Matrix Games Forums

The original HL2 rule was:

Bandits move after the player’s Hornets move. Each Bandit may
move one area but is not required to move. Bandits do not use
altitude. Use the following rules to determine if and where a
Bandit moves:
If there are one or more Hornets within the Bandit’s range, it does
not move.
If no Hornets are within the Bandit’s range, move the Bandit one
area closer to the closest Hornet. If more than one Hornet is the
closest, randomly determine which Hornet the Bandit moves
towards.

The new rule is:
40% as per old rules
30% remains in the same area
30% change area randomly

I have played a lot this weekend, and I really dislike the new rule. It makes the game easier and the random movement is unrealistic, because sometimes bandits "warp" from an area to a non adjacent one...
In the original rules bandits always engage: so short-ranged bandits always have their chance, they intercept the hornets as soon as they can. Now sometimes they are passive, and MiG-21 are easy targets for AIM-9 and AIM-7. Sometimes they change area randomly in an illogic manner.
I'm curious to hear the opinion of the other players... This new rule and the new pod management rules are for me unneeded changes that make the game worst.
My 2 cents.

We felt it made the movement (and thus planning) unpredictable, and so you have to plan for anything. I can always increase the chances of bandits moving in some way, if players feel they don't move enough.

ORIGINAL: StormcloudCreations

We felt it made the movement (and thus planning) unpredictable, and so you have to plan for anything. I can always increase the chances of bandits moving in some way, if players feel they don't move enough.

Yes Derek, I understand your point, but if you give them a chance to remain in place and they are out of range you work against them
The original rule is the more aggressive you can apply and definitely the best for the "AI"... If you were the bandit player you would move as per old rules, I can't imagine a better way to try to destroy some hornets. Oh there is one, now that I'm thinking about.
You can keep the old rules adding this one: if a bandit is in range AND it would be in range in an area further away too, it moves away. This is a common tactic when you have long ranged weapons.
I want to have very bad bandits, yes!

I'd probably change it to 60%,20%,20%. A 40% chance to make a smart move is really not that good.

Another thing. In the 40% inbound movement chance there is a good chance this is NOT a smart move. Indeed if the bandit is already in range and it moves closer to the hornets it is doing a very bad thing.

I'm thinking about this modifications from days, and I can't find a single reason it should make the game more interesting. It goes always against the poor bandits

Bandits move randomly?
 
I would have thought they (especially range 0 bandits) are trying to avoid being the only bandit within 1 hex of a fast hornet, as they would probably not survive that. At least that´s what it appeared like to me.

I've only played the demo (and kudos for producing one by the way!) but one of the turn-offs for me so far is the random movement.  I can't understand the logic of it to be honest.  If a MiG sees me, he shouldn't fly in the opposite direction!   I do appreciate the unpredictability you are attempting to model but I think that is already determined by the number of bogies you have in the area.
 
Still a fence sitter but I do like alot about this game as well.
 
 

Yes, we made a deliberate attempt to introduce unpredictability to the mix, rather than making planes that always acted and moved exactly the same. If you pretty much know a plane is going to move, you can move to avoid it. With a combination of "smart" movement and random movement, you never know how or where they're going to move, so you can't plan around it. Also, the Bandit "AI" is still a work in progress somewhat, so over time it will get better, and is modeled pretty decently already. The bandit might have been flying away from you to avoid being fired on, perhaps?
 
Hope this helps you, Joram! [:)]

I have to say I like it more the way it is now than the deterministic rules in the OP.
 
It just makes more sense for bandits to generally do as ordered (close and engage as per orginal rules), but sometimes do something dumb (random movement or no movements) due to the confusion, and sometimes break and flee (or refuse to engage) because they feel outnumbered by the player´s forces.

Yep, Sire Chaos...I wanted to use the PC to make the game more flexible and less "precise" than the original board game was, while not deviating so much that it became a different game entirely.

ORIGINAL: StormcloudCreations

Yep, Sire Chaos...I wanted to use the PC to make the game more flexible and less "precise" than the original board game was, while not deviating so much that it became a different game entirely.

This would be relatively easy to include into the board game, you know. You roll 1d10 every turn; at a roll of 1 or 2, bandits shit their pants and move away from the Hornets; at a roll of 9 or 10, they screw up and move randomly.

What about movement between non adjacent areas? Now it happens...

I'm totally with Joram, as he points out such things were already modeled in some manner, now bandits are very often idiots.

40% they go against the hornets, but in such case about 50% they are already in range, so they are acting in a wrong manner

30% they flee, this is good only if they go out of range of the hornets and they have long range missiles, so say 25% idiot and 5% okay

30% they move random in a star trek manner, teleporting sometimes in a non adjacent area. Say 50% ok 50% idiot

Total: bandits are 60% at least completely idiot. Old bandits were a challenge, now they aren't.

I have reduced my usual (vassal version) AtA payloads of about 1/3 without problems; this is a clear indicator that the game is now easier.

ORIGINAL: SireChaos

I have to say I like it more the way it is now than the deterministic rules in the OP.

It just makes more sense for bandits to generally do as ordered (close and engage as per orginal rules), but sometimes do something dumb (random movement or no movements) due to the confusion, and sometimes break and flee (or refuse to engage) because they feel outnumbered by the player´s forces.

Thank you for the response Derek. Just an idea but I think you could do this better with perhaps a series of movement scripts. All in some way a logical response to an intrusion but the randomness would be in which pattern they chose.

I like the randomness, myself. 

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel

I like the randomness, myself.

You should try the original rules to judge the current ones... I love randomness in games; but I think (as Joram) that it should be applied to make bandits more realistic, and not more idiot [:)]

ORIGINAL: CptWasp

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel

I like the randomness, myself.

You should try the original rules to judge the current ones... I love randomness in games; but I think (as Joram) that it should be applied to make bandits more realistic, and not more idiot [:)]

Though the challenge would be higher if they all acted the same, that would also make them very predictable. As it is.. the AA on the ground is easily predictable and I wouldn't want the enemy A/C always acting the same. I wouldn't complain too much if it were changed, but I think there are other things that should be implemented first.

Ya know.. in gulf war I ... many Iraqi pilots fled with their A/C to Iran. Some were shot down trying to land at their airbase whilst running away from allied aircraft. Many also fled in the Arab-Israeli wars when it seemed the best thing to do. [;)]

Yes, and how many other times have you heard of that happening? 
 
I don't disagree with you on that there will still be some predictability but I really think that's ok.  Randomness for randomness' sake is not fun in the least in my opinion.  If anything it's frustrating.   If I wanted pure randomness I'd just play dice.  (But even there you can measure expected outcomes!).
 
Possible script ideas:
 
Stay at Max-range (use longest range weapon available)
Outflank (stay in outer zone and move in behind if possible)
Flee (for the Gulf War syndrome)
Min-Range
 
etc... I'm sure flyboys can think of much more imaginitive things than this CDAT.
 
 
 
 
 
 

An idea that would make closing up a smart thing for bandits:
- +1 AtA bonus for bandits with range 2 when at range 0 or 1, but increasing the first hit number (near miss) by 1 (eg: MiG-29 will hit with 2 at long and with 1 at short range and become very dangerous for a damage or shot down result at close range)
- give MiG-21 range 1, and note 0: they are too poor now (in the Vassal game some of them have range 0 and others range 1; 1 is more fun and realistic for modern MiG-21)