Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior!

[JamesLxx]

You may have noticed some bizarre formation behaviour by the AI, for example:

A regiment withdraws a short distance - by forming a complex looping manoeuvre at the run....it then marches back to its new position and turns to face front by using a similar looped execution with both ends running towards the centre and out again.....

In real life the only orders needed here are: "about face" "march" "halt" "about face!"
So why cant the AI use these simple orders that are already programmed and available in the grog toolbar?


Next - wheeling lines: You will have seen lines representing 100's of men suddenly form a fast fluid S while running to change facing by wheeling on their centre axis! This would not work in real life, looks wrong in the game, and breaks up the main brigade line.

There is already programmed in the toolbar the commands wheel left forward/left back/right back ect in which the regiment pivots a short distance from its flank not its centre. Using this command the regiment does the real life "refuse flank" manoeuvre while keeping its flank attached to the main line.

And lastly - when an AI regiment repositions itself within the brigade it does the S-run-wheel often with half its line stuck out at right angles beyond the brigade front line.

Again there exists already programmed commands such as "left flank" "oblique right" available to the player which shifts and repositions a regiment in short realistic moves.

Sorry about the rant - this is a great game which could be superb if the Ai stopped using unrealistic formation behaviour and stuck to the more realistic manoeuvres which are already programmed and available to the player.

[aaatoysandmore]

It's kinda basically always been like that. It's acceptable and works and so no futher programming was ever done on it. It goes all the way back to 2nd Manassas the beginning. Just get used to it you will see it often. [:D]

[mitra]

Thank I appreciate the post . Is difficult to explain without enter in the coding part of things; I don't know if you have experience in programming, if yes you will see and experiment directly, when the SDK will be release, why I avoided to use these commands with the AI of WL like were not used previously in Gettysburg (is not like I didn't make experiment with them). I know my answer is incomplete sorry, but there's not a easy answer without enter in the detail of single code of functions.

[Marvin Pontiac]

Ha ha, this definitely reminds me of my experience with software development. Time and time again, what appears to be a clear and simple logical systems with clear and obvious outcomes turns out to have some obscure and very undesirable outcomes (e.g. infinite recursion) in a very small percentage of cases. And sometimes it is impossible or too hard to determine (with 100% accuracy) the conditions that make these undesirable outcomes occur. This then makes the whole bit of code useless or only useable for a much smaller subset of cases than I thought I could use it for. Regularly this doesn't even have anything to do with coding but with that which the program is supposed to do not being sufficiently thought out (like 'streamlined' organizational processes thought out by some consultancy firm [8|].)

EDIT: What is it about the internet, forums, youtube etc. that makes me want to write preachy dissertations to complete strangers?

EDIT: Wrong question, what is it about me?[:D]

[mitra]

Regularly this doesn't even have anything to do with coding but with that which the program is supposed to do not being sufficiently thought out (like 'streamlined' organizational processes thought out by some consultancy firm [8|].)

And in addition the terrible "final user monster" present in all the companies (typically a woman, who can disagree also on the laws of physic):

"Why SAP (a ERP software I work) didn't block me from making this mistake, it should block me from doing this"
1 day lost to program a block
1 week later
"Why SAP doens't permit me to do this" my reply "is the rule you ask me to set", his reply "yes but the system should know this is a exception"

"Why I cannot do this" myreply "is written in this message error of 5 simple words", his reply "why so complicated? Do I have to read to?"

[Marvin Pontiac]

"Why SAP (a ERP software I work) didn't block me from making this mistake, it should block me from doing this"
1 day lost to program a block
1 week later
"Why SAP doens't permit me to do this" my reply "is the rule you ask me to set", his reply "yes but the system should know this is a exception"

"Why I cannot do this" myreply "is written in this message error of 5 simple word", his reply "why so complicated? Do I have to read to?"

Ha, Haa, that is priceless.

[JamesLxx]

You computer boffins speak in riddles.....

Ok - are you saying that the programming governing formation behaviour cant be changed from the bizarre choreography that it uses at present?

And - that it cant instead use the more realistic formation behaviour which is already programmed and available in the grog toolbar?!

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: JamesL

You computer boffins speak in riddles.....

Ok - are you saying that the programming governing formation behaviour cant be changed from the bizarre choreography that it uses at present?

And - that it cant instead use the more realistic formation behaviour which is already programmed and available in the grog toolbar?!

It probably could be changed but at this late stage of the series as I said it's become acceptable. I've learned to work with it as it is. If you use the double time key during this process it works a lot faster and you really don't lose anything from it. They will spin and fire a lot faster this way.

The answer is basically the same. It can use one of the grog buttons as I stated the double time button. That's how you work with it and live with it I've found.

What I'm looking for is refuse the flank where the regiment actually makes an L shape of the units. As it is I can only turn the whole regiment to the flank and of course then they get flanked from the other direction.

I wish it was kinda like SSI's Gettysburg where you could separate the Regiment into two and face one one way and the other in another direction. Haven't seen that kind of programming in decades.

Some of the best programmers were in the SSI days because back the the AI was the most important thing to program because we only had 8bit and 16 bit graphics. Not much time needed to be spent on them. Now, it's the reverse and you see what we get. Pretty pictures and no AI to speak of anymore.

[pjsynnott]

A lesson you learn in IT. People don't have time to read things like notifications, instructions or warnings from the IT department. They do, however, have plenty of the time to read joke e-mails, Facebook...etc

[Marvin Pontiac]

I'm taking mitra's word for it that it isn't as simple as it seems. My guess from his reply to you is that there is some other even more undesired behavior that may occur if you let the AI use the formation behavior in the grog toolbar and that this cannot simply be prevented. This could be because the whole structure of the code is such that preventing this behavior would mean a rewrite of very large parts of the code which could introduce bugs and/or other even more complex issues resulting in a spiral of changes of which the end cannot be predicted (scary for the programmer). Or perhaps it would make the AI, which now is conceptually clear, very unclear making it hard to see why it does certain things (introducing a lot more difficulty maintaining this program). Or (more what I was talking about) there is some problem inherent in the whole game model and how the AI interacts with this (a logical inevitability if you will) that only reveals itself after letting the AI use the grog-toolbar formation behavior, which makes it logically impossible to solve this in a satisfactory manner.

Ok, in short, the people working on that code seem to think it would be more trouble than it's worth.

Having said all that: I wish they would fix it[:'(]

[Marvin Pontiac]

A lesson you learn in IT. People don't have time to read things like notifications, instructions or warnings from the IT department. They do, however, have plenty of the time to read joke e-mails, Facebook...etc

IT department included [;)]

[JamesLxx]

Thanks guys for your insights and speculations. If it is indeed true - that its impossible to change the present formation behaviour due to some deep rooted programming flaws then that would be a great shame indeed. I don't understand how such a good strategic/tactical simulation based on historical realism could be allowed to have such incredibly unreal formation behaviour in the first place!

So what do the developers have to say on the subject?

[Jim_NSD]

Our priority has always been to make the best simulation possible of the experience of commanding troops in combat. This is distinct from making a simulation of the battle. At the end of the day if you have a real appreciation for what it was like to sit in that commanders saddle and have to make those decisions in real time then we have succeeded. As long as the troops react in a way that allows you fight the battle correctly we do not worry about drill book perfection. It is that command experience that we are after.

-Jim

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: Jim_NSD

Our priority has always been to make the best simulation possible of the experience of commanding troops in combat. This is distinct from making a simulation of the battle. At the end of the day if you have a real appreciation for what it was like to sit in that commanders saddle and have to make those decisions in real time then we have succeeded. As long as the troops react in a way that allows you fight the battle correctly we do not worry about drill book perfection. It is that command experience that we are after.

-Jim

And a very good job you have done and are doing Jim. [&o]

Now, when you going to do an ancients game? [:D]

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

It's kinda basically always been like that. It's acceptable and works and so no futher programming was ever done on it. It goes all the way back to 2nd Manassas the beginning. Just get used to it you will see it often. [:D]

It's not acceptable - it ruins the game for any serious war game player.

Your game has had this major flaw ever since introduction, yet you have deliberately not bothered to address it over several years.

Other games (Total War, for example, or Napoleonics (??? I forget the name)) long ago succeeded in forming and wheeling troops convincingly, but for some reason you are unable to code this.

Frankly, your ridiculous conga line is a joke and you should either refund us or fix it.

Please don't insult the intelligence of your customers with such a nonsense post.

[RCHarmon]

For those of us who play MP we have few problems with crowding as we 1) know the game and have learned how to bring our troops to battle 2) we have direct control and use the "take command button".

For SP players there is a learning curve when it comes to learning the behaviors of your commanders and just how to set up your troops. Once done it is a very good experience. So you can learn how to keep things less jumbled and appreciate the battle laid out before you. This is a new AI and (in my opinion) not up to the old AI Gettysburg level. I think some additional tweaks are needed with the AI and when those are done you will have much smoother play.

Most players will be SP. It is important to keep up with current MODS. The Kriegspiel group is coming out with its first mod this weekend and will have increased content and tweaks to certain battlefield actions.


Overall, I have been and continue to be impressed with the SOW Ai.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: JamesL

You may have noticed some bizarre formation behaviour by the AI, for example:

A regiment withdraws a short distance - by forming a complex looping manoeuvre at the run....it then marches back to its new position and turns to face front by using a similar looped execution with both ends running towards the centre and out again.....

In real life the only orders needed here are: "about face" "march" "halt" "about face!"
So why cant the AI use these simple orders that are already programmed and available in the grog toolbar?


Next - wheeling lines: You will have seen lines representing 100's of men suddenly form a fast fluid S while running to change facing by wheeling on their centre axis! This would not work in real life, looks wrong in the game, and breaks up the main brigade line.

There is already programmed in the toolbar the commands wheel left forward/left back/right back ect in which the regiment pivots a short distance from its flank not its centre. Using this command the regiment does the real life "refuse flank" manoeuvre while keeping its flank attached to the main line.

And lastly - when an AI regiment repositions itself within the brigade it does the S-run-wheel often with half its line stuck out at right angles beyond the brigade front line.

Again there exists already programmed commands such as "left flank" "oblique right" available to the player which shifts and repositions a regiment in short realistic moves.

Sorry about the rant - this is a great game which could be superb if the Ai stopped using unrealistic formation behaviour and stuck to the more realistic manoeuvres which are already programmed and available to the player.

The Conga Line Dance that had been somewhat fixed in SoW has returned with a vengeance, along with other strange behaviours. See the screen shot below... This was taken just a few minutes into the game after issuing an order for the brigade to advance and form line.

I now know why the French lost at Waterloo!

[Redmarkus5]

I'm sorry - I want to love your games. I buy them all all and play them all. When they work well, I post extensively to illustrate their merits and to encourage others to buy them too. But when age old issues remain unchanged, and when basic AI behaviour ruins the experience, I post about that too.

[zakblood]

as friendly fire isn't on in the game atm, it wouldn't matter if the troops fired though another friendly unit, units to close eg not given enough space will try not to collide with routing, but if not they will cross etc i'm given to believe, depend on what is asked of them to do, and what there commander told them to do is to totally different things some times, as try and do the same move a few times and it may or may not happen, with different spacing units and commanders / etc

i maybe wrong as i'm only going by what the developer has said in other posts or seen online / twitch etc

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: zakblood

as friendly fire isn't on in the game atm, it wouldn't matter if the troops fired though another friendly unit, units to close eg not given enough space will try not to collide with routing, but if not they will cross etc i'm given to believe, depend on what is asked of them to do, and what there commander told them to do is to totally different things some times, as try and do the same move a few times and it may or may not happen, with different spacing units and commanders / etc

i maybe wrong as i'm only going by what the developer has said in other posts or seen online / twitch etc

Can you name another game covering any period in which friendly troops are depicted firing through each other's ranks?