[3.4 beta]Problem with Elmer

This forum is for official support and troubleshooting FAQs.

Moderators: JAMiAM, ralphtricky

Post Reply
User avatar
stone10
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:54 pm
Contact:

[3.4 beta]Problem with Elmer

Post by stone10 »

It seems like the PO tend to ignore all the objects except the last one. For example, in my Xuzhou scenario, the communist PO pass all the objects I've placed (TaiErZhuang, ShangQiu e.g.) but the last object (XinAnZhen). I try to change the formation order, only "secure" has some effects. If I want the PO to clear every objects like in 3.2, what should I do?
Image
Image
User avatar
ralphtricky
Posts: 6675
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:05 am
Location: Colorado Springs
Contact:

RE: [3.4 beta]Problem with Elmer

Post by ralphtricky »

ORIGINAL: stone10

It seems like the PO tend to ignore all the objects except the last one. For example, in my Xuzhou scenario, the communist PO pass all the objects I've placed (TaiErZhuang, ShangQiu e.g.) but the last object (XinAnZhen). I try to change the formation order, only "secure" has some effects. If I want the PO to clear every objects like in 3.2, what should I do?
Can you tell me where to download that scenario, please?
Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.
User avatar
stone10
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:54 pm
Contact:

RE: [3.4 beta]Problem with Elmer

Post by stone10 »

XuZhou 1948 in WW II - Asia or Modern - Asia folder
 
Image
Image
User avatar
Silvanski
Posts: 2511
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Belgium, residing in TX-USA

RE: [3.4 beta]Problem with Elmer

Post by Silvanski »

I had a look at it and indeed I see something odd
The ShanNan Ind. Div. enters in 0.12 on turn 4 and has its 1st objective at Shang Qui and then ZhuJi, but doesn't seem to be going for those locations. I have noticed the PO does a better job with the first objective to be in friendly territory, so you may considering putting that at point of entry 0.12 which is also a supply point, and therefor may also provide protection in case of an enemy counter attack towards that point
The TOAW Redux Dude
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: [3.4 beta]Problem with Elmer

Post by sPzAbt653 »

I can add that Advance, Attack or Secure sometimes don't work as well as Defend. Doesn't seem to make sense, but worth a try as I've had better results in some cases with Defend. Also worth a try is changing the 'Formation Order Emphasis' in the 'Formation Report' box from 'limited' to 'ignore'. This often gets units moving in the proper/intended direction. Maybe [:)]
User avatar
Silvanski
Posts: 2511
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Belgium, residing in TX-USA

RE: [3.4 beta]Problem with Elmer

Post by Silvanski »

Ralph modified some code for Elmer's behaviour. This seems to have solved the problem in this scenario


Image
Attachments
Clipboard01.gif
Clipboard01.gif (188.77 KiB) Viewed 151 times
The TOAW Redux Dude
User avatar
ralphtricky
Posts: 6675
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:05 am
Location: Colorado Springs
Contact:

RE: [3.4 beta]Problem with Elmer

Post by ralphtricky »

ORIGINAL: Silvanski
Ralph modified some code for Elmer's behaviour. This seems to have solved the problem in this scenario
Sadly, I probably broke some other, though. I need to post in the scenario design folder when things calm down. Basically, what happens now is that if the objective is on a hex with a victory value, then Elmer will absolutely try to take the hex which means that you can ping pong him by taking an earlier hex. If the formation objective is NOT on a hex with a victory value, then the normal logic applies and he may not take the objective hex.

The scenarios author can decide which behavior is better, and only have some formations come back, or whatever. For this scenario, taking the objective hexes is more important. For others, it may not be.

Ralph
Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.
Post Reply

Return to “TOAW III Support”