Your opinion on the beta patch 3.7.3

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Thanks for the explanation.

Dale asked:

One final question, are you speaking in the context of scenario set up (to defeat the player) or are you setting it up in single player as part of an overall strategy for defeating a scenario?

The reasons behind using the specific shipstrike or landstrike are ALWAYS (when I use them) to program the AI to give a good player a run for his money. Couple of examples (SPOILER ALERT!):

- In 2FR_NL a diesel/electric submarine lies in wait before an approaching CVBG. I put the sub on delayed specific shipstrike mission to attack the carrier and used the plotted path during the delay period to move the sub towards where I (the designer) thought the player would move the CVBG. In 3.6 this means that if the player runs his CVBG in the anticipated direction without good ASW practices (active sonar, helicopter patrols), the SSK will hold fire untill the carrier is in range and shoot at her. This is what I think a really bold sub driver would do. Works like a charm in 3.6. In 3.7.3 the sub shoots at a DDG in the outer screen and of course is detected and killed easily by the player. Reading the above I guess the SSK sees the DDG as a threat, but hey, those are risks SSKs with orders to penetrate a CVBG are supposed to take!

-  In the example of UNIFIL; Iranian SSMs are aimed at Israeli runways. Iran is then made neutral to Israel so the SSMs don't fire. I then set up a ferry mission of Iranian attack planes to make the player (Israel) make a decision; "do I see the Iranian planes as threat and kill them or do I hold fire". if he shoots; the SSMs (in 3.6) fire and damage his runways which take about 5 hours to repair (great feature that!). In 3.7.3. the whole airbase (all facilities) get destroyed. So in this case I aimed for a mild punishment of the player for breaking ROE and now cannot control the damage done (in fact I've seen the SSMs fire at a different SIDE when that became hostile).

I do understand the efforts made by AGSI to make the AI smarter (that is after all exactly what I try to do in the above examples). However it creates two problems for scen designers that are serious to me:

1. The daunting task to replay/retest ALL my scens in 3.7.3 (which on my 5 yr old PC runs VERY slow) to discover the changes in behaviour of the AI - You may have observed that I've only fully tested and released for 3.7.0 and 3.7.1 about a dozen scens (in about 6 months). I know dozens more need major surgery that I don't have time for (yet).
2. Then to decide how and if I can take the time to change my scens so they will work as intended with 3.7.3.

Don't want to sound negative at all; but is certainly seems that FORWARD compatibility of already built scenario's from 3.6 to 3.7.3 is not one of the features of 3.7.3. By compatibility I mean that the scen plays roughly as the designer intended. There are some GREAT features in 3.7.3 (I've enjoyed Multi-Player, the higher speeds of air intercept missions, the more realistic visual horizon) but it seems that many of my scens will have to stay with 3.6. and I must choose if I spend my H3-time retesting/rebuilding them or leaving them unavailable for 3.7.3 and focus on designing new scens.

I welcome this discussion and hope that maybe Bucks new logic and the 3.6. specific target missions can be combined in some way.

Freek

It is interesting to note how AGSI also avoided this post. It addresses a lot of really nasty shortcomings and bugs in 3.7.

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: VCDH

I then consulted with Darrel Dearing, our chief coder. He has stated that this was a requested feature. The level of threat that both the Ticonderoga and Vincennes had was determined by the 'aValue' numbers you see in the report window in the scenario editor.

If that's the case then this request came from someone who clearly don't know how the game works. And I'm quite disapointed to see that the request wasn't stopped by the AGSI "experts", since it clearly breaks key functionality in the game, and makes it impossible for experienced scenario designers to create good scenarios.

I guess this new "feature" fits right in with the really weird Formation Editor modifications, and several other strange (if not downright silly!) mods that must have been suggested (and pushed forward) by someone who quite clearly don't know the very basics of this game.

ORIGINAL: VCDH

This isn't a bug, rather it is a change in how the program engine prosceutes targets. The sub is also engaging the other units becuase of the threat from them but because the BB is the primary target it expends most of the missiles on that platform. If the player wishes to expend all of the missiles the Oscar has on the specified target then he'll have to take control and manually allocate the missiles against the BB.

It is most certainly a bug. Feel free to ask anyone who have basic scenario building experience. Several of them have already raised their voice in this forum.

There are two types of strike missions in 3.6.2 (the last functional version of H3): Generic and Specified Target.

This new 'Intelligent' feature had been great for Generic strike missions (i.e. when no target is selected), but ruins any scenario with Specified Targets in them.

I'm also surprised to see that the AGSI "experts" hasn't brought up the fact that there were indeed two types of strike missions in 3.6.2, suggesting that they might not actually know that this well-functioning 3.6.2 feature ever existed...

See my seperate thread for details.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: VCDH

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
Can you explain the avalues though and how are they derived? I assume the higher is the bigger threat (so I get that much) but not really sure how they are derived. This may be important to scenario editors I think.

Darrel and I didn't get that deep into how the values are derived, only that it's based on the mounts in the platform. As of yesterday, he's gone to visit family and won't be back until the end of the week.

Later
D

Okay well thanks Dale. It would be great whenever you guys can get to it.

Dale if this kind of stuff was documented when the changes were made it would probably make your lives abit easier. Wouldn't you say? I find it odd you guys go after Herman and Ragnar about changes when your not even documenting the changes to begin with. Your not giving them the information to know better.[;)]

[RyanCrierie]

And I'm quite disapointed to see that the request wasn't stopped by the AGSI "experts", since it clearly breaks key functionality in the game, and makes it impossible for experienced scenario designers to create good scenarios.

It makes sense tho. If I'm a Russian OSCAR commander, and I poke my mast up for my final check on what's up there before I fire my missiles, and I find a real nice high value target like a Ticonderoga next to the target my boss gave me; I'm going to put a couple of missiles into it because it's there and worthy of the missiles.

I can see how this might be confusing for micromanagers, so there is certainly room for improvement; e.g. a COMMISAR checkbox which tells the unit that they had best follow their orders to the letter, OR ELSE. [:D]

[Flankerk]

If any form of checkbox could be incorporated thta would seem to solve a lot of problems. The problem with dividing up missiles though, is that the escort, by definition becomes a high value target. The AI will default to allocating a considerable number of missiles at it, and this is at the expense of sinking the target it was ordered to engage.
If any such switch could be added, it would be ideal if the default behaviour for specified strikes was to not divert missiles, that way updating 3.6 scenarios to 3.7 standard would be a good deal easier.
 
 

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[Flankerk]

This isn't about making people happy or anything about micro-managing, its principal effect is on scenario design.
There is simply the issue that units ordered to carry out a task are not doing so. As a result well written scenarios for 3.6 will not function, while future scenarios written in 3.7 are made a good deal more difficult.
Converting many 3.6 scenarios would be impossible.
 
Generic non specified strikes would be improved by this behaviour, but for the specific strikes the end result is unwanted behaviour. In effect missiles are expended on defence suppression at the expense of attacking the target they should. At times the target itself is as a result not sunk ( when it should be) or at times not even engaged.
 
If the missiles are intended to be for defence suppression, then the amount allocated needs to be much less, sufficent to keep the defences busy, not to destroy that target as a higher priority to the specified one.
 
It also breaks those scenarios where the designer has set up an engagement to scare the player. In effect a strike is set up knowing that the player cannot stop it fully. That strike is specified against one ship ( or whatever) and is overwhelming. It does the job, shakes up the player and then goes home. With this behaviour not only the specific target will be engaged. There won't be all that many scenarios that do not use some form of specified strike I would have thought?
 

[FreekS]

In response to Flankers posts
 

There won't be all that many scenarios that do not use some form of specified strike I would have thought?

 
Certainly almost all of mine use the specific shipstrike or landstrike functionality, and yes therefore its very slow and hard work to convert them.
 

Generic non specified strikes would be improved by this behaviour, but for the specific strikes the end result is unwanted behaviour.

 
And yes I agree with this suggestion.
 
Freek
 

[FreekS]

In three different scens I've now seen neutrals becoming hostile and getting shot down by the player side.

In Oilfire, I have observed several airliners become red and getting fired on by F16s or Patriots

On Cuba I see some groundtroops and SAM sides of a neutral side to the player suddenly turn red

In Unifil I've seen US planes shoot down neutral Iranians.

I've not been able to make a reproducible test scen yet -- has anyone else observed this during game play?

Freek

[Michael104]

I think giving the AI more decision making capability could be a great addition to the game, but to make smarter/more realistic decisions the AI needs more information. In the example of the Oscar vs Vincennes the Vincennes has significant ASW capability (aValue SUB:192). If the Oscar was closing to torpedo launch range the Vincennes would be a legitimate threat and should be allocated a torpedo or two. In this example though the Oscar is launching standoff weapons from well outside the range and ability of the Vincennes to be an actual THREAT to it. If the AI were to consider both the threat number and the range of that threat it could make more realistic decisions.

The same could be applied to air launched weapons vs surface threats. If Backfire bombers are substituded for the Oscar in the above example they find the Vincennes has an aValue of SAM:5286, but since the ASMs have a greater launch range than the SAMs on the ship the bombers are not really at threat.

Just a thought,
Michael

[ClaudeJ]

ORIGINAL: VCDH

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
Can you explain the avalues though and how are they derived? I assume the higher is the bigger threat (so I get that much) but not really sure how they are derived. This may be important to scenario editors I think.

Darrel and I didn't get that deep into how the values are derived, only that it's based on the mounts in the platform. As of yesterday, he's gone to visit family and won't be back until the end of the week.

Later
D

Hello Dale,

did you have now more information about how the values are derived? It would be very interisting to know both for players and designers.

cheers,

Jan

[ClaudeJ]

ORIGINAL: VCDH

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
Can you explain the avalues though and how are they derived? I assume the higher is the bigger threat (so I get that much) but not really sure how they are derived. This may be important to scenario editors I think.

Darrel and I didn't get that deep into how the values are derived, only that it's based on the mounts in the platform. As of yesterday, he's gone to visit family and won't be back until the end of the week.

Later
D

Hello guys,

here is an answer from Russel:

they are "based on the DP of those weapons in the loadouts and the legit targets of those weapons, so you have AA aValue, AsuW aValues, etc"


the Est. Saturation value is "what the GE thinks will overwhelm the defense systems of the target", same than the "Missile Defence" field in the RE

cheers,

Jan