V2 Battle of Nancy

[sweeteye]

Thanks Arjuna....your notes look interesting....I will do the calculations as soon as I finish playing this first test. I have just finished day six and the battle seems to be heating up. Getting more interesting.Of course I do not know how the AI is programmed to function but it seems that the AI gets more aggressive towards the end of the scenario....have not played enough to know for sure but it seems that way.....I was looking at some of the German morale and aggro etc...last night and noticed for example that the 5th parachute regiment has low morale and they are positioned in a critical center spot in the scenario. Probably increasing their morale would help. Thanks again....

[Arjuna]

Yes unit effectiveness values can play a big part.

[sweeteye]

x

[Pawsy]

Nice work thank you

[wodin]

Something I awlays find very useful at the start of a scenario is checking when Obj's become active...this gives me a good Idea where I need to go and the time scale...I notice in this scenario they all start on day one. Makes it diificult for me.

Still what would be very handy is in the briefing once the scenario has started if you give a rough outline plan of what needs to be done. Many scenarios have this and it's an invaluable piece of intel.

[sweeteye]

Yes I suppose I should write a list of all the objectives in the briefing although when the scenario starts there is a full list to look at.I do not see that activating the objectives at different times is needed in this scenario. It could be done that way.... I am going to include some more details in each sides briefing for this next updated version. There is a historical account in the description which should give some idea of where to attack.It does take a long time to test a scenario well and find what needs to be changed.Especially by myself.That is why I went ahead with posting it.Figured I would get feedback from players that will help...I will fix the briefings up better.I am hesitant to change the objective start times because they affect the AI.I am sure it could be done and made to work well though.Thanks for your input.....

[wodin]

I dont just want a lsit of Obj's...I want to know roughly the time schedule for attack...Even something like Regiment 317 will head north then east along with....319 will head south to .... then east to ... Main assualt on Nancy should sart around day 4....

Normally checking Obj activations can give you a excellent idea on rouhly what day yiou should be thinking of attacking especially in long scenarios. At the minute with nancy unless you know loads about the battle looking at the obj's you have no idea at all what your time schedule should be. Like I said it's a massive planning aid which is missing due to Obj's all starting on day 1 and it's pretty impossible to be at nancy on day 1. The Germans should have their own Obj times.

[sweeteye]

I see your point but if I change the objective start times it will affect the AI dramatically.Probably not for the better of the scenario overall.If you really would like to have them set differently I would suggest changing them and see what happens.I will look into it and see what might happen and what types of changes would be needed.It seems pretty straight forward what the U.S. needs to do.Attack Toul first.Probably move to the North and attack Pont a Mousson.When the 35th division arrives possibly make a strike to the south. The Germans just need to stay behind the river and defend for the most part.A German advance and attack in the south looks tempting to me.The AI are influenced by the objectives and spreading out their activation would take a lot more testing.

[Lieste]

With objectives you have both the start time and activation time (I have a feeling that this behaviour has been adjusted/fixed during recent testing, so it might not work as intended pre-patch)... but you should be able to 'give' the AI the full objective list for the day, while rewarding the player and AI with VL only during the active portion. I'll double check what is happening once I've run a few HTTR test scenarios through, because that is more urgent.
I think the activation time must be after the start time, so it is the point at which VP are accumulated/player needs to be 'on', and start time is when the AI is 'allowed' to allocate troops & seriously move on it, to prevent lack of focus. The AI will focus on objectives that are going 'off' so a sequence of two objectives in the same area (not overlapping in time) might make it more urgently focussed on that objective.

[sweeteye]

Interesting Lieste...I certainly will have to do more experimenting to see what might happen.I really do not want to make dramatic changes right now because the AI seem to be working well as it is.

[wodin]

As I said sweeteye just because the players obj is spread doesn't need to be for the AI...\I've even played scenarios where the AI had different obj's..and have thought I'd won a scenario once only to find the AI had another Obj activation/complition settings that they had achieved..it was a draw..

Things i with the Nancy scenario at the moment if there are any obj's that require occuptaion from day 1 and it's impossible to get there then your losing all those points straight away.

[sweeteye]

Most of the points are not awarded until the end of the game with a few exceptions.Very few have occupation points.

[jimcarravall]

I see a need for objective sequencing for controlling AI play.

However, I can only picture a few instances where the operational commander in a real war is dictated a calendar sequence for taking objectives during an attack:

1. The OB command structure modeled in the game is coordinating with a peer structure not modeled as part of the game (e.g. the scenario is only part of a larger frontal attack and certain objectives remain out of play until a neighbor unit softens a flank),

2. An external support structure to that modeled in the OB is given a free fire zone (air force carpet bomb attack, higher headquarters artillery barrage) and the local commander is ordered to stay away to avoid putting troops in friendly fire danger, or

3. There is some sort of dependence among objectives that cannot be modeled by adjusting point values or using mapping tools (something odd, like a tunnel used for supply support that must be defeated by taking a critical point first)

Patton had a personal rule that he'd never order at more than two echelons below his command level. My assumption in the game is the player controlling the operation has received orders at the equivalent of Patton's third echelon below him.

[sweeteye]

There are endless possibilities for creating scenarios.I try to use my best judgement when defining objectives and then if needed make adjustments. It does help to get others opinions and I do try to figure them in for revisions.Of course everyone has different ideas about how a war game should be made to play and I have yet to find one that I myself completely agree with overall,even my own. I am pretty well satisfied with the way this scenario runs as it is. I believe I may create an optional scenario to experiment with that has objectives that are sequenced.From what I have seen while testing this scenario the AI are working just fine.One thing I have noticed is that while playing as the Germans the U.S. AI seem to concentrate their efforts to the north of the map. I think I need to balance the VP values between Pont-a-Mousson in the north and Bayon in the south.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

I see a need for objective sequencing for controlling AI play.

However, I can only picture a few instances where the operational commander in a real war is dictated a calendar sequence for taking objectives during an attack:

1. The OB command structure modeled in the game is coordinating with a peer structure not modeled as part of the game (e.g. the scenario is only part of a larger frontal attack and certain objectives remain out of play until a neighbor unit softens a flank),

2. An external support structure to that modeled in the OB is given a free fire zone (air force carpet bomb attack, higher headquarters artillery barrage) and the local commander is ordered to stay away to avoid putting troops in friendly fire danger, or

3. There is some sort of dependence among objectives that cannot be modeled by adjusting point values or using mapping tools (something odd, like a tunnel used for supply support that must be defeated by taking a critical point first)

Patton had a personal rule that he'd never order at more than two echelons below his command level. My assumption in the game is the player controlling the operation has received orders at the equivalent of Patton's third echelon below him.

Very true but I'm not a trained Commander who would be able to work out a rough plan so I need help and the Obj start times are invaluable. All it's doing is giving me a rough outline to what a trained commnader could achieve and could work out in about 5 minutes.