed by an errant depth charge in the process with minimal damage. Using the philosophy behind the TMO AI, I would have been killed or crippled because someone thinks that you are supposed to get depth charged every time you get within range of a destroyer. For the people that like this kind of challenge. More power to them. I do not share this view.

About the gun range issue, I read that ~20,000 yards is the maximum range for the caliber gun on most escorts. However, the uber-AI eliminates the human error resulting from parallax and curvature of the Earth in targeting, meaning that the guns are much more effective at maximum range than historical information would indicate.

Regarding the lighting and visibility, I read about that in the RFB book or thread somewhere. Too bad there is no almanac or ephemeris to tell players what moon phase is up. SHII has one by default, but that feature never made it into the other games.

[TorpX]

Well, I can understand Ducimus (and others') desire to make the game more challanging. It is to be expected that some people will play the game more, and in doing so will discover the AI's weak points. There are also aspects of the game that give the player the advantage (depending on how one plays), so there is a choice of either accepting the game more or less as is, or goosing up the AI capabilities some to compensate for the deficency. I kind of like what you said about having the AI so there is a high level of uncertainty for the player, though.


If I had my own computer game company (developing SH 6), I would handle this by having an optional dynamic campaign, of a fictional nature. This would negate the advantage of history buffs knowing what is going to happen, where battles will be fought, where the most traffic will go, and how well the weapons (yours or theirs) will perform. This I would do with random functions, so every such campaign would be unique. Otherwise, it is hard to put the player in the shoes of their historical counterparts, who had to react to events, day by day, with no historical precognition.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by TorpX

Well, I can understand Ducimus (and others') desire to make the game more challanging. It is to be expected that some people will play the game more, and in doing so will discover the AI's weak points. There are also aspects of the game that give the player the advantage (depending on how one plays), so there is a choice of either accepting the game more or less as is, or goosing up the AI capabilities some to compensate for the deficency. I kind of like what you said about having the AI so there is a high level of uncertainty for the player, though.


If I had my own computer game company (developing SH 6), I would handle this by having an optional dynamic campaign, of a fictional nature. This would negate the advantage of history buffs knowing what is going to happen, where battles will be fought, where the most traffic will go, and how well the weapons (yours or theirs) will perform. This I would do with random functions, so every such campaign would be unique. Otherwise, it is hard to put the player in the shoes of their historical counterparts, who had to react to events, day by day, with no historical precognition.

I like the dynamic campaign idea. It presents something completely different. There can be AI scripts based on a standardized difficulty, rather than an attempt to re-create a historical mean level of performance, which is much harder to do. As far as the "unknown" factor in judging an individual platform's competence, I think this would add an element of suspense and the need for good judgment on the part of the player to deal with upon each encounter.

The biggest "enemy" in sims is predictability. It doesn't matter how hard or easy an AI is if it is predictable. Worrying sick about a destroyer, only to find out that Bernard is the skipper can rob one of convoy kills due to excess caution. Likewise, running into too many Bernard destroyers sets one up for an HMS Walker the hard way. Keep a player guessing and everything flows.

[WernherVonTrapp]

With all due respect Schwartzritter, you're critiquing TMO and, according to your first post ("The TMO AI is pretty brutal. From what I have read") you haven't even tried it. I'm not trying to say that you'd like it. I'm just having difficulty reconciling your opinion of the mod w/o having played it.
Personally, I like TMO and do not find the AI overwhelming. Challenging yes, overwhelming no. I think you might actually be surprised if you ever fire it up.