Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: UP844

Just tested the "ATTACK HEX" feature by giving such order to part of a German force. It appears to work fine: they actually moved towards the hex they were told to attack. What are such units supposed to do once they have reached their objective? Do they stay there, or will they move to capture VP hexes?

As I was testing the feature, I noticed another case of an IA unit not firing (this time I have a saved game [;)]).

In hex 14,21 there is an A** leader, a 1st Line squad (armed with a PF) and an Engineer squad (armed with a LMG). In the previous three fire segments, the A** leader and the 1st Line squad fired at the US units in 14,17. The Engineer squad didn't fire it FP (its range is 3 hexes and the US units are 4 hexes away), but it didn't fire its LMG (which is well into its normal range), neither alone nor together the other units in the hex. Usually, GE Engineer squads usually fire their LMGs only when the target is greater than 3.

I will take a look...

[Peter Fisla]

UP844, the Assault Engineer with LMG actually has a move order towards VPO at hex [19,16]. I have tweaked my code so that actually now (just posted Build 1.0.94) the AI personnel unit will move towards the VPO, check it out with your saved game file

[UP844]

The three Assault Engineer squads, one 1st Line squad and two leaders all have "ATTACK" orders set to [19,16], the northernmost exit+VPO hex.

The "ATTACK" feature for AI with "Advance" orders works fine: these units headed towards [19,16] while the rest of the German force advanced straight towards the southern exit hex.

I'm loading the saved game and provide a report as soon as possible.

[UP844]

The Engineer squad didn't fire [the only possible target was broken by fire from the other units], but in the Movement Segment it moved towards its objective.

On a side note (I know my fellow players will hate me for this): would it be possible to have the AI fire on broken units if it has no other eligible targets in the Advancing and Defensive Fire Segments? It is a trick I often use, just to make things harder for the AI.

[Big Ivan]

Actually that not a bad idea at all UP844. Like you I want as many broken units for the A/I in B+ status during the next rally phase.
If the A/I would fire more at your broken units it would force you to consider moving them more in the rout phase to get away from the
B+ if at all possible.[:)]

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: UP844

The Engineer squad didn't fire [the only possible target was broken by fire from the other units], but in the Movement Segment it moved towards its objective.

On a side note (I know my fellow players will hate me for this): would it be possible to have the AI fire on broken units if it has no other eligible targets in the Advancing and Defensive Fire Segments? It is a trick I often use, just to make things harder for the AI.

Since the AI gave order to that assault squad to move, ( as of build 1.0.94) it is now correctly moving towards the VPO; this is the correct behaviours.

There is no point for AI to shoot at player's broken units, since player's broken units are not a threat to AI. The AI doesn't really know if the player has nearby hidden somewhere good order units.

[fuselex]

I feel honoured I got to see the game develop.
Every patch , every comment , every idea .
Has made the game better .
It`s a classic

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: fuselex

I feel honoured I got to see the game develop.
Every patch , every comment , every idea .
Has made the game better .
It`s a classic

Glad to hear that! More to come

[Peter Fisla]

I have just uploaded build 1.0.95, see the item #9...

[UP844]

Broken units are not an immediate threat to the AI, but "he who turns and run away, may turn and fight another day" (or another move).

I understand the AI cannot know if there are lots of good unit out of its sight. This is the very reason I specified the AI should be able to take this option only:
1) in its Defensive or Advancing Fire Segments (in both cases, even if the opponent has units that cannot be seen by the AI, the AI cannot fire at them anyway)
2) if it has no other eligible targets, where "eligible targets" are to be intended as Good Order or Pinned units that can still fire at the AI units later (if AI fire is occurring during the Defensive Fire Segment).

I didn't mention:
3) AI fire in the Fire Segment, as it would be foolish to forfeit movement to shoot at a broken unit (even though I often do so when I have some unit to spare).
4) AI fire in the Defensive Fire segment, as the human player could have other units the AI does not know about (as you correctly pointed out).

Even though the improved leader behaviour has greatly improved the rally capabilities of the AI, I don't see why human players should be spared the tactic of keeping as many opponent units as possible at "Broken+" status.

Of course, if implementing such an option implies great technical or programming trouble, I can live with it.

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: UP844

Broken units are not an immediate threat to the AI, but "he who turns and run away, may turn and fight another day" (or another move).

I understand the AI cannot know if there are lots of good unit out of its sight. This is the very reason I specified the AI should be able to take this option only:
1) in its Defensive or Advancing Fire Segments (in both cases, even if the opponent has units that cannot be seen by the AI, the AI cannot fire at them anyway)
2) if it has no other eligible targets, where "eligible targets" are to be intended as Good Order or Pinned units that can still fire at the AI units later (if AI fire is occurring during the Defensive Fire Segment).

I didn't mention:
3) AI fire in the Fire Segment, as it would be foolish to forfeit movement to shoot at a broken unit (even though I often do so when I have some unit to spare).
4) AI fire in the Defensive Fire segment, as the human player could have other units the AI does not know about (as you correctly pointed out).

Even though the improved leader behaviour has greatly improved the rally capabilities of the AI, I don't see why human players should be spared the tactic of keeping as many opponent units as possible at "Broken+" status.

Of course, if implementing such an option implies great technical or programming trouble, I can live with it.

Yes, I know what you mean but to implement this feature that works correctly and the AI gives the player challenge is a very difficult balance act It's definitely something to think about for the future.

[UP844]

Thanks Peter! Unfortunately, being fully illitterate as regards to programming , I cannot even remotely estimate the feasibility of what I suggest.

As regards to play balance, in my opinion most scenarios are already unbalanced, with the human player winning regardless of the side he takes and with loss ratios reminding 1991 Gulf War, even when playing at "Very hard" level. The exception to such rule of thumb are those scenarios where the AI is given 2 or 3 times the forces the human player has in that same scenario.

Thanks for 1.0.95! I noticed a leader of the group with the new "ATTACK" order strolling around the battlefield and I was about to report it, but you anticipated me [&o].

[Peter Fisla]

Writing a good scenario is work of art - regardless of a game. Of course good AI is important; having enough AI units to challenge the player is also important, in addition plying a scenario on higher difficulty helps as well (example: use "very hard" level as that makes the AI in command all the time, yet the player has to keep his units in command using the command & control rules).

[Gerry4321]

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

ORIGINAL: UP844

The Engineer squad didn't fire [the only possible target was broken by fire from the other units], but in the Movement Segment it moved towards its objective.

On a side note (I know my fellow players will hate me for this): would it be possible to have the AI fire on broken units if it has no other eligible targets in the Advancing and Defensive Fire Segments? It is a trick I often use, just to make things harder for the AI.

Since the AI gave order to that assault squad to move, ( as of build 1.0.94) it is now correctly moving towards the VPO; this is the correct behaviours.

There is no point for AI to shoot at player's broken units, since player's broken units are not a threat to AI. The AI doesn't really know if the player has nearby hidden somewhere good order units.

Hi Peter:

One reason to fire at broken units in general is it makes them B+ (like DM in ASL?). So it is harder for them to rally.

Here is an idea to help the AI fire more. Instead of making the AI more challenging by playing on very hard why not give the AI more knowledge about the surrounding hexes it cannot yet see. So it could see if there are enemy units just say for a range of 3 hexes out of its LOS. When there aren't any enemy units hiding just out of sight, then it would fire more often at units in LOS.

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: Gerry4321

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

ORIGINAL: UP844

The Engineer squad didn't fire [the only possible target was broken by fire from the other units], but in the Movement Segment it moved towards its objective.

On a side note (I know my fellow players will hate me for this): would it be possible to have the AI fire on broken units if it has no other eligible targets in the Advancing and Defensive Fire Segments? It is a trick I often use, just to make things harder for the AI.

Since the AI gave order to that assault squad to move, ( as of build 1.0.94) it is now correctly moving towards the VPO; this is the correct behaviours.

There is no point for AI to shoot at player's broken units, since player's broken units are not a threat to AI. The AI doesn't really know if the player has nearby hidden somewhere good order units.

Hi Peter:

One reason to fire at broken units in general is it makes them B+ (like DM in ASL?). So it is harder for them to rally.

Here is an idea to help the AI fire more. Instead of making the AI more challenging by playing on very hard why not give the AI more knowledge about the surrounding hexes it cannot yet see. So it could see if there are enemy units just say for a range of 3 hexes out of its LOS. When there aren't any enemy units hiding just out of sight, then it would fire more often at units in LOS.

Yes that makes sense of course, though additional logic means more processing for the AI and making the game run slower; there is no such thing as a free lunch if you know what I mean. However, it's good idea to come with these ideas to further enhance the AI for sure.

Cheers!

[UP844]

Two questions about smoke: will the player be able to fire smoke into empty hexes? Will WP have adverse effects on the unit in the target hex?

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: UP844

Two questions about smoke: will the player be able to fire smoke into empty hexes? Will WP have adverse effects on the unit in the target hex?

At this point ordnance/AFV can only fire smoke at enemy unit hex, WP does have adverse effect on units in the target hex.

[UP844]

Isn't smoke/WP an artificial hindrance?

If it can only be fired into a enemy-occupied hex, it won't provide any protection from fire coming from that same hex [&:] [&:] [&:].

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: UP844

Isn't smoke/WP an artificial hindrance?

If it can only be fired into a enemy-occupied hex, it won't provide any protection from fire coming from that same hex [&:] [&:] [&:].

It will provide protection, as if a smoke is either in the target or source hex, smoke hindrance will count.

Example Pz IIIN has T-34 85 in LOS, the Pz IIIN has a no chance to kill the T-34 from the front, however it can fire smoke and so it will fire smoke into the T-34 hex. Hindering the T-34 fire, in which case the T-34 either fires at the Pz IIIN at lower odds or moves.

[UP844]

I thought smoke - being an hindrance - only provided protection unless the LOS crossed a hex, but I was wrong. My failure [:(],

The tactic you mentioned is exactly what I did when dealing with stronger AFVs in ASL, and I'm glad to know I will be able to use it in ToTH [;)].

Will chemical mortars (U.S. 4.5" and the German 100mm NbW35) and dedicated CS AFVs (e.g. British CS Churchill and Cromwell) have a higher allocation of smoke rounds?

P.S. Is there any chance to add smoke dischargers to AFVs?