AE Land and AI Issues [OUTDATED]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Brady

True-barge busting-but in game their a freeak of nature. I think perhaps if they were teathered to a base force or a tender as they were in real life it might make them more realistic, they were more like planes I think in terms of wear and tear and maintance, those three alisons, and all, realy midgets used much the same infastructure to operate, even the ones launched from sub's were more akin to a glen in some way's, except that most launched did not come back...

Not really a bad notion. "Teathering" PT's to a Tender or a Base in the same manner as a carrier air group. No idea if it will be that way in AE though.

Generally in stock .. Allied PTs move to a base and go into "patrol" mod and can thus intercept enemy TFs attacking friendly bases within a few hexes. This "simulates" the "tethering" pretty well - I think. But then we already have this in stock.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: BigJ62
Well as Andy stated we are still testing this but if the defender loses wouldn’t that mean it would have to retreat and I might be wrong but I don’t think there are that many units that qualify to change hex-side control and still be very small and if the unit that shock attacks and loses you are going to be wasting valuable av that could be difficult to replace so I don’t see this as viable tactic at least in the long run but still a good question. I strongly suspect a lot of tactics can and will be tried and hopefully testing will weed out any potential flaws.

I was thinking more in terms of casualties taken. If the attacker takes more casualties than the defender, then he retreats. Less and he gets to stay.

Singapore is going to be a pushover now if all Japan has to do is send a tank regiment across first, and then brings his 60,000+ man army across the next turn practically unscathed. A lot of Singapore’s ability to hold out is tied to the disablements and disruption the shock crossing causes the whole army. Without that shock effect it’ll just be a matter of days to take the base.

But China is where this will make the biggest difference, since Huge armies will cross rivers after just a battalion or regiment changes the hexside control, even if 100,000 men are defending the river on the other side.

This gets me thinking, when exactly does the hexside ownership test take place? If it’s after combats, then small advance units can be force to retreat by a defenders attack and my point may be mute. If before than my point still stands. Unless of course hexside ownership doesn't change back till the end of the turn.

I guess another solution would be to weight the required AV to change hexside ownership against the defenders AV and not have it be just a fixed amount at 40 AV. So if the defenders had say 100 AV, then an attacker would need at least half that to even make the move across the river to take possession of the hexside. Less than half and the unit would be prevented from even crossing.

I’m no programmer, so I have no idea if this is possible, but it sure would be an elegant solution to the problem if it could be implemented.

Jim

[Grotius]

Guys, do you hope to stomp any remaining leader bugs? How about disappearing LCUs and fragments? Or, for that matter, magically-teleported LCUs?

It was eye-opening to use WITP Decoder for the first time a couple weeks ago (with stock); instantly I had all sorts of leader trouble.

Also, I'm glad to hear Andy's remarks emphasizing the AI. 40-mile hexes will present even greater challenges for the AI, I suspect. I harbor no illusions that it'll be Deep Blue, but I'm confident you guys can make some significant improvements. (My AI coding has been limited to Checkers and simple sports games, so what do I know, but even I have some ideas on what I'd do to help the WITP AI.)

[BigJ62]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: BigJ62
Well as Andy stated we are still testing this but if the defender loses wouldn’t that mean it would have to retreat and I might be wrong but I don’t think there are that many units that qualify to change hex-side control and still be very small and if the unit that shock attacks and loses you are going to be wasting valuable av that could be difficult to replace so I don’t see this as viable tactic at least in the long run but still a good question. I strongly suspect a lot of tactics can and will be tried and hopefully testing will weed out any potential flaws.

I was thinking more in terms of casualties taken. If the attacker takes more casualties than the defender, then he retreats. Less and he gets to stay.

Singapore is going to be a pushover now if all Japan has to do is send a tank regiment across first, and then brings his 60,000+ man army across the next turn practically unscathed. A lot of Singapore’s ability to hold out is tied to the disablements and disruption the shock crossing causes the whole army. Without that shock effect it’ll just be a matter of days to take the base.

But China is where this will make the biggest difference, since Huge armies will cross rivers after just a battalion or regiment changes the hexside control, even if 100,000 men are defending the river on the other side.

This gets me thinking, when exactly does the hexside ownership test take place? If it’s after combats, then small advance units can be force to retreat by a defenders attack and my point may be mute. If before than my point still stands. Unless of course hexside ownership doesn't change back till the end of the turn.

I guess another solution would be to weight the required AV to change hexside ownership against the defenders AV and not have it be just a fixed amount at 40 AV. So if the defenders had say 100 AV, then an attacker would need at least half that to even make the move across the river to take possession of the hexside. Less than half and the unit would be prevented from even crossing.

I’m no programmer, so I have no idea if this is possible, but it sure would be an elegant solution to the problem if it could be implemented.

Jim

Actually I was referring to casualties and it could be presumed that the follow on units are supporting the river crossing in some fashion.

If there are 100,000 men I do not think it possible to bring but a fraction of those against a regiment (and rgt will be in most cases the minimum) and regardless of the outcome the lead unit has already paid the price for admission so I don’t think the assaulters should have to keep paying but I am no land warfare expert so I’ll let the army guys chime in with what they have.

Not sure how all this will end up but like I said testing will reveal the flaws.

[BigJ62]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Guys, do you hope to stomp any remaining leader bugs? How about disappearing LCUs and fragments? Or, for that matter, magically-teleported LCUs?

It was eye-opening to use WITP Decoder for the first time a couple weeks ago (with stock); instantly I had all sorts of leader trouble.

Also, I'm glad to hear Andy's remarks emphasizing the AI. 40-mile hexes will present even greater challenges for the AI, I suspect. I harbor no illusions that it'll be Deep Blue, but I'm confident you guys can make some significant improvements. (My AI coding has been limited to Checkers and simple sports games, so what do I know, but even I have some ideas on what I'd do to help the WITP AI.)

I hope that there are none either.

Yep I’m finishing up on Malaya for the AI, we are updating the AI to be more aware of the enhancements such op modes, movement and preserving its’ LCUs, nothing fancy though.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
Singapore is going to be a pushover now if all Japan has to do is send a tank regiment across first, and then brings his 60,000+ man army across the next turn practically unscathed. A lot of Singapore’s ability to hold out is tied to the disablements and disruption the shock crossing causes the whole army. Without that shock effect it’ll just be a matter of days to take the base.

Hi Jim,

Don't get too worried just yet. We are doing some playtesting to see how the attack on Singers goes. I am actually concerned that it may be too difficult now, given that the Singapore hex is now x2 defence (light Urban now instead of Clear). Obviously this is one "battle" that needs to be tested! It will be tweaked if necessary, I expect.

Andrew

[Brady]

PT's though in real life operated as squadrons, and they had an asociated base force or tender to suport thier operations, so the way they operate in game at present does not recgonize the fact that before begining operations a base just for them neaded to be established, or a specialised tender neaded to be present. I know implementing this would add a lot of work, but the way PT's score in stock WiTP is way out of context with reality or at least can be...how's that go agin, if you use someting in a maner inconsistant with history and you get results that are not consistant with history then..well...
 
   You see this speciality force idea could extend to many thing's, PT's, Barges,Sucide Boats, Midgets...
 
 All these units operated with a base force specifgic to their neads, or a tender rendered suport, realy any size base would theroticaly be suficient as long as the asociated base force or tender was present, not having a base force present,or tender, would in therory have a detertious efect on the units much the same as not having air suport at an airfield has on a plane unit. With a Base force also one could argue that for PT's thier was not enough torps available form them, and tie this to a suply figure...midgets as well...

[Micke II]

Does the lack of coordination between japanese army and japanese navy will be taken in account ?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Micke II

Does the lack of coordination between japanese army and japanese navy will be taken in account ?

Gotta doubt this a lot..., it would be virtually impossible to get anyone to play the Japanese side if they had to deal with the historic real-life Japanese situation in this regard. (and probably impossible to program the imbicility involved).

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

OK going to try and answer a lot of questions

A historic base forces we have removed a lot of them and with the new disband units features we force the disbandment of some (not all because players need some flexibility) dutch, PI base forces.

Also base forces tend to be smaller in game

Yes we have French units in Tahiti and New Cal not US ones.

Units will be able to be allocated to Corps and Command HQ's and via the editor direct to Armies at present Corps can only be allocated to command HQ's (although this is something that will be looked at not sure when)

Restricted command units are always allocated to the top level HQ as Corps HQ's allocated in that way do not pass on the restricted nature to sub HQ's.

HQ combat bonuses and leaders - the coders have explained it to me about 3 times now and I still don't quite have it - when I understand it I will explain it to everyone else - suffice to say I think (and dont holdme to it) there will be an additional bonus if a units 'own' HQ is present in the Hex. i.e. there will be a command HQ bonus and a corps HQ bonus per stock (but there will be an additional bonus if a corps HQ is present that the units belong to) 

Repairs dont take supply in stock the reduciton you see is from bombing the base not from repairing the AF so there will be no change to this (I will double check this point)

It depends on the army, but western armies usually used corps as a operational command echelon, while division and army also dealt with the supply (and other administrative) issues. That is, supply was from army dumps to the divisions. So operational effectiveness depended on the division and corps echelons, while administrative effectiveness was dominated by division and army. Irwin's performance in the Arakan illustrated the problems you encountered if the army commander got involved in operational command.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
Singapore is going to be a pushover now if all Japan has to do is send a tank regiment across first, and then brings his 60,000+ man army across the next turn practically unscathed. A lot of Singapore’s ability to hold out is tied to the disablements and disruption the shock crossing causes the whole army. Without that shock effect it’ll just be a matter of days to take the base.

Hi Jim,

Don't get too worried just yet. We are doing some playtesting to see how the attack on Singers goes. I am actually concerned that it may be too difficult now, given that the Singapore hex is now x2 defence (light Urban now instead of Clear). Obviously this is one "battle" that needs to be tested! It will be tweaked if necessary, I expect.

Andrew

Singapore, as an urban area, needed a large garrison to prevent Japanese infiltration. It didn't have it. It also had a large civilian population--i.e., it was dependent on control of water and food supplies. Hong Kong had the same problems.

[Andy Mac]

Devices/FP ratings all start oput consistent and calculated by the same source but they do diverge after that because of the prevalance ofnon TOE weapons and it gets very messy very quickly
 
The ratio is US Squads very very high Firepower then IJA/IJN because squads are bigger then CW (CW come up to par with Japanese and then 'slightly' surpass them late war)
 
But typically Japanse and CW units have higher squad counts.
 
This all needs to be tested for balance. At present I think we have got as close as you are ever going to get on Historic ORBATS/TOE's and Device ratings - but there is a huge job to do to make sure that it works in game.
 
So we need to take some time test it and make sure that no one nation operates in a manner that is innappropriate.
 
OK on to defence in places like Singapore etc again this needs to be tested.
 
In general the way stock operated units could move far to quickly using the opponents railway network as a result they needed to build in slowing mechanisms which they did with forts because the movement issues are reduced my biggest worries are that the Japanese will not be able to take places like Singapore on time not that it will fall to quickly.
 
Obviously players will not follow a historical pattern or use historical forces but that is the initial testing benchmark we have set.
 
Exp levels/TOE's for CW forces in places like Burma/Malaya are lower/incomplete in a way they werent in stock - I think I set the planters militia to have 20 xp for example and very very few units start at 50xp and none that I can think of start higher - I think the only unit that merits a 50xp in the whole map at start for the allies are 2nd Argyll and Sutherland Bn in Malaya, a couple of the newly arriving AA Regts in Aden and the USMC forces.
 
Andy

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Knavey

How accurate are the current OOBs for the Japanese Divisions? It always seemed a bit odd to me that the standard Japanese division was more powerful than a US Marine division. Any changes to the land OOBs in the form of modifying the TOEs?

OK, jumping in here:

Joe, already explained much about the IJA OOB in this thread. But to add something: You can expect a much more detailed OOB. Most Japanese divisions will have their own, unique TOE in the AE.

The main difference between a US Marine Division and a Japanese division will lie in their firepower (more so than in WITP).

But most of the more known Japanese divisions (5th Division, 38th Division, 48th Division etc.) will still be very strong combat formations.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Brady

Garasion requirements in China and their efects on game play...Have these been looked at?

Yes

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Knavey
How accurate are the current OOBs for the Japanese Divisions? It always seemed a bit odd to me that the standard Japanese division was more powerful than a US Marine division. Any changes to the land OOBs in the form of modifying the TOEs?

We will get JWE engaged - he is our "device man" for LCUs. Basically there are two kinds of "powerful" in the current engine and also carry over to "AE" ... Assault Value powerful and Firepower powerful. We will see a greater dicotomy of these two factors in AE. I ask JWE to explain further.

[/quote]

Sorry for delay, gotta sleep sometime.

Joe and Andy Mac, and K, have pretty much hit it. The idea was to accommodate relatively ‘body rich’ but ‘firepower poorer’ units, such as the Japanese (and CW), to relatively ‘firepower rich’ but ‘body poorer’ units, like the US, and strike a proper balance in combat result.

Japan and the CW will tend towards a higher AV, because they have more coys/bn, or squads/platoon under a nominal TO&E. US units will tend towards a higher firepower factor per squad, and have a better chance to disrupt (shoot) an attacker before assault resolution.

This is pretty much how it’s done already, but the Land Team spent some effort, not just counting noses, but also rationally allocating weapons to what is called a ‘squad’.

Weapon effectiveness is carried across device types, so artillery firepower effectiveness is rationally related to squad firepower effectiveness. This allows creation of any number of TO&Es, and allows for TO&E evolution over time.

[Brady]

Earler it was mentioned that Japanese Enginear units could not be modeled in as detailed a maner as was wanted, referng to the larger ones Construuction units.
 
 Also what about CD unts arree they as generic as before?
 
 Are their any specialised units in game that their were not before?

[Andy Mac]

I want to issue a challenge to the forum just to make it interesting.
 
Tiger Force is in the game arriving late 45/46 it has X Commonwealth Corps HQ and has several formations as it never actually happened I had to pick a commander for the formation (as the original leader was a placeholder)
 
It had to be an experienced Corps Commander acceptable to the US and CW Govts not just to the British - someone used to dealing with allies and respected.
 
I came down to three names for that command
 
My 1st choice Lt General Bernard Freyberg VC
My 2nd choice Lt General Richard O'Conner
My 3rd Choice Lt General Leslie Morshead (but he was already in game and I wanted to add something different !!!!)
 
This is your chance to influence the commander of the land component of X Corps I selected Freyberg for the command because I always had a sneaking regard for the man and its the only area in the whole ORBAT where I allowed myself artistic licence.
 
BUT if the forum can pick a better candidate for a force that arrives in 46 I am happy to hear it so go ahead !!!!
 
(p.s. NO MONTY I dont want to spend 10 years arguing about stats)

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Brady

1) Earler it was mentioned that Japanese Enginear units could not be modeled in as detailed a maner as was wanted, referng to the larger ones Construuction units.

2)Also what about CD unts arree they as generic as before?

3) Are their any specialised units in game that their were not before?

1) Joe was referring to a problem with the game function(s) of the Combat Engineer device and we're still working on this. Another problem is that information about Japanese Construction units (formation date, TOE etc.) is hard to get and our source material (and thus the game OOB) may be somewhat incomplete. Still trying to improve this.

2) No, they're much more detailed/individual.

3) Yes (lots of).

[Brady]

Bernard Freyberg, was the CO on Creat right...?