Admiral's Edition General Thread

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Kull

Will AE provide a graphical display that shows Air Attacks on Naval Units in Port, something akin (or identical) to the Air vs TF graphic? This is currently the only graphic that is actually worse in WitP than PacWar.

Bump. (The poster child for this is the opening attack on Pearl Harbor.....you know lots of stuff is going on but all you get are text updates.)

[mussey]

Is there any plans for altering the way the Intelligence Report feature is used? As it is done now, it takes too long to review the list in the Report, and to track down every item on the Map. I was hoping that AE will create an 'Intelligence Department' that will do most of the time-consuming work for me by sifting through the items on the Report and automatically put the enemy units (land/air/sea) on the map where I can actually see them.
 
I hardly use the current feature because it is too takes too much time. Does anyone have any tactics for using the current Intel Report? Presently I know I'm taking a big risk by not using it!

[Knavey]

Bodhi's Utility...do a search for it and it will change the way you do WitP and intel/ops reports.

[mussey]

Knavey, thanks for the tip - I'm on it now.[:D]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Knavey

Bodhi's Utility...do a search for it and it will change the way you do WitP and intel/ops reports.

It's excellent, except that it doesn't allow you to maintain ship tracks. Even a manual capability, where you assign reports to TFs that you define, would be a help.

[Halsey]

More work, less talk...

Don't distract these guys from doing their duty for the wargaming communuty.[;)]

The less time they spend answering questions, the more time that can be spent getting this baby into production.[:D]

[Jim D Burns]

Can anything be done with the combat routines to prevent tiny units from attacking huge numbers of troops and cancelling their moves? A good rule if it could be implemented would be to auto-cancel any attack that didn’t have at least ¼ of the defenders assault value.

Another option would be that unit’s moves were only cancelled on a 1 unit for 1 unit basis. So if 6 divisions are trying to leave a hex and 2 divisions attack, only 2 of the 6 divisions would be required to cancel their move plots, even though all 6 divisions would be included in the defense.

Smaller formation sizes should not be able to cancel larger formations moves at all, at most they should simply cut the amount of miles gained by half. So if a brigade was to attack 2 departing divisions, one of the divisions would only gain 5 miles if it normally would gain 10. The other would not be affected though it would participate in the defense.

Jim

[witpqs]

The current situation makes no account of the tactic of a rear guard covering the withdrawal of other units.

[Hipper]

Can anything be done with the combat routines to prevent tiny units from attacking huge numbers of troops and cancelling their moves? A good rule if it could be implemented would be to auto-cancel any attack that didn’t have at least ¼ of the defenders assault value.

Another option would be that unit’s moves were only cancelled on a 1 unit for 1 unit basis. So if 6 divisions are trying to leave a hex and 2 divisions attack, only 2 of the 6 divisions would be required to cancel their move plots, even though all 6 divisions would be included in the defense.

Smaller formation sizes should not be able to cancel larger formations moves at all, at most they should simply cut the amount of miles gained by half. So if a brigade was to attack 2 departing divisions, one of the divisions would only gain 5 miles if it normally would gain 10. The other would not be affected though it would participate in the defense.

of course one of the winning tactic the japanese used in burma was the road block where a small unit infiltrated behind a larger and road bound Imperial unit and blocked the retreat

and the rearguard tactic is represented by having one unit in a hex stay & fight while the rest start moving ! true problem is battles are resolved too quickly

Cheers

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Hipper

Can anything be done with the combat routines to prevent tiny units from attacking huge numbers of troops and cancelling their moves? A good rule if it could be implemented would be to auto-cancel any attack that didn’t have at least ¼ of the defenders assault value.

Another option would be that unit’s moves were only cancelled on a 1 unit for 1 unit basis. So if 6 divisions are trying to leave a hex and 2 divisions attack, only 2 of the 6 divisions would be required to cancel their move plots, even though all 6 divisions would be included in the defense.

Smaller formation sizes should not be able to cancel larger formations moves at all, at most they should simply cut the amount of miles gained by half. So if a brigade was to attack 2 departing divisions, one of the divisions would only gain 5 miles if it normally would gain 10. The other would not be affected though it would participate in the defense.

of course one of the winning tactic the japanese used in burma was the road block where a small unit infiltrated behind a larger and road bound Imperial unit and blocked the retreat

and the rearguard tactic is represented by having one unit in a hex stay & fight while the rest start moving ! true problem is battles are resolved too quickly

Cheers

The space and time scales in WiTP are badly out of mesh for land combat (from the perspective of numerical integration, which is what a game CRT actually does). An appropriate scale for one day turns would be 5 mile hexes. 60 mile hexes work best with two-week turns and army-sized units. Given the constraints of the game, the land combat system has to model in-hex combat and partial hex combat results for any sort of realism.

[Andy Mac]

Not getting changed as I said up front we are not doing a full rewrite of Land COmbat its out of scope.
 
We have weaked it but somethings will remain as was

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Not getting changed as I said up front we are not doing a full rewrite of Land COmbat its out of scope.

We have weaked it but somethings will remain as was

I understand.

The issue is that a numerical integration algorithm (which is what a game engine is in the end) has to satisfy three things if it is to generate accurate outcomes: convergence, consistency, and stability. Convergence says that the solution generated by the algorithm has to approach an exact solution as the integration time step goes to zero. Consistency says that the local error of the method also has to go to zero as the step size decreases. Finally, stability says the algorithm has to be numerically stable--e.g., the system cannot be stiff, with multiple time scales. If it doesn't satisfy those conditions, it will generate flaky answers.

Euler's forward integration method (which is used by most game engines) is known to be flaky. If you use backwards integration, you'll get much better stability, but at the cost of not modelling threshold phenomena (breakpoints) well. You really need to use a compromise, like Crank-Nicholson. Using 1-day turns with 60 mile hexes means that you're working with rather stiff systems, and you're likely to get severe inaccuracy in your ground combat system.

[Andy Mac]

pretty much all of that went over my head I will take your word for it and reiterate we aint changing it whichever method stock uses its staying as is !!!!

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

pretty much all of that went over my head I will take your word for it and reiterate we aint changing it whichever method stock uses its staying as is !!!!

I understand, but my point is that the 60 mile hex creates a poor model. We have to live with it, but if we're changing the scale, we might as well tune the game engine.

We run into the same problems modelling neurones. Engineers tend to use very large compartments in their modelling, but people concerned with how the real brain works reduce the compartment size to the point where edge effects aren't dominating the results. For accuracy, we find that while you can get away with single compartments in in a few cells, for others, you have to use as many as 5000 compartments. We also find that using multiple integration time scales can help.

With 60 mile hexes, you need to model what's going on inside the hex in some detail to overcome those problems. The game produces really whacko results sometimes that totally blow the mind of anyone who actually knows something about what's being modelled.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: herwin

Consistency says that the local error of the method also has to go to zero as the step size decreases.

Harry,

Could you explain this? Maybe in a different thread so that Andy's head doesn't explode. (Over the thread hijack, I mean! [:)])

[Q-Ball]

I am grateful that AE will add alot of options for experienced players. I don't want to stop that, but the last few comments brings up a good question:

Will players completely new to the engine have ANY chance at all of learning it, or getting through the first overwhelming few days? When UV came out it was rated as COMPLEX, what would that make AE?

I am not advocating simplifying the game, I like all the new options, just an observation!

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I am grateful that AE will add alot of options for experienced players. I don't want to stop that, but the last few comments brings up a good question:

Will players completely new to the engine have ANY chance at all of learning it, or getting through the first overwhelming few days? When UV came out it was rated as COMPLEX, what would that make AE?

I am not advocating simplifying the game, I like all the new options, just an observation!

That's why it's called Admirals Edition, not Ensign Pulver's Edition I think.[;)]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I am grateful that AE will add alot of options for experienced players. I don't want to stop that, but the last few comments brings up a good question:

Will players completely new to the engine have ANY chance at all of learning it, or getting through the first overwhelming few days? When UV came out it was rated as COMPLEX, what would that make AE?

I am not advocating simplifying the game, I like all the new options, just an observation!

It might be your best chance at taking on a WITP "veteran" on a "level playing field". You won't know how things work for sure..., but a lot of his "learned assumptions" (and the strategies the generated) will have changed as well.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I am grateful that AE will add alot of options for experienced players. I don't want to stop that, but the last few comments brings up a good question:

Will players completely new to the engine have ANY chance at all of learning it, or getting through the first overwhelming few days? When UV came out it was rated as COMPLEX, what would that make AE?

I am not advocating simplifying the game, I like all the new options, just an observation!

That's why it's called Admirals Edition, not Ensign Pulver's Edition I think.[;)]

Well...sometimes I wonder if Ensign Pulver's Edition might be too advanced for me....cause I still regularly make some really stupid mistakes. For intance, sending KB to attack Soerbaja and forgetting to set my planes from naval interdiction to port and airfield attack. So it sat there for 3 days doing nothing. [8|]

[Tanaka]

Maybe Ive missed it but is the Intelligence process/screen being improved? Radio transmissions etc... Being able to see both sides intelligence...