Page 30 of 39
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:48 pm
by Chilperic
ORIGINAL: Keke
Cheers!
ORIGINAL: Chliperic
For those playing Siberian, some remarks about Southern White AI performance will be helpful.
I've seen Wrangel and Denikin in turns besieging Tsaritsyn with no success.
I may not have time to continue playing today, but here is the latest save and backup1 for you to check:
Thanks. So, without being stellar, Southern White AI is yet existing in mid-19 and able to represent some menaces to red here and there. Not that bad, considering how weak are Southern Whites positions in June 18. I willcheck in depth to search for improvements.
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 5:11 pm
by Sodei
I will try once again with the same historical choice initialy. I will divert some of my Murmansk force to Archangelsk and have less troops moving North. Finally, I will try to launch a late 1918 massive assault on Tzarytsin. Also, I will rely a lot less on Conscription RGD to avoid the NM cost. Maybe this will give me a better 1919-20 game.Wish me luck[:)].
Like I said, maybe it's just the way I played that doomed my Siberian adventure, before implanting any new system or doing radical recommendation. Keke, did your NM hold on to you all game long? As I presume you should be winning by now[:D].
EDIT: After looking at Keke's work, I am starting to think more and more that this may be my own fault.
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:40 pm
by Chilperic
ORIGINAL: Sodei
I will try once again with the same historical choice initialy. I will divert some of my Murmansk force to Archangelsk and have less troops moving North. Finally, I will try to launch a late 1918 massive assault on Tzarytsin. Also, I will rely a lot less on Conscription RGD to avoid the NM cost. Maybe this will give me a better 1919-20 game.Wish me luck[:)].
Like I said, maybe it's just the way I played that doomed my Siberian adventure, before implanting any new system or doing radical recommendation. Keke, did your NM hold on to you all game long? As I presume you should be winning by now[:D].
EDIT: After looking at Keke's work, I am starting to think more and more that this may be my own fault.
Maybe yes, maybe no. I've needed some months to fine tune Red and Southern Whites balance. I guess some will yet be necessary to Siberian Whites. If several different strategies don't succeed, that will be due to balance problem.
Anyway, the Red AI isn't a pushover [:)] Believe me or not but 10 months ago Iw asn't expecting AI would be able to face war on several fronts without major troubles...
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:32 pm
by Chilperic
ORIGINAL: Keke
Cheers!
ORIGINAL: Chliperic
For those playing Siberian, some remarks about Southern White AI performance will be helpful.
I've seen Wrangel and Denikin in turns besieging Tsaritsyn with no success.
I may not have time to continue playing today, but here is the latest save and backup1 for you to check:
Other interesting points: Poland is approaching Kiev [:)] Kiev is under Red control [:)]
Southern Whites havedone an average game, with 103 NM in december 19. Not great, but once again, not that bad for an AI which has faced certainly in 1918 a more larger Red force than in reality ( I noticed Ekaterinodar was yet Red in december 18). They have since recovered;
You're going certainly to win in 1920 with siberians; I persist to think unhistorical path was slighty too easy. Then Murmansk front was too active. But I don't think it has been so simple to repulse Red AI.
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:04 am
by JJKettunen
Is it possible to mod the weather? I remember someone saying that there were practically no winter blizzard turns. By coincidence I had a blizzard turn just then in one of my games, and reported that the latest patch may have changed things. Alas, I've seen no blizzard turns since then, so there's definitely room for a change...
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:18 am
by Chilperic
ORIGINAL: Keke
Is it possible to mod the weather? I remember someone saying that there were practically no winter blizzard turns. By coincidence I had a blizzard turn just then in one of my games, and reported that the latest patch may have changed things. Alas, I've seen no blizzard turns since then, so there's definitely room for a change...
yes. I'm waiting to see results of such changes for WIA in the official forum, having no time for now for working on this, which is a very complex one too.
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:33 pm
by JJKettunen
ORIGINAL: Chliperic
ORIGINAL: Keke
Is it possible to mod the weather? I remember someone saying that there were practically no winter blizzard turns. By coincidence I had a blizzard turn just then in one of my games, and reported that the latest patch may have changed things. Alas, I've seen no blizzard turns since then, so there's definitely room for a change...
yes. I'm waiting to see results of such changes for WIA in the official forum, having no time for now for working on this, which is a very complex one too.
Is it that complex though if there are no changes to the climate zones? Looking at the Weathers folder, one would think that only setting a higher value (probability) for very harsh weather (for each weather pattern and each winter month) would do the trick. If it is that simple, I could do it! [:)]
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:37 pm
by JJKettunen
And if it was that simple, I would change the value from 5 to 10, and 10 to 20 (while adjusting other values accordingly) when applicable.
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:38 pm
by Chilperic
ORIGINAL: Keke
ORIGINAL: Chliperic
ORIGINAL: Keke
Is it possible to mod the weather? I remember someone saying that there were practically no winter blizzard turns. By coincidence I had a blizzard turn just then in one of my games, and reported that the latest patch may have changed things. Alas, I've seen no blizzard turns since then, so there's definitely room for a change...
yes. I'm waiting to see results of such changes for WIA in the official forum, having no time for now for working on this, which is a very complex one too.
Is it that complex though if there are no changes to the climate zones? Looking at the Weathers folder, one would think that only setting a higher value (probability) for very harsh weather (for each weather pattern and each winter month) would the trick. If it is that simple, I could do it! [:)]
You could try indeed. Moreover, AGEOD has simplified the files: each terrain is now low, high or water defined and the weather matrix isn't anymore by terrain type.
What I'm waiting is evaluation of results from these changes. I've no clue about .exe computation about Weather and the right percentages to enter. So I would need time to test...If you have it, let's go [:)]
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:41 pm
by JJKettunen
ORIGINAL: Chliperic
ORIGINAL: Keke
ORIGINAL: Chliperic
yes. I'm waiting to see results of such changes for WIA in the official forum, having no time for now for working on this, which is a very complex one too.
Is it that complex though if there are no changes to the climate zones? Looking at the Weathers folder, one would think that only setting a higher value (probability) for very harsh weather (for each weather pattern and each winter month) would the trick. If it is that simple, I could do it! [:)]
You could try indeed. Moreover, AGEOD has simplified the files: each terrain is now low, high or water defined and the weather matrix isn't anymore by terrain type.
What I'm waiting is too evaluate if changes would work well. I've no clue about .exe computation about Weather and the right percentages to enter. So I would need time to test...If you have it, let's go [:)]
Great! I'll do it, and let you know the results.
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 1:08 pm
by JJKettunen
FYI, where a value for Very Harsh Weather value is set, I'll raise it by 5, and then decrease either Harsh Weather value or, if it is low already, the weather type that the has highest value, by 5.
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 2:31 pm
by JJKettunen
From early December to late December (1919) with modded weather: apart from taigas and mountains no very harsh weather anywhere. At least the change has not been too dramatic. [:D]
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:04 pm
by JJKettunen
Late February, finally blizzard! - but only in regions with taiga. I think I have to study the values more carefully.
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 6:49 pm
by Sodei
I have started anew with those SibW and I jsut wanted to clarify something. In the beginning you, as the player, will take Ekaterinbur. Defending the city is a certain general with one unit of elite infantry and one heavy armored train. I killed the elite infantry but the train ran away(?) in a unknowned direction, maybe a flying train[X(]. Are the soviet's elite soldier suppose to give NM fluctuation in battle or are those limited to what you specified earlier ( leaders and heavy artilleries,etc.)? Also a quick question, how does the control of the Archangelsk-Perm axe work, do I need 100% military control or only 51% or what number? Thank a you!
EDIT: BTW, I will keep my eyes open for any form of blizzard, oddities in Russia if I am correct.
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 6:51 pm
by JJKettunen
OK, looking at the data, February value for Subarctic weather zone in high areas (including taiga) was 65 (I had raised it by 5). It was even higher for December and January (75) when no blizzard happened (IIRC). I think the lesson here is that pretty high values have to be used to get any blizzard effects. I'll prepare a new weather set where the probability for blizzard in winter months is much higher in certain weather zones.
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 7:15 pm
by Chilperic
ORIGINAL: Keke
OK, looking at the data, February value for Subarctic weather zone in high areas (including taiga) was 65 (I had raised it by 5). It was even higher for December and January (75) when no blizzard happened (IIRC). I think the lesson here is that pretty high values have to be used to get any blizzard effects. I'll prepare a new weather set where the probability for blizzard in winter months is much higher in certain weather zones.
Great [:)]
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 8:50 pm
by Sodei
Moron me didn't do the proper update [:D]. Ignore my comment on the NM part b ut I still would like to know how the Military Control of the North work for the axe. Thank a you.
EDIT: I think there is still a visual bug after your modification on the Komuch units being WHI tagged. Some of them don't have there unit portait, maybe because of the WH2 and WHI tags being change?. Anyway, they still fight, that's the most important

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 10:01 pm
by JJKettunen
It should be MC of over 50%.
In my game NM plummeted after 1919 for no obvious reason (other than the secret effects of the unhistorical path...), and now, on early June 1920 it is 95. That and a succesful Red counterattack at Moscow changed my plans dramatically: it means a final, concentrated attack on Tsaritsyn and delaying action everywhere else.
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 10:15 pm
by Sodei
I had the same but one year before, it crippled my capacity to fight even if I had the initiative. Eventually, the cheer number of the Reds coupled with there NM pushed me all the way back. I am trying a no-RGD/historical path and will try to counter that NM fall. It is a obvious but highly unhistorical choice to transport your troops from Murmansk to Archangelsk now that the front is blockaded. Maybe something must be done about it... Chilpreic will know best[:D]. It those give you some sort of movement capacity early on though.
EDIT: BTW, can you tell me the plus vs minus of going the ahistorical path for the SibW Keke, thank a you in advance.
EDIT2: I now have a game with only 2 actives 3-star army leaders ( The Czech guy died)Yet I cannot promote Miller...
RE: Fatal Years for 1.03
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 10:30 pm
by JJKettunen
ORIGINAL: Sodei
EDIT: BTW, can you tell me the plus vs minus of going the ahistorical path for the SibW Keke, thank a you in advance.
It has been made more tough after I started my game, but the obvious advantage is that the Checks stay in the game far longer.