Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Choosing a general order from a list is the part I have the most difficulty with. Even in the most obvious cases where a general order would apply (USSR at the start of Barbarossa: Retreat!) there seems to always be exceptions. 90% of the army, navy, or air force may be following one general order while the other 10% is doing something quite different. If the AIA applies the general order to 100% of the forces, that is exactly when the enemy can exploit the AIA doing something stupid (Why did the AIA retreat from Leningrad? OR Why did the AIA hold on to that overextended part of the front line when the enemy clearly could isolate it?). Similar laments could be made about how the air units are handled. I used the examples about the land units because they are easier to understand.

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Choosing a general order from a list is the part I have the most difficulty with. Even in the most obvious cases where a general order would apply (USSR at the start of Barbarossa: Retreat!) there seems to always be exceptions. 90% of the army, navy, or air force may be following one general order while the other 10% is doing something quite different. If the AIA applies the general order to 100% of the forces, that is exactly when the enemy can exploit the AIA doing something stupid (Why did the AIA retreat from Leningrad? OR Why did the AIA hold on to that overextended part of the front line when the enemy clearly could isolate it?). Similar laments could be made about how the air units are handled. I used the examples about the land units because they are easier to understand.

How would the AI-opponent handle a situation like this, in a single player game? My thinking is that you could reuse some of the code that are written for the AI-opponent and handle this the same way.

Example:
DECISION MAKER: Russian air commander
(1) PROBLEM: Defend russian front
(2) CHOICES: (a) Disprupt german Army, (b) Retreat at all cost (c) Assist attacked USSR units (d) Preserve airforce & Army
(3) INFORMATION NEEDED:
- (1)Prioties on preserve airforce/assist attacked units
- (2)Predicted frontline at end of turn.
- (3)Hexes that I will fight for (leningrad, rostov)

(4) CRITERIA:
If (a) Use bombers in Groundsupport if it increases chance of flipping german units and estimated losses is less than (1), rebase(2)
If (b) Use all available air moves to rebase planes to Hexes that I will fight for(3) and beyond estimated frontline(2).
If (c) Fly ground support if estimated losses less than(1)
If (d) Fly ground support if odds of USSR units survives increases and estimated losses less than(1)


As a standing order I would decide the choice and the priorities in infromation needed the details of the criteria would be the same as the AI-opponent uses.

All the HQ units that might provide support against land attacks are displayed in the left hand column. To qualify, the HQ must be face up, and either in or adjacent to a hex that contains friendly land unit(s) that are vulnerable to land attack. The last will include even very unlikely units that might be vulnerable due to successful overruns, paradrops, or sea invasions.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

All the HQ units that might provide support against land attacks are displayed in the left hand column. To qualify, the HQ must be face up, and either in or adjacent to a hex that contains friendly land unit(s) that are vulnerable to land attack. The last will include even very unlikely units that might be vulnerable due to successful overruns, paradrops, or sea invasions.

The player can then give each HQ an SO to provide support to vulnerable hexes in priority order. Or, HQs can be given no SO for providing support.

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
All the HQ units that might provide support against land attacks are displayed in the left hand column. To qualify, the HQ must be face up, and either in or adjacent to a hex that contains friendly land unit(s) that are vulnerable to land attack. The last will include even very unlikely units that might be vulnerable due to successful overruns, paradrops, or sea invasions.

The player can then give each HQ an SO to provide support to vulnerable hexes in priority order. Or, HQs can be given no SO for providing support.

Does this mean that I have to go over SO 20 at every impulse: or will I be able to put a standing order that last several impulses maybe the whole game.
For example support all attacks between odds 2-1 and 5-1 until further noticeif several attacks to choose between choose the one with lowest odds.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

All the HQ units that might provide support against land attacks are displayed in the left hand column. To qualify, the HQ must be face up, and either in or adjacent to a hex that contains friendly land unit(s) that are vulnerable to land attack. The last will include even very unlikely units that might be vulnerable due to successful overruns, paradrops, or sea invasions.

To qualify for defensive Ground Support, an HQ also has to not having been tagged to be kept face-up for reorganisation or movement.
The non phasing player should be able to tag units so that they stay face-up because he needs them for his own impulse. It is important and could also be used to keep planes face-up too.

The opportunity of helping our land/naval units (or factories) can be measured by the whether our bomber(s) or the enemy bombers getting through will make a difference. What constitutes “making a difference” depends on the enemy air mission.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The opportunity of helping our land/naval units (or factories) can be measured by the whether our bomber(s) or the enemy bombers getting through will make a difference. What constitutes “making a difference” depends on the enemy air mission.

For land combat, playing the 2d10 CRT, "making a difference" can simply be measured by the bonus (if it is friendly) or malus (if it is enemy) the Ground Support / Ground Strike / Paradrop / Air Ressuply will provide :

- Ground Support --> directly change the odd ratio, so directly change the bonus to the combat. Easy to calculate.
- Ground Strike --> 1 unit Ground Striked is a +2 to combat, so you can evaluate the "make a difference" factor for, say a 50% chance of flipping a unit is +1 to combat.
- Paradrop --> directly change the odds, so the bonus to the combat. Moreover, provide a +1 to the attack (if playing with this optional, is it Hitler's Wars ???)
- Air Resupply --> flips the units face-up, so directly chnge the odds of the combat, hence the bonus, easy to calculate too.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is my proposal for SO 8.

=========================
SO 8 Decision to Continue Air Combat
(as of August 25, 2005)

There are several factors that influence whether to continue an air combat or not. In the following list the word bomber includes ATRs. Considerations are:
∙ risk of losing a fighter
∙ risk of losing a bomber
∙ opportunity of killing an enemy fighter
∙ opportunity of killing an enemy bomber
∙ opportunity to help our units on the ground or at sea with bomber support
∙ opportunity to help our units on the ground or at sea by preventing the enemy air mission

At different times in the game the importance of any of these can vary from crucial to irrelevant. What we want to provide the player with is the ability to combine these risks into a simple Abort / Stay decision.

The risk of loses and opportunity of kills can be measured simply by the air-to-air combat odds. The opportunity of helping our land/naval units (or factories) can be measured by the whether our bomber(s) or the enemy bombers getting through will make a difference. What constitutes “making a difference” depends on the enemy air mission.

∙ We can probably assume that paradrops, air resupply, and air transport always make a difference.
∙ Air-to-sea attacks, including port attacks, make a difference if the number of Xs and Ds are going to change. Some allowance might be given for anti-aircraft fire when the AIA determines the number of air-to-sea factors that get through.
∙ Ground strikes make a difference if the probability of a land unit being disrupted increases by, say, 25%.
∙ Strategic bombardment makes a difference if the probability of losing a production or oil point, or a factory, increases by 25%.
∙ Ground support makes a difference if the attack odds are likely to change by a column.

What we need now is a way to combine the air-to-air combat odds and the “make a difference” measures into an Abort / Stay decision. That seems to be pretty easy. The player sets how bad the odds have to be for him to abort when “make a difference” is true and when it is false. That is two settings, each of which range from -9 through -2, -1, 0, +1 up to +8. Basically, the player is setting his comfort level for the risk/reward of killing planes: once, for when the overall air mission means something, and a second time for when it doesn’t.

I am under the illusion that this will cover all the decisions about continuing air combat for all mission types for all air units. What did I forget?

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is my proposal for SO 8.

SO 8 Decision to Continue Air Combat
.....

I like this approach, but I might have a different idea on what is acceptable odds for my expensive condor flying a pretty unimportant grundstrike mission, than in an air battle wirth a mixture of fighters and cheap bombers.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

here is my proposal for SO 22

=======================
SO 22 Ignore Notional Unit
(as of August 26, 2005)

This comes up very rarely. It only has any relevance for coastal hexes that might be invaded while simultaneously attacked by an armor unit from a land hex. That means, it only occurs on the part of the frontline that hinges on the sea and can be invaded and attacked by an enemy armor unit.

When the player clicks on SO 22, Ignore notional unit, the AIA will search for hexes where this might apply. If any are found, the player will be queried as to whether he wants the notional unit to be ignored.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
====================
SO 7 Air combat results
Interface This is a prioritization task. It only comes into play when there is more than 1 unit from which to choose. For example, when you have to choose which of two bombers to clear through. Therefore, to set this SO, the player needs to prioritize the units based on their characteristics. Characteristics of interest are:
 unit type (fighter, bomber, ATR),
 air-to-air strength,
 mission strength (tactical for ground strikes, strategic for strategic bombing, etc.), and
 overall unit value (sum of air-to-air, naval, tactical, and strategic strengths multiplied by the time required to build the unit).

For AC results (clearing through an enemy bomber), the obvious choice would be the enemy bomber with the lowest mission strength. This might have a secondary importance to air-to-air strength under some special circumstances. For DC results (clearing through a friendly bomber), the likely choice would be to clear the bomber with the highest mission strength. In both cases the player will have the ability to set which criterion to use first and which to use second if there is a tie.

For AX results (killing enemy air units) the choice is between the front fighter or the front bomber. The player could set this SO to always kill the fighter (or bomber). In order to provide some flexibility, the player can make the choice conditional on: (1) the likely air-to-air combat odds for the next round, (2) whether there will be a next round (e.g., killing the bomber might end the air combat), (3) the cost or time to rebuild the air unit, or (4), the overall unit value. Note that special features of the air units are not part of the conditions (e.g., twin engine, night fighter, tank buster, etc.). The same logic can be used for DX, AA, and DA results.

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
====================
SO 7 Air combat results
Interface This is a prioritization task. It only comes into play when there is more than 1 unit from which to choose. For example, when you have to choose which of two bombers to clear through. Therefore, to set this SO, the player needs to prioritize the units based on their characteristics. Characteristics of interest are:
 unit type (fighter, bomber, ATR),
 air-to-air strength,
 mission strength (tactical for ground strikes, strategic for strategic bombing, etc.), and
 overall unit value (sum of air-to-air, naval, tactical, and strategic strengths multiplied by the time required to build the unit).

For AC results (clearing through an enemy bomber), the obvious choice would be the enemy bomber with the lowest mission strength. This might have a secondary importance to air-to-air strength under some special circumstances. For DC results (clearing through a friendly bomber), the likely choice would be to clear the bomber with the highest mission strength. In both cases the player will have the ability to set which criterion to use first and which to use second if there is a tie.

For AX results (killing enemy air units) the choice is between the front fighter or the front bomber. The player could set this SO to always kill the fighter (or bomber). In order to provide some flexibility, the player can make the choice conditional on: (1) the likely air-to-air combat odds for the next round, (2) whether there will be a next round (e.g., killing the bomber might end the air combat), (3) the cost or time to rebuild the air unit, or (4), the overall unit value. Note that special features of the air units are not part of the conditions (e.g., twin engine, night fighter, tank buster, etc.). The same logic can be used for DX, AA, and DA results.

Will those orders be set once for all air combats in the coming impulse/impulses or do you have someway of setting the orders differently for different missions, for example I might want to kill my opponents fighters escort in a groundsupport mission on the russian front's as it will be difficult for my opponent to reinforce his fighters, but rather kill his LND4 in a carpetbombing of gibraltar to protect my troops.