PBEM Standing Orders

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Choosing a general order from a list is the part I have the most difficulty with. Even in the most obvious cases where a general order would apply (USSR at the start of Barbarossa: Retreat!) there seems to always be exceptions. 90% of the army, navy, or air force may be following one general order while the other 10% is doing something quite different. If the AIA applies the general order to 100% of the forces, that is exactly when the enemy can exploit the AIA doing something stupid (Why did the AIA retreat from Leningrad? OR Why did the AIA hold on to that overextended part of the front line when the enemy clearly could isolate it?). Similar laments could be made about how the air units are handled. I used the examples about the land units because they are easier to understand.

How would the AI-opponent handle a situation like this, in a single player game? My thinking is that you could reuse some of the code that are written for the AI-opponent and handle this the same way.

Example:
DECISION MAKER: Russian air commander
(1) PROBLEM: Defend russian front
(2) CHOICES: (a) Disprupt german Army, (b) Retreat at all cost (c) Assist attacked USSR units (d) Preserve airforce & Army
(3) INFORMATION NEEDED:
- (1)Prioties on preserve airforce/assist attacked units
- (2)Predicted frontline at end of turn.
- (3)Hexes that I will fight for (leningrad, rostov)

(4) CRITERIA:
If (a) Use bombers in Groundsupport if it increases chance of flipping german units and estimated losses is less than (1), rebase(2)
If (b) Use all available air moves to rebase planes to Hexes that I will fight for(3) and beyond estimated frontline(2).
If (c) Fly ground support if estimated losses less than(1)
If (d) Fly ground support if odds of USSR units survives increases and estimated losses less than(1)


As a standing order I would decide the choice and the priorities in infromation needed the details of the criteria would be the same as the AI-opponent uses.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Choosing a general order from a list is the part I have the most difficulty with. Even in the most obvious cases where a general order would apply (USSR at the start of Barbarossa: Retreat!) there seems to always be exceptions. 90% of the army, navy, or air force may be following one general order while the other 10% is doing something quite different. If the AIA applies the general order to 100% of the forces, that is exactly when the enemy can exploit the AIA doing something stupid (Why did the AIA retreat from Leningrad? OR Why did the AIA hold on to that overextended part of the front line when the enemy clearly could isolate it?). Similar laments could be made about how the air units are handled. I used the examples about the land units because they are easier to understand.

How would the AI-opponent handle a situation like this, in a single player game? My thinking is that you could reuse some of the code that are written for the AI-opponent and handle this the same way.

Example:
DECISION MAKER: Russian air commander
(1) PROBLEM: Defend russian front
(2) CHOICES: (a) Disprupt german Army, (b) Retreat at all cost (c) Assist attacked USSR units (d) Preserve airforce & Army
(3) INFORMATION NEEDED:
- (1)Prioties on preserve airforce/assist attacked units
- (2)Predicted frontline at end of turn.
- (3)Hexes that I will fight for (leningrad, rostov)

(4) CRITERIA:
If (a) Use bombers in Groundsupport if it increases chance of flipping german units and estimated losses is less than (1), rebase(2)
If (b) Use all available air moves to rebase planes to Hexes that I will fight for(3) and beyond estimated frontline(2).
If (c) Fly ground support if estimated losses less than(1)
If (d) Fly ground support if odds of USSR units survives increases and estimated losses less than(1)


As a standing order I would decide the choice and the priorities in infromation needed the details of the criteria would be the same as the AI-opponent uses.

What you are proposing is to give the player, through the AI Assistant, the ability to see into the AI code at a operational and tactical level and replace some of the AIO's decision making logic with the player's own overrides.

I guess I am reluctant to have the AI Opponent code serve as AI Assistant code. This is somewhat personal - I feel that the AIO is a manifestation of myself that will compete against the players. In reality it will be designed by many people, but at the end of the day, it will be my decisions that determine how well it plays. To just give away its capabilties to players seems to go beyond charitable.

Somewhere in the mishmash of logic and emotion I have on this subject is my experience playing postal chess by mail until it became obvious that some players were running the positions through computer porgrams to determine 'their' moves. If I just wanted to play against a computer, I could easily do so and didn't have to go through all the effort and expense of mailing postcards across the country. If the AIA is making most of the decisions for a player, why do we need a player. Yeah, I know, my logic here is very thin - it's mostly emotion.

I also feel that the players get an enormous advantage over an AI opponent in that they can try different tactics and strategies over and over again until they find one that works. They can also play the computer against itself to see how to counter the computer's best tactics and strategies. They also have the history of a bunch of games to study to pick out any weaknesses they can find in the AIO's play. Given all these advantages, letting them also delve into the underlying principles and structures of the AIO design seems to go somewhat over the top in providing help.

And, more to the point, when designing the AIO, I do not want to think about how I might have to explain processes, structures, and logic to a novice player so he can manipulate the same code within the context of controlling the AIA.

Maybe after the AIO is all written, debugged, and tested against difficult opponents, I might give this another think - say as part of a future MWIF product or something.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here's my proposal for standing order 18.

================================
SO 18 Defensive Shore Bombardment
(as of August 24, 2005)

All the units that might provide defensive shore bombardment are displayed in the left hand column. To qualify, the naval unit has to be in a sea area that borders a coastal hex that has a friendly land unit in it. The naval unit must have the ability to perform sea bombardment from the sea box it is in and the friendly land unit(s) must be vulnerable to land attack. The last will include even very unlikely units that might be vulnerable due to successful overruns, paradrops, or sea invasions. Obviously, the AIA will need to do some detailed examination of the map to identify which units are placed in the left hand column.

The player can then give each naval unit a SO to provide defensive shore bombardment to coastal hexes in priority order. Or, units can be given no SO for defensive shore bombardment. That’s it.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here's my proposal for SO 20.

=======================================
SO 20 HQ Support
(as of August 24, 2005)

All the HQ units that might provide support against land attacks are displayed in the left hand column. To qualify, the HQ must be face up, and either in or adjacent to a hex that contains friendly land unit(s) that are vulnerable to land attack. The last will include even very unlikely units that might be vulnerable due to successful overruns, paradrops, or sea invasions.

The player can then give each HQ an SO to provide support to vulnerable hexes in priority order. Or, HQs can be given no SO for providing support.

The support for each hex can be conditional upon the likely attack odds. Note that the odds can only be estimated because the phasing player hasn’t announced his HQ support, nor have ground support missions been announced or flown. The AIA will be able to determine precisely the level of the ground support it is going to send, using SO 5 (Defensive air support for land units ...) settings. It can also calculate the maximum ground support the enemy could send. Working with this information as data, the AIA can make an educated judgment of likely attack odds. The player sets a range that the likely odds have to fall within for the HQ to provide support. The range enables the player to avoid providing support when: (1) it isn’t needed, or (2) it won’t do any good.

And another SO bites the dust.

[Froonp]

All the HQ units that might provide support against land attacks are displayed in the left hand column. To qualify, the HQ must be face up, and either in or adjacent to a hex that contains friendly land unit(s) that are vulnerable to land attack. The last will include even very unlikely units that might be vulnerable due to successful overruns, paradrops, or sea invasions.

To qualify for defensive Ground Support, an HQ also has to not having been tagged to be kept face-up for reorganisation or movement.
The non phasing player should be able to tag units so that they stay face-up because he needs them for his own impulse. It is important and could also be used to keep planes face-up too.

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

All the HQ units that might provide support against land attacks are displayed in the left hand column. To qualify, the HQ must be face up, and either in or adjacent to a hex that contains friendly land unit(s) that are vulnerable to land attack. The last will include even very unlikely units that might be vulnerable due to successful overruns, paradrops, or sea invasions.

The player can then give each HQ an SO to provide support to vulnerable hexes in priority order. Or, HQs can be given no SO for providing support.

Does this mean that I have to go over SO 20 at every impulse: or will I be able to put a standing order that last several impulses maybe the whole game.
For example support all attacks between odds 2-1 and 5-1 until further noticeif several attacks to choose between choose the one with lowest odds.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
All the HQ units that might provide support against land attacks are displayed in the left hand column. To qualify, the HQ must be face up, and either in or adjacent to a hex that contains friendly land unit(s) that are vulnerable to land attack. The last will include even very unlikely units that might be vulnerable due to successful overruns, paradrops, or sea invasions.

The player can then give each HQ an SO to provide support to vulnerable hexes in priority order. Or, HQs can be given no SO for providing support.

Does this mean that I have to go over SO 20 at every impulse: or will I be able to put a standing order that last several impulses maybe the whole game.
For example support all attacks between odds 2-1 and 5-1 until further noticeif several attacks to choose between choose the one with lowest odds.

All standing orders remain in effect until changed by the player. The obvious exceptions to this are if the player has moved the unit for which the SO is given, or the units in the 'target' hex have all left. So, a SO to protect a port against port attacks would remain in effect as long as the fighter didn't move and there were at least one naval unit in the port. SOs for HQs might need revision more often since they tend to move around -and if not the HQ, then the hexes in the frontline that they might support are somewhat dynamic. Since a player usually only has 2 or 3 HQs this is not that big a deal. To make things easier, I can have the AIA remember what the last minimum and maximum were and use them as the starting values for the range every time a new SO is entered.

I really like your idea of choosing which attack to support by looking at all the different odds.

What I envision for prioritizing hexes for support is a U-shaped box (no top bar) that surrounds the units in the hex being supported. Basically, I am giving the units an outline frame but omitting the top because the number of units in the hex is displayed there and I don't want to obscure it. This U-shape would probably be bright red and have a small box to its top right that gives the priority. In CWIF, the number of units in a hex is shown by having a small box in the top center of the unit stack. The hex priority would be the same size but off to the right and with a red background instead of black.

If the player has prioritized the hexes, the priority will contain a 1, 2, 3, ... The player can also select a group of hexes and prioritize them according the to odds the attacker has achieved. In that case, the priority would have an asterisk as well as the number: 1*, 2*, 3*, ... The only two choices I can think of for prioritizing by odds is to support the hex that needs the most help (highest atttack odds), or support the hex that will make the attacker suffer the most (lowest attack odds). In both cases, the HQ will not provide support unless the odds fall within the range.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

All the HQ units that might provide support against land attacks are displayed in the left hand column. To qualify, the HQ must be face up, and either in or adjacent to a hex that contains friendly land unit(s) that are vulnerable to land attack. The last will include even very unlikely units that might be vulnerable due to successful overruns, paradrops, or sea invasions.

To qualify for defensive Ground Support, an HQ also has to not having been tagged to be kept face-up for reorganisation or movement.
The non phasing player should be able to tag units so that they stay face-up because he needs them for his own impulse. It is important and could also be used to keep planes face-up too.

Rather than 'tag' a unit for receiving no SOs I would prefer to leave the responsibility for doing that on the player - by not giving the unit any SOs. It is easy to give the player an option to 'clear' all SOs for a unit - which has a similar, but not identical, effect as 'tagging' the unit. What I am concerned about is a unit being 'tagged' and then not appearing on any of the lists for eligiblilty for SOs and therefore getting 'lost'. The player never sees it (say, one fighter in a stack of fighters, or a bomber somehwere in the rear area off the currently visible map) and simply forgets about it.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is my proposal for SO 8.

=========================
SO 8 Decision to Continue Air Combat
(as of August 25, 2005)

There are several factors that influence whether to continue an air combat or not. In the following list the word bomber includes ATRs. Considerations are:
∙ risk of losing a fighter
∙ risk of losing a bomber
∙ opportunity of killing an enemy fighter
∙ opportunity of killing an enemy bomber
∙ opportunity to help our units on the ground or at sea with bomber support
∙ opportunity to help our units on the ground or at sea by preventing the enemy air mission

At different times in the game the importance of any of these can vary from crucial to irrelevant. What we want to provide the player with is the ability to combine these risks into a simple Abort / Stay decision.

The risk of loses and opportunity of kills can be measured simply by the air-to-air combat odds. The opportunity of helping our land/naval units (or factories) can be measured by the whether our bomber(s) or the enemy bombers getting through will make a difference. What constitutes “making a difference” depends on the enemy air mission.

∙ We can probably assume that paradrops, air resupply, and air transport always make a difference.
∙ Air-to-sea attacks, including port attacks, make a difference if the number of Xs and Ds are going to change. Some allowance might be given for anti-aircraft fire when the AIA determines the number of air-to-sea factors that get through.
∙ Ground strikes make a difference if the probability of a land unit being disrupted increases by, say, 25%.
∙ Strategic bombardment makes a difference if the probability of losing a production or oil point, or a factory, increases by 25%.
∙ Ground support makes a difference if the attack odds are likely to change by a column.

What we need now is a way to combine the air-to-air combat odds and the “make a difference” measures into an Abort / Stay decision. That seems to be pretty easy. The player sets how bad the odds have to be for him to abort when “make a difference” is true and when it is false. That is two settings, each of which range from -9 through -2, -1, 0, +1 up to +8. Basically, the player is setting his comfort level for the risk/reward of killing planes: once, for when the overall air mission means something, and a second time for when it doesn’t.

I am under the illusion that this will cover all the decisions about continuing air combat for all mission types for all air units. What did I forget?

[Froonp]

The opportunity of helping our land/naval units (or factories) can be measured by the whether our bomber(s) or the enemy bombers getting through will make a difference. What constitutes “making a difference” depends on the enemy air mission.

For land combat, playing the 2d10 CRT, "making a difference" can simply be measured by the bonus (if it is friendly) or malus (if it is enemy) the Ground Support / Ground Strike / Paradrop / Air Ressuply will provide :

- Ground Support --> directly change the odd ratio, so directly change the bonus to the combat. Easy to calculate.
- Ground Strike --> 1 unit Ground Striked is a +2 to combat, so you can evaluate the "make a difference" factor for, say a 50% chance of flipping a unit is +1 to combat.
- Paradrop --> directly change the odds, so the bonus to the combat. Moreover, provide a +1 to the attack (if playing with this optional, is it Hitler's Wars ???)
- Air Resupply --> flips the units face-up, so directly chnge the odds of the combat, hence the bonus, easy to calculate too.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The opportunity of helping our land/naval units (or factories) can be measured by the whether our bomber(s) or the enemy bombers getting through will make a difference. What constitutes “making a difference” depends on the enemy air mission.

For land combat, playing the 2d10 CRT, "making a difference" can simply be measured by the bonus (if it is friendly) or malus (if it is enemy) the Ground Support / Ground Strike / Paradrop / Air Ressuply will provide :

- Ground Support --> directly change the odd ratio, so directly change the bonus to the combat. Easy to calculate.
- Ground Strike --> 1 unit Ground Striked is a +2 to combat, so you can evaluate the "make a difference" factor for, say a 50% chance of flipping a unit is +1 to combat.
- Paradrop --> directly change the odds, so the bonus to the combat. Moreover, provide a +1 to the attack (if playing with this optional, is it Hitler's Wars ???)
- Air Resupply --> flips the units face-up, so directly chnge the odds of the combat, hence the bonus, easy to calculate too.

The reason I have the 25% setting for ground strikes is that flipping a unit has so many other benefits in addition to helping out on a land attack: the unit can't move, the unit can't attack, its combat strength changes if it is out of supply, it uses oil to reorganize at the end of a turn.

Paradrops are high risk to the attacker. Killing a plane also kills the land unit. Regardles of what the effect on the land combat attack odds, killing, or even aborting a paradrop is good for the defender. I think it always "makes a difference".

Air resupply missions are like ground strikes but in reverse. If the enemy wants to do the air resupply, then I want to stop it. I also really like killing ATRs because it costs so much and takes so long to rebuild them. Again, I am much less concerned about any land attack odds underneath the ATR.

That was my logic. I could make the percetnages a variable the player could control, but I feel that is more fine detail than is warranted.

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is my proposal for SO 8.

=========================
SO 8 Decision to Continue Air Combat
(as of August 25, 2005)

There are several factors that influence whether to continue an air combat or not. In the following list the word bomber includes ATRs. Considerations are:
∙ risk of losing a fighter
∙ risk of losing a bomber
∙ opportunity of killing an enemy fighter
∙ opportunity of killing an enemy bomber
∙ opportunity to help our units on the ground or at sea with bomber support
∙ opportunity to help our units on the ground or at sea by preventing the enemy air mission

At different times in the game the importance of any of these can vary from crucial to irrelevant. What we want to provide the player with is the ability to combine these risks into a simple Abort / Stay decision.

The risk of loses and opportunity of kills can be measured simply by the air-to-air combat odds. The opportunity of helping our land/naval units (or factories) can be measured by the whether our bomber(s) or the enemy bombers getting through will make a difference. What constitutes “making a difference” depends on the enemy air mission.

∙ We can probably assume that paradrops, air resupply, and air transport always make a difference.
∙ Air-to-sea attacks, including port attacks, make a difference if the number of Xs and Ds are going to change. Some allowance might be given for anti-aircraft fire when the AIA determines the number of air-to-sea factors that get through.
∙ Ground strikes make a difference if the probability of a land unit being disrupted increases by, say, 25%.
∙ Strategic bombardment makes a difference if the probability of losing a production or oil point, or a factory, increases by 25%.
∙ Ground support makes a difference if the attack odds are likely to change by a column.

What we need now is a way to combine the air-to-air combat odds and the “make a difference” measures into an Abort / Stay decision. That seems to be pretty easy. The player sets how bad the odds have to be for him to abort when “make a difference” is true and when it is false. That is two settings, each of which range from -9 through -2, -1, 0, +1 up to +8. Basically, the player is setting his comfort level for the risk/reward of killing planes: once, for when the overall air mission means something, and a second time for when it doesn’t.

I am under the illusion that this will cover all the decisions about continuing air combat for all mission types for all air units. What did I forget?

I like this approach, but I might have a different idea on what is acceptable odds for my expensive condor flying a pretty unimportant grundstrike mission, than in an air battle wirth a mixture of fighters and cheap bombers.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is my proposal for SO 8.

SO 8 Decision to Continue Air Combat
.....

I like this approach, but I might have a different idea on what is acceptable odds for my expensive condor flying a pretty unimportant grundstrike mission, than in an air battle wirth a mixture of fighters and cheap bombers.

The standing orders are only for the non-phasing player, so you won't have any planes flying ground strikes as a result of SOs.

But your point is still valid: the player is sensitive to the units involved.

Trying to make the settings unit specific, seems hopeless. This would require a ton of work by the player to set the abort/stay conditions for each unit for each mission type. It would also be nearly impossible to resolve situations where multiple units with different settings are involved in a single air combat.

Instead, what I could do is let the player set SO 8 for each of the 10 different enemy air missions - the same set of 10 that are used in SO 5, Defensive air support for land and naval units and factories. This would only be 10 settings per turn and the player could make them all identical to start with and tweak those that for some reason he wants handled differently. The list of 10 would cover abort/stay decisions for CAP as well. [Possible CAP missions are a subset of the 10.]

This doesn't get to individual air units, but it gets closer.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is mu proposal for SO 23.

=====================
SO 23 Land Combat Type
(as of August 26, 2005)

This actually isn’t that hard, mostly because it is a binary decision: Assault or Blitzkrieg. The player starts by setting the point of view for the detailed map. When the player clicks on SO 23, every hex that might be attacked within that point of view is highlighted by MWIF. The player can select one or more of the highlighted hexes and set SO 23, land combat type, for all the selected hexes at once. Alternatively, the player can view each hex individually and learn more about what kind of attack might be made against it.

The AI Assistant will make an educated guess (if fog of war is being used a precise calculation can’t be done) of the following attack elements the enemy might bring to bear on the hex:
(1) basic land units,
(2) armor strength,
(3) invasion units,
(4) paradrops,
(5) HQ support,
(6) ground support (artillery and tactical bombers),
(7) defensive shore bombardment,
(8) surprise, and
(9) offensive chits.
[And you wondered why WIF has taken so long to program.]

The player can click on these to include or exclude them from the calculation. For instance, though an invasion is technically possible, the player might consider it stupid and that it should not be part of the odds determination. The AIA figures out the odds taking into consideration all the messy details. If SO 20, HQ Support, or SO 5, Defensive Air Support, have been set for the hex, the AIA includes them in the calculation. It is not going to go through a pass at guessing the outcomes of air-to-air or anti-air combat. Give me a break.

When actually setting the Assault / Blitzkrieg flag for a hex, the player can specify a range of odds. For instance, “when the odds are between -2 and +2, use the Assault table.”

By the way, hexes where the assault table has to be used won’t be displayed for setting this SO.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

here is my proposal for SO 22

=======================
SO 22 Ignore Notional Unit
(as of August 26, 2005)

This comes up very rarely. It only has any relevance for coastal hexes that might be invaded while simultaneously attacked by an armor unit from a land hex. That means, it only occurs on the part of the frontline that hinges on the sea and can be invaded and attacked by an enemy armor unit.

When the player clicks on SO 22, Ignore notional unit, the AIA will search for hexes where this might apply. If any are found, the player will be queried as to whether he wants the notional unit to be ignored.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is my proposal for SO 15.

=======================
SO 15 Rebasing Overrun Air Units
(as of August 26, 2005)

The interface for this can be the same as for SO 9, Return Air Units to Base. When the player clicks on SO 15, Rebasing Overrun Air Units, the AIA will identify face up air units that might be overrun. The definition of ‘might’ will be very broad. The player can then give them a standing order in the same manner that he gives an SO 9.

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

here is my proposal for SO 22

=======================
SO 22 Ignore Notional Unit
(as of August 26, 2005)

This comes up very rarely. It only has any relevance for coastal hexes that might be invaded while simultaneously attacked by an armor unit from a land hex. That means, it only occurs on the part of the frontline that hinges on the sea and can be invaded and attacked by an enemy armor unit.

When the player clicks on SO 22, Ignore notional unit, the AIA will search for hexes where this might apply. If any are found, the player will be queried as to whether he wants the notional unit to be ignored.

Ignore notional unit can also make my odds of survival improve. Assume a paradrop on a clear hex, where I also have two definding corps with a total of 10 combat factors, 11 with notional a notional unit. the extra combat factor provided by the notional unit is worth less than the adverse effect that my opponent gets +1 (a notional is always flipped) on his attack roll. In this case it is a purely mathematical choice and there is always a correct way of choosing, the AIA should always ignore the notional unit if it improves my battle odds, or if my opponent will reach 10-1 odds.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here are my proposals for SOs 7, 17, 19, and 21.

====================
SO 17 Overstacked losses
Same as for SO 24 Choosing land combat losses (which has yet to be written)

====================
SO 19 Emergency HQ Supply
Same as for SO 20 HQ Support

====================
SO 21 Artillery Support
Same as for SO 20 HQ Support
(Note, other ground support is part of SO 5 Defensive air support for land or naval units and factories)

====================
SO 7 Air combat results
Interface This is a prioritization task. It only comes into play when there is more than 1 unit from which to choose. For example, when you have to choose which of two bombers to clear through. Therefore, to set this SO, the player needs to prioritize the units based on their characteristics. Characteristics of interest are:
 unit type (fighter, bomber, ATR),
 air-to-air strength,
 mission strength (tactical for ground strikes, strategic for strategic bombing, etc.), and
 overall unit value (sum of air-to-air, naval, tactical, and strategic strengths multiplied by the time required to build the unit).

For AC results (clearing through an enemy bomber), the obvious choice would be the enemy bomber with the lowest mission strength. This might have a secondary importance to air-to-air strength under some special circumstances. For DC results (clearing through a friendly bomber), the likely choice would be to clear the bomber with the highest mission strength. In both cases the player will have the ability to set which criterion to use first and which to use second if there is a tie.

For AX results (killing enemy air units) the choice is between the front fighter or the front bomber. The player could set this SO to always kill the fighter (or bomber). In order to provide some flexibility, the player can make the choice conditional on: (1) the likely air-to-air combat odds for the next round, (2) whether there will be a next round (e.g., killing the bomber might end the air combat), (3) the cost or time to rebuild the air unit, or (4), the overall unit value. Note that special features of the air units are not part of the conditions (e.g., twin engine, night fighter, tank buster, etc.). The same logic can be used for DX, AA, and DA results.

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
====================
SO 7 Air combat results
Interface This is a prioritization task. It only comes into play when there is more than 1 unit from which to choose. For example, when you have to choose which of two bombers to clear through. Therefore, to set this SO, the player needs to prioritize the units based on their characteristics. Characteristics of interest are:
 unit type (fighter, bomber, ATR),
 air-to-air strength,
 mission strength (tactical for ground strikes, strategic for strategic bombing, etc.), and
 overall unit value (sum of air-to-air, naval, tactical, and strategic strengths multiplied by the time required to build the unit).

For AC results (clearing through an enemy bomber), the obvious choice would be the enemy bomber with the lowest mission strength. This might have a secondary importance to air-to-air strength under some special circumstances. For DC results (clearing through a friendly bomber), the likely choice would be to clear the bomber with the highest mission strength. In both cases the player will have the ability to set which criterion to use first and which to use second if there is a tie.

For AX results (killing enemy air units) the choice is between the front fighter or the front bomber. The player could set this SO to always kill the fighter (or bomber). In order to provide some flexibility, the player can make the choice conditional on: (1) the likely air-to-air combat odds for the next round, (2) whether there will be a next round (e.g., killing the bomber might end the air combat), (3) the cost or time to rebuild the air unit, or (4), the overall unit value. Note that special features of the air units are not part of the conditions (e.g., twin engine, night fighter, tank buster, etc.). The same logic can be used for DX, AA, and DA results.

Will those orders be set once for all air combats in the coming impulse/impulses or do you have someway of setting the orders differently for different missions, for example I might want to kill my opponents fighters escort in a groundsupport mission on the russian front's as it will be difficult for my opponent to reinforce his fighters, but rather kill his LND4 in a carpetbombing of gibraltar to protect my troops.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
====================
SO 7 Air combat results
Interface This is a prioritization task. It only comes into play when there is more than 1 unit from which to choose. For example, when you have to choose which of two bombers to clear through. Therefore, to set this SO, the player needs to prioritize the units based on their characteristics. Characteristics of interest are:
 unit type (fighter, bomber, ATR),
 air-to-air strength,
 mission strength (tactical for ground strikes, strategic for strategic bombing, etc.), and
 overall unit value (sum of air-to-air, naval, tactical, and strategic strengths multiplied by the time required to build the unit).

For AC results (clearing through an enemy bomber), the obvious choice would be the enemy bomber with the lowest mission strength. This might have a secondary importance to air-to-air strength under some special circumstances. For DC results (clearing through a friendly bomber), the likely choice would be to clear the bomber with the highest mission strength. In both cases the player will have the ability to set which criterion to use first and which to use second if there is a tie.

For AX results (killing enemy air units) the choice is between the front fighter or the front bomber. The player could set this SO to always kill the fighter (or bomber). In order to provide some flexibility, the player can make the choice conditional on: (1) the likely air-to-air combat odds for the next round, (2) whether there will be a next round (e.g., killing the bomber might end the air combat), (3) the cost or time to rebuild the air unit, or (4), the overall unit value. Note that special features of the air units are not part of the conditions (e.g., twin engine, night fighter, tank buster, etc.). The same logic can be used for DX, AA, and DA results.

Will those orders be set once for all air combats in the coming impulse/impulses or do you have someway of setting the orders differently for different missions, for example I might want to kill my opponents fighters escort in a groundsupport mission on the russian front's as it will be difficult for my opponent to reinforce his fighters, but rather kill his LND4 in a carpetbombing of gibraltar to protect my troops.

I currently am thinking that for SOs that give orders to units, the player starts by defining a theater of operations (a point of view using the detailed map) and the SO would apply to all units within that TOO. For SOs that apply to a combat, this has to be modified to apply to the hexes within the TOO - instead of the units. That is because the combat involves multiple units and if they have different SOs about the combat, how to interpret the SO would be unclear. By having the SO apply to hexes/sea areas, then the SO no longer is unit specific and it is easy for the AIA to know which SO applies.

My thoughts on this are still evolving, but what I currently envision is SOs about entering into a combat applying to individual units, while the SOs about the combat itself (once it starts) apply to hexes/sea areas.