Any thoughts? Strange behavior?

[barbarossa2]

Dave,

I sent you 5 saved files...Bug1, bug2, bug3, bug4, and bug5, hoping that you will get before and afters of any situation you would like to look at.

They were done sequentially. I had my partner save games on his end before this, but I believe he has lost the files. Or can't find them.

Bug 1: The first one may have the units on the eastern front, near Thermopylae, stalled and doing nothing.

Bug 2-Bug 5: will probably have the units in the west (the ones mostly discussed in this thread, with the attached Engineering HQ) stalled.

Again, don't know what you will find. If anything. I will not assume it is a fault of the COTA engine. I just hope what you find isn't too humiliating.[:D]

Chris

[Arjuna]

Chris,
 
 
Thanks. I'll try and get to these next week.
 
If the findings are "too humiliating" for you, what are my instructions? [;)]

[barbarossa2]

A luger and free passage to Switzerland for my wife and children would be nice.

But I was good at getting battalion level, single HQ attacks moving. So I think there was something going on.

[06 Maestro]

What scenario is this?  I would like to take a look.
 

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

In fact, here is another one in the same sector which has decided on a defend order...instead of attacking to the south off the map. Seems to be doing rather well also.

This happened to me a few times, and, if I'm not mistaken, it happened in HttR as well.
I used to think that it dealt with subunits/HQs being tired or being badly battered, for a while.

After giving an attack order (with high aggro/normal rate of fire/low losses = default attack settings) several times, the HQ in question would just issue/execute a defend order and would deny to move on to the next attack (ordered by the player).

Playing with orders delay and on "fast/fastest" game speed, I went to check the status/progress of these particular HQs after a while, just to find them hanging around on the same spot for 8-10+ hrs. In case you forget about such units once in a while, it's really frustrating, especially if you rely on deploying those troop contingents.

I recreated these situations without order delay (back in HttR already) and figured that raising the aggro level to MAX (and losses to "medium") would make the HQ forward an attack order immediately (since it reorg'ed at once). It's the same with COTA.

If you don't watch your troops (playing on fast/fastest + orders delay) and if you assume that all attack orders are going to be executed correctly, your course may be doomed (be it MP or SP), since vital troops just sit there for ages. This also happens to single detached Coys, if their aggro settings are on "high/norm/low" (aggro/ROF/losses) for a longer period.

I use to issue "MAX aggro" - attacks in Multiplayer AND Single Player after a given unit has carried out let's say 2-3 attacks on "high aggro", or if it had conducted a tiring force march, in order to avoid that it gets to (what I call) the "lazy state". I feel like a russian Politic. Commissar each time, who threatens his troops with death penalty if they don't move their lazy bums......[;)] . Even using MAX aggro would then lead to a state where the unit may fall back to "lazy state" again, where I use to issue let's say "medium/high/high"-attacks: the unit would then start to move/attack immediately again. Tinkering with these settings that way ensures troops keep moving. I encountered some situations where even that "trick" ceased to work, as troops were completely knackered/battered (the particular HQ had like 15% fatigue only, many times, though).

Being forced to use MAX aggro/medium losses (in these situations) may impact outcome of parts of the battle and general use of strategy, though, as a positive outcome of let's say a screening operation or a careful/slow attack (where your troops won't be able to pass/bypass enemy positions, since MAX aggro would mean that your troops halt/shoot at everything in sight) is being hampered by this particular AI-behaviour. Bad stuff.

Well, if this is isn't dealing with fatigue, I'd love to have this fixed.

[barbarossa2]

Any news on this one Arjuna? Have you had a chance to check the files I sent with as busy as you surely are??? [;)]

[Arjuna]

Sorry Chris but I'm in the middle ( well actually I hope it's near the end ) of getting the new force group code working. I can't get past the StartGame code at the moment. So I have not been in a position to test your saved games. I will endeavour to do so this week sometime.

[barbarossa2]

Cool Arjuna. [:)]

Based on Good Guy's comments above, I think I am not alone on this. I really think there is a problem with something when combining commands into larger task units. They often tend to sit and "stew" and then often end up "bunkering down" when no such orders were given.

But of course I could be wrong.

Good luck on the Force Group Code. And merry holidays.

[loyalcitizen]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2
Based on Good Guy's comments above, I think I am not alone on this.

You are not alone in this. Many a time i have seen large multi-HQ units either fail to start an attack, or move way out of position in order to start an attack from somewhere hell and gone.
In the image below, I gave the 9th Panzer Div one order when it arrived on map: Form-up at the crossroads and make a quickest, successive attack. It is apparent that the units don't realize they can just wait an hour before creating another line of attack. There is no need to move 3km backwards and start the attack from there!

[loyalcitizen]

I thought perhaps there was problems with Successive Lines, so I replayed from the save changing only one thing: I switched the attack formation from Successive Lines to Arrow. Below is 9th Panzer's Form-up for an Arrow-Quickest. I don't see how forming up 2km back off the highway in the middle of known enemy positions is anything close to quick. Help!!

[06 Maestro]

Loyalcitizen
 
That is a tight spot you're in.  The size of the unit you are trying to form up for the assault is large for the area of operations.  If your forces were approaching from the wide valley, I would make it a successive line formation and adjust frontage to fit between the hills.  It you are approaching by the roadway through consticted terrain, I would keep the succesive lines, but split up the attacking forces into Bn task forces and give them seperate objectives.  Ideally, you should be able to form up beyond hostile fire, but in the type of terrain we are dealing with in COTA, this is not always possible.  It is sometimes neccessary to form up very close to the objective (and enemy fire).  In that kind
 of situation, I think the smaller units work better.  To try to cram a division into 4 sq km in clear view of the enemy is asking for trouble/heavy losses.
I hope that helps.

[barbarossa2]

Hello All!

I am back in here after a long delay due to computer problems (motherboard, DVD player, AND power supply).

Dave, have you had a chance to check this out? I would LOVE to hear that this multi HQ thing is working the way it is supposed to. I have a friend who signed on here, and we decided to hold on playing until this was checked out.

Thanks!

Chris

[Mehring]

I thought the game had been designed by someone with a chip on their shoulder against the brass.[;)]
My experience is, unless you just like watching time and victory slip away over a cold drink as your units shuffle aimlessly back and forth, don't bother with anything greater than regiment/brigade HQ led attack and battalion is usually faster, the units more focused on the task you've given them.

[Arjuna]

Chris,
 
Thanks for reminding me. I'll get onto it directly.

[barbarossa2]

Thanks. [:)] I guess the reason I like the multi HQ and multi group (i.e. one HQ and maybe a few engineers thrown in for good measure) attacks, is because I *BELIEVE* (read: hope) that the COTA AI is better able to "run the show" on combined arms attacks and ranges required for optimum effectiveness than I am. So...I like to give these groups their orders without hoping to command all of the intricacies of the advantages and disadvantages and at what ranges these come into play for each unit.

Anyway. Dave, thanks for checking into this.

[Arjuna]

Chris,
 
I need your passwords for you and your mate so I can test these saved games.

[MarkShot]

In fact, it will be even more helpful for testing purposes, if you send along your VISA card number, your social security number, and a digital scan of your signature. When hunting for bugs, we always go for biggest phish we can catch. Thanks!

[Arjuna]

Chris,
 
Don't believe that Markshot. The trouble is he has too much spare time on his hands and can think of such schemes. Me I'm treading water so much I can barely stay afloat. Your multiplayer passwords are safe with me mate. [;)]

[RayWolfe]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

In fact, it will be even more helpful for testing purposes, if you send along your VISA card number, your social security number, and a digital scan of your signature. When hunting for bugs, we always go for biggest phish we can catch. Thanks!

[:D]
Don't forget your full address and mothers maiden name!
Ray

[barbarossa2]

In the "AI Orders Delay" Thread which was started recently, Mehring posted>

"I'd say the approach requires more skill and a bit of luck, as well as familiarity with how the system works (like don't give corps/divisional orders, little or nothing will ever happen). It's all relative but with delay, you're dealing less with what definately is or will be than with variously timed approximations of the future. More interesting IMO, and realistic."

I find this interesting. Yes, once I get over battalion, or mix units, it rarely seems to go anywhere. And this is even without orders delay. I have tested no orders delay a few times to see what happens and it is just difficult to get anything to happen above battalion.

In one online battle, perplexed as to my lack of attacks on his positions for almost 2 days, my opponent asked, "Do you think you're making any progress?" He may have noticed that I had decided to test out mixed HQs and attaching units to support attacks.