Any way to get the PO to actually defend?

[Uncle_Joe]

The title pretty much says it all, but a little more explanation....

What I would like would be for the PO to defend the set objectives but not to try and retake ones it loses. The 'Defend' order really only seems to matter until they lose an objective and then they are off balls to the walls trying to retake it, even if it is low numbered.

As a result, many good defensive positions are abandoned and local counter attacks bleed off the defender's strength. This make it hard to set up any form of programmed defense. Sure, I can make the units 'garrison', but that does really solve the problem either as they can easily be bypassed and they wont react to more important places being taken (or fall back on the objectives).;

So, the question stands...how does one get the PO to actually do a defense? Call it a falling back defense if you want, but something to have them give ground rather than counter-attacking to retake lost ground (especially when its not feasible).

Thanks in advance!

[Szilard]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

The title pretty much says it all, but a little more explanation....

What I would like would be for the PO to defend the set objectives but not to try and retake ones it loses. The 'Defend' order really only seems to matter until they lose an objective and then they are off balls to the walls trying to retake it, even if it is low numbered.

As a result, many good defensive positions are abandoned and local counter attacks bleed off the defender's strength. This make it hard to set up any form of programmed defense. Sure, I can make the units 'garrison', but that does really solve the problem either as they can easily be bypassed and they wont react to more important places being taken (or fall back on the objectives).;

So, the question stands...how does one get the PO to actually do a defense? Call it a falling back defense if you want, but something to have them give ground rather than counter-attacking to retake lost ground (especially when its not feasible).

Thanks in advance!

Short answer, from my experience: Nope.

TOAD needs to form a High-Level Working Sub-Committee Action Group to design & implement a new set of formation orders. Criteria: predictable, coherent, complete, transparent, non-frustrating, nice, healthy, chic, yummy.

But having said that, TOAW III is somewhere between 6000000% and 10000000000% better at defence than any previous version.

[Uncle_Joe]

So how do we best take advantage of the changes to the PO in defense? In other words, what orders/objectives should the PO have to best utilize the changes made to the PO logic?

[larryfulkerson]

My experience has been, lately, that the new AI is much better in the Attack phase and not so much better in the Defense phase.  I got the Barbarosa '41 scenario to play itself several times and most of the time the attacking player has the better performance overall.  Your mileage may vary.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

The title pretty much says it all, but a little more explanation....

What I would like would be for the PO to defend the set objectives but not to try and retake ones it loses. The 'Defend' order really only seems to matter until they lose an objective and then they are off balls to the walls trying to retake it, even if it is low numbered.

As a result, many good defensive positions are abandoned and local counter attacks bleed off the defender's strength. This make it hard to set up any form of programmed defense. Sure, I can make the units 'garrison', but that does really solve the problem either as they can easily be bypassed and they wont react to more important places being taken (or fall back on the objectives).;

So, the question stands...how does one get the PO to actually do a defense? Call it a falling back defense if you want, but something to have them give ground rather than counter-attacking to retake lost ground (especially when its not feasible).

Thanks in advance!

Do you hae a scenario that defends particularly poorly, and they don't fall back?

Ralph

[Uncle_Joe]

Do you hae a scenario that defends particularly poorly, and they don't fall back?

Yes, I'm heavily modifying the TWW scenario and the NATO AI just continues to throw itself at the Pact units even to the point of being cut off. Now granted some of those formations have objectives that are behind enemy lines, but they are set to Defend (well, actually Static which is supposed to transition to Defend on activation).

What I was hoping for was for a simple fall back defense in the face of opposition with the counterattacks coming if there were no enemy units nearby (or only weak enemy units etc). As it stands, 'Defending' units still try and protect all of the objectives even ones that are clearly beyond their ability to take or take back.

[Szilard]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Do you hae a scenario that defends particularly poorly, and they don't fall back?

Yes, I'm heavily modifying the TWW scenario and the NATO AI just continues to throw itself at the Pact units even to the point of being cut off. Now granted some of those formations have objectives that are behind enemy lines, but they are set to Defend (well, actually Static which is supposed to transition to Defend on activation).

What I was hoping for was for a simple fall back defense in the face of opposition with the counterattacks coming if there were no enemy units nearby (or only weak enemy units etc). As it stands, 'Defending' units still try and protect all of the objectives even ones that are clearly beyond their ability to take or take back.

I think a basic problem is that "defend" orders change to "attack" if any objectives have been taken - at least according to the manual. It's a kind of fundamental flaw, IMO, and cries out for a true "defend" order.

But IMO TOAW3 is certainly better at falling back now, I think for two reasons:

- It seems to be better at weighing its strength vis-a-vis the enemy. So it doesn't get as stupidly aggressive as it used to, and it is more prudent about putting itself in dangerous situations (could be wrong on the last point, but does appear to be the case).
- It is definitely better at avoiding being outflanked when in contact with the enemy.

Ratcheting the strategic bias down can help further, and you can try "screen" instead of "defend" (but that tends to make the AI divide units, which may not be appropriate). I also tend to let the PO have 100% recon, in an attemnpt to give it more info about relative strengths & threats, but I'm not sure how much difference that makes.

[Dabbs]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

The title pretty much says it all, but a little more explanation....

What I would like would be for the PO to defend the set objectives but not to try and retake ones it loses. The 'Defend' order really only seems to matter until they lose an objective and then they are off balls to the walls trying to retake it, even if it is low numbered.

As a result, many good defensive positions are abandoned and local counter attacks bleed off the defender's strength. This make it hard to set up any form of programmed defense. Sure, I can make the units 'garrison', but that does really solve the problem either as they can easily be bypassed and they wont react to more important places being taken (or fall back on the objectives).;

So, the question stands...how does one get the PO to actually do a defense? Call it a falling back defense if you want, but something to have them give ground rather than counter-attacking to retake lost ground (especially when its not feasible).

Thanks in advance!

Purely theoretical on my part as I haven't designed scenarios, but this might be addressed by using the event engine to give units and formations a different objective track. Once an objective is taken it activates a trigger disposing the units to "defend" the next point in its area of operations...which should (theoretically) clear it's orders relative to the first objective and send it on its way to the new objective...but again, this is conjecture on my part.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
What I was hoping for was for a simple fall back defense in the face of opposition with the counterattacks coming if there were no enemy units nearby (or only weak enemy units etc). As it stands, 'Defending' units still try and protect all of the objectives even ones that are clearly beyond their ability to take or take back.

You should be able to make Elmer do a simple defense like that. One thing that you can do to help tune is to add the polog command line, it should give you more insite into what Elmer is doing.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
So, the question stands...how does one get the PO to actually do a defense? Call it a falling back defense if you want, but something to have them give ground rather than counter-attacking to retake lost ground (especially when its not feasible).

Hi!

Isn't that what the "screen" order is for?

In my personal scenarios I use "defend" only for critical objectives which must be held.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Uncle_Joe]

Purely theoretical on my part as I haven't designed scenarios, but this might be addressed by using the event engine to give units and formations a different objective track. Once an objective is taken it activates a trigger disposing the units to "defend" the next point in its area of operations...which should (theoretically) clear it's orders relative to the first objective and send it on its way to the new objective...but again, this is conjecture on my part.

I dont believe that is possible with the current engine (although it may just be me not knowing how). The multiple tracks seems to be all or nothing for a force. In a scenario this big, the situation is likely to be radically different in different areas of the map making any form of 'global' change to orders hard to use.

You should be able to make Elmer do a simple defense like that. One thing that you can do to help tune is to add the polog command line, it should give you more insite into what Elmer is doing.

OK, I'll give that a shot. Thanks.

Isn't that what the "screen" order is for?

I tried Screen and it didnt work at all. Most NATO units split up and then they all kind of moved pell-mell around the area without holding much ground.

The scenario has a really high unit density in the Central Europe theatre and that is where the AI is the weakest. The AIs constant movement of 'defending' troops results in a lot of 'engaged' hits and a lot of losses of entrenched/fortified positions. Its already a struggle for NATO to hang on with the amount of Pact units (although it can be done) so anything that undermines their effectiveness really hurts.

I also havent found a way to have them 'protect' a location. Even high numbered 'defense' objectives are routinely abandoned. If the location falls, they will try and take it back, but there is no effort to hold it even when the enemy sits adjacent to these 'critical' locales.

All in all, the PO does a MUCH better job of attacking. I agree that some sort of 'defend' order that does not convert to 'attack' when the objectives are not under friendly control would be helpful. Instead, let it concentrate on defending what is left of the objectives. I dont know how possible that is with the engine though.

Thanks for the input!

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

All in all, the PO does a MUCH better job of attacking. I agree that some sort of 'defend' order that does not convert to 'attack' when the objectives are not under friendly control would be helpful. Instead, let it concentrate on defending what is left of the objectives. I dont know how possible that is with the engine though.

If you want to email me the scenario and a description of where it's being stupid, I'll take a look at it when I get time. I may be able to help.

Ralph

[CommC]

Another scenario where this problem is evident is Desert Storm. I've been trying to modify it to get the Iraqi side to do a better job of a falling back defense... and found it hopeless. That was in ACOW. Perhaps in TOAW3 it will be better.

If you want to take a look at that one, Ralph, it may be a good place to start. Just providing scenario designers a new defend order that doesn't revert to attack when an objective is taken would be a good start.

[Erik2]

Have you tried putting the objective track in reverse order, ie changing nos 1-9 to 9-1?
Or having the formation in garrison and using events to shift PO order to defend or screen if certain hexes are being attacked by the opposition?

Erik

[Raindem]

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard
Have you tried putting the objective track in reverse order, ie changing nos 1-9 to 9-1?

I use this method in Blitzkrieg to cause a general withdrawal. It works as intended but you have to be real careful on how you plan to trigger this behavior. Too easy to leave Elmer vulnerable to gamey moves by a savvy human player.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Raindem

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard
Have you tried putting the objective track in reverse order, ie changing nos 1-9 to 9-1?

I use this method in Blitzkrieg to cause a general withdrawal. It works as intended but you have to be real careful on how you plan to trigger this behavior. Too easy to leave Elmer vulnerable to gamey moves by a savvy human player.

Elmer should work better now than in COW. You shouldn't have to put the hexes in reverse order, in fact, it will cause problems since Elmer will be convinced that he's being flanked!

In TOAW III Elmer is smart enough to have a clue about when he's flanked. In the release version, he was a little too aggressive when he should have been on the defensive. That will be fixed in a future patch.

One consequence of the flanking is that if you want to defend a front, you should use a large sawtooth, and not a line perpindicular to the axis of advance.

He also may be less obsessed with the actual objective hexes, and more concerned with the territory.

[Szilard]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

One consequence of the flanking is that if you want to defend a front, you should use a large sawtooth, and not a line perpindicular to the axis of advance.

Ralph - Can you expand on that a little, please? Not exactly sure what you mean by "sawtooth".

[ralphtricky]

By Sawtooth, I mean something like the following with the rear hexes far back enough that they're not likely to be overrun.

When looking for a flank, Elmer goes from the last objective to the center of the force, and then draws a line perpindicular between them though the center of the force. When looking at being flanked, he looks at this line to determine if he's flanked. With a pattern like this, if the enemy takes objective 2, then the line from objective 1 to the force center is used, etc. If you just put a line like the second method, if the enemy takes objective 3, Elmer looks at objective 2 to the center, and is probably going to assume that he's flanked at that point.

CORRECT
ENEMY
4 2 6




3 1 5
REAR


INCORRECT

2 3 4 5 6




1

[Szilard]

Thanks, Ralph. Can you give more of an idea of what the "semantics" of this sawtooth objective placement would be?
Is it "defend along the 4-2-6 line until pushed back to 3-1-5"? If it is something like that, what will make it pull back - just an out-flanking, a strong threat to 3-1-5, ???

What happens if the formation starts somewhere removed from these objectives - what will cause it to or prevent it from moving towards them, and which will it focus on when it does move? What happens if the formation is positioned along 4-2-6 and the enemy threatens 3-1-5 from (say) a rear flank?

You say that Elmer focuses on territory as well as objectives, but can you be more specific about how the focusing works? What kind of considerations, what kind of weighting etc etc.

Say I've got a long river line which I want a formation to defend along - what's the best way to set up objectives? Scatter them at equal intervals with a sawtooth back to a fall-back line? Do I need to have every hex in the line covered by an objective - I assume not, but is there any way of estimating the best density?

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
By Sawtooth, I mean something like the following . . .

Well, that sure clears things up!! Can you draw a picture of 4-2-6 ?

Regards, RhinoBones