Some full results now. 2 Scenarios - same map but with different side occupying victory location to force the other to attack from about 1km away. Each scenario played 12 times, 6 times as allies, 6 as axis. So of 24 games Allies won 16 times and Axis 8. Average losses 9 Axis (out of maximum 12) and 14 Allied (out of possible 32).
One thing that does concern me is I won 19 of the games against the AI, 11 as allies, 8 as Axis. Surely I'm not influencing the battle so much? I never lost playing allies which may add to the imbalance above but overall it's worrying.
Well you can just drag the duplicated unit into the waffen SS or whatever and just give it a new commander and optionally change the colours of the icon. My problem comes when compiling and no establishment is created to use.
Yes I understood what you were doing. i may try it over the weekend.
Thanks Vandorenp. It'll be interesting to see if the results are 50/50. I explained because I didn't know if I was supposed to be able to drag the unit across armies - I think I couldn't paste it there so when it failed to compile successfully I doubted if what I'd done could be made to work.
I'm now playing Shermans v Panthers to gauge how well they do in comparison with the armoured cars. So far it looks like building Shermans was a waste of money
Preliminary results suggest that panthers cream shermans as might be expected; won 15 out of 18 games
I thought axis 20mm light flak might be ideal as another comparison to armoured cars, being fast firing and should be able to take out an armoured car assuming it could hit it. Results so far of 14 games the allies have won 11 and drawn 1. Looks like lighter faster firing guns are no better than the panther 75mm in destroying armoured cars.
Don't know if it's worth playing some more and compiling the results in case of human vs AI bias.
May try infantry v armoured cars next.
Well I tried AC v matched infantry - which were swiftly overrun every time even when I entrenched them. I then un-entrenched the infantry and added the panther coy - again matched re training etc.
The results of 19 games showed the balance had shifted to the Axis but not completely - allies won 4, lost 14 and drew 1. I thought that 2 against one may be swinging the balance more in favour of the Axis than strength warranted so I split the ACs into 2 equal coys and played that 8 times. The Allies won 3 which suggested that things were a bit more even but I've probably not played enough for a fair comparison.
I then returned to assess the impact of the 2 75mm armed ACs on the battle. So ACs minus two 75mm gun armed v panthers. Played 12. Allies lost 8, won 3 and drew 1. So even without their best armed ACs the allies can still win. In the games in the earlier post the Axis were losing an average of 9 panthers to 14 ACs - the removal of the 75mm ACs has changed that to 6 panthers to 18 ACs so despite the Axis winning more it's not been a drastic difference.
I wouldn't bother with any more testing at this stage. We're onto this. Miquel has just advised me that he has finished writing the code that will allow me to create a log file for the fire event so I can better track and analyse exactly what is going on. I haven't had a look at his new code just yet and won't do so until after I finish off the work I am doing on resupply. So please be patient.
Just a quick update to let peeps know, as Dave has passed this issue to me.
By programming the logging - down to each round being fired - I could also setup a testing framework so we can have a set of benchmark "scenarios" like the one used by skarp, which can be run automatically and produce an output that can be analyzed efficiently to look for 'weird happenings'. This also allows us to leverage what's the effect of making changes in the anti-armour fires model in a back-to-back fashion.
Not only this has implied a significant amount of programming work on invisible, rather boring code, but also we've been treading through this issue with great care, since the Anti-Armour model is perhaps one of the critical and most delicate components in the engine. Here you won't see the 'balance pendulum swinging' - Dave was dead serious about going into the bottom of this, and we're there, right at the bottom.
From the set of experiments we've been doing we've been able to rule out quite a few hypothesis, and I think we're quite close to solve the issues with the anti-armour fire model. David (Lieste) input has been extremely helpful to spot oddities, rule out culprits and in general, making insightful comments which I have been found very helpful to guide my investigations. Let me tell you that this is not specifically a problem with ubermodeling amour, guns, etc. but more of a "tactical" nature.
I'd like to ask the community is to make some little scenarios like those of skarp, featuring other different matchups, to make sure we're not overfitting this particular AC vs. Armor match-up. So guys, if you have experienced similarly weird situations, I'd appreciate mini-scenarios covering those situations (I can clearly recall a happening of a similar nature in the Phoenix vs. Yakstok game).
Don't recall what happened between Yakstok and I - I'm trying to blank it....
But, since you asked, BG, I set up one of my test scenarios again and ran it a few times. Very strange. Aside from a unit with no AT capability (assuming the M9s 37mm isn't that) taking out a Panther once (it might have been reliability issues, of course - it might just have broken down - I have no idea) I found Tigers and Panthers performed superb. I ran a test where I ranged 4 Panthers against 2 M8s and 3 jeeps, then 2 Tigers against the same, roughly. In all runs the Tigers and Panthers completely destroyed the Allied unit within 20 mins. And - most spookily - they used HE shells!!! If you read the previous threads you will see that I couldn't previously - about six weeks ago, was it? - get them to fire HE shells at all. Both Daz and I complained about this. But now they're doing it. A mysterious update? A sign of self-sufficient AI? I have no idea. What's different? My entire system is brand new since the last time I tried this, because a couple of Trojans wrecked it, so I reinstalled to factory condition and rebuilt the system form scratch. Then reinstalled Command Ops. And in the process of that reinstallation I skipped, of course, all the intermediary updates between the release and .263 and .264 beta. I only mention this because I cannot get the Axis armour to perform badly now, and can't think what else would have changed. I'll keep trying though.
And just ran it again with full companies. I pitted a company of 14 Tiger 2s and a company of 17 Panther Gs against D company 83rd Recon. D co had some 40 vehicles, including 13 M8s, 6 m3s and 23 jeeps, plus 5 bazookas. In a battle lasting an hour and a quarter the Axis lost only 2 Panthers, no Tigers. The Allies lost 20 vehicles and 1 bazooka. 5 M3s were killed and 6 M8s, plus loads of jeeps. Seems great to me. It's like a new program! Seriously, I couldn't get these results at all 6 weeks ago! don't know what's happened, but I'm happty. I'll go and mess with the armoured cars now.
Forgot - I set up the victory conditions different - I wonder if that could have sufficiently altered the tactics. In these tests I gave max vic points to the Allies if they held the single VP. But I gave max vic points to the Axis if they killed the enemy. I did this because basically I wanted the Allies to stay put and defend the vic loc, and wanted to see if the Axis tanks could shoot and kill ok.
Just tried the Household Cavalry ACs. I put a company of them on a VP (the only VP in the scenario), in open ground, clear visibility, not dug in. They were (I surrendered and checked to get the figures)1 AEC, 14 dingos, 10 MkIIs, 2 M3s, 2 T17s and 3 PIAT. Correct me if I'm wrong, but only the Piats should be any good against Panthers, out of all that, and then only at close range and not head on?
I ranged against them 14 panther Gs. They were about a kilometre away, clear LOS. I gave an attack order onto the defended VP and ticked max aggro. I let it run for 2 hours.
result: nearly 400 AP shells fired as the Panthers advanced. Only 1 panther lost after they had closed to about 400 metres (still too far for a PIAT, no?). Lots of MG ammo used. NO HE shells fired at all!
What did 400 rounds of AP get? 2 dingos and 2 MK IIs. That's it. 4 vehicles.
By "tactical" do you mean their willingness to get up and close with tanks? In my games they seemed more aggressive than I thought such units would be trained to be and more stubborn too. I thought it was partly down at least to their elite status.
By "tactical" do you mean their willingness to get up and close with tanks? In my games they seemed more aggressive than I thought such units would be trained to be and more stubborn too. I thought it was partly down at least to their elite status.
No, not really. When I mean "tactical" I refer mainly to the ability to use terrain effectively in the defense. Lieste is looking hard at the model dealing with the effects of penetration, and I'm waiting for his input on that aspect.
Could you post those scenarios you were using for your tests on Dropbox or some similar site so I can get hold of them?
I've put game scenarios and screen shots of results into this folder. Screenshots are named with the side I played at the start of the file name followed by vic(tory), def(eat) or draw then scenario name. Hope this helps.