Suggestion for more options

[PKH]

I find that when playing the germans vs the russians, I run into a ton of anti-air units from the start. Like 10 37mm and 10 aamg for a battalion sized game. I play on small to medium sized maps (around 50-70 hexes) and it get's a bit pointless to buy aircraft since they generally get damaged right away.

I suggest an option for setting max % of points the ai can spend on AA (also would be nice to have similar settings for other types like Tanks, Artillery & Planes).

I also feel the reaction fire has gone a bit overboard compared to the original games. Here everyone seems to shoot at everyone. When defending vs multiple units, it's pointless to shoot since the unit will get suppressed to hell right away, so it's best to rely on reaction fire. I'd like an option for less aggressive reaction fire.

Possibly something like: When a unit shoots, only it's target & anyone who has the shooter as it's target are guaranteed to return fire. Enemies without a target will get a chance, and enemies with another target will get a smaller chance. The chances should be affected by distance, so units are more likely to shoot at closer targets. Reaction fire on movement could be similar.

[Imp]

I have to disagree with you regarding reaction fire, one of the things that makes this game is the fact reaction fire is fairly intelligent, certainly far more so than any other incarnations of SP I have played.

[jivemi]

Originally Posted by PKH

I also feel the reaction fire has gone a bit overboard compared to the original games. Here everyone seems to shoot at everyone. When defending vs multiple units, it's pointless to shoot since the unit will get suppressed to hell right away, so it's best to rely on reaction fire. I'd like an option for less aggressive reaction fire.

Possibly something like: When a unit shoots, only it's target & anyone who has the shooter as it's target are guaranteed to return fire. Enemies without a target will get a chance, and enemies with another target will get a smaller chance. The chances should be affected by distance, so units are more likely to shoot at closer targets. Reaction fire on movement could be similar.

Welcome PKH. I'd like to help you out, but I'm not quite sure as to your meaning(s). In the first paragraph, I presume you're talking about a situation in which enemy units have moved up during their turn, and one of your exposed units--that is, in the enemy's line of sight (LOS)--would be slaughtered if it fired at any one of them. The reaction (or "opportunity") fire would be devastating.

Well, you don't have to fire, at least not at first, with your most exposed, closest unit. You could fire with other units that have LOS on one or more of the enemy units, and are further away so any return fire wouldn't be so damaging. (Also bear in mind that units which have moved are less accurate than those remaining stationary--check out the online game manual). If all or most enemy units are pinned or worse, you could then try firing with the exposed, closest unit. If all else fails, you could try retreating or popping smoke. Remember, you don't HAVE to fire during your turn; it's optional.

What exactly do you mean by "Enemies without a target will get a chance, and enemies with another target will get a smaller chance"? Maybe the first phrase was meant to read, "Enemies without ANOTHER target will get a BETTER chance," in which case you could run into contingency problems during the course of a sequential turn that I attempt to address further below. Otherwise kindly be a little more specific.

Basically the system operates on LOS and effective range. If you fire at enemy units during your (half-) turn, any enemy units with LOS, in effective range, and with shots available, can fire back, and vice-versa.

As far as units being more likely to fire at closer targets is concerned, I dunno how that could be arranged. Since movement and fire is sequential, it's impossible to determine which units will be further or closer by the end of the turn.

And even if a unit IS closer when a particular firing sequence begins, it doesn't always follow that the closer unit is going to fire at all (its suppression might be too high to begin with, or it might be suppressed/damaged/whatever in the first round[s] of fire). So it would be pointless for op-firing units to hold fire in expectation of a better shot at a closer unit, if that unit won't fire anyway during that turn. As you can imagine, there's a whole bunch of variables at work here.

Hope that helps. If it doesn't then please clarify your questions and somebody on the forum would be happy to answer.

Cheers and happy gaming!

[Imp]

Just to clarify & this is only from playing but units are more likely to fire at closer (as in easier to hit targets including moving infantry) than harder to hit targets.
My guess is there is a routine based on chance to hit & inflict damage plus a threat level routine, but I have no idea its just observation.
Examples
I have 2 infantry squads one moving one stationary. The stationary one is far more likely to fire at medium to long range than the moving one as its fire is more accurate.

The squad that doesn't use its AT weapon because it moved or is suppressed & hence will most likely miss.
Also a nice touch on occasion they seem just not to bother then open up in their turn causing a bit of a surprise.

Tank ignores the halftrack at moderate range as its no real threat yet opens up at the tank. Try running enough halftracks past it though & it might decide to take the shot rather than wait for a better target.

[PKH]

Originally Posted by jivemi

Welcome PKH. I'd like to help you out, but I'm not quite sure as to your meaning(s). In the first paragraph, I presume you're talking about a situation in which enemy units have moved up during their turn, and one of your exposed units--that is, in the enemy's line of sight (LOS)--would be slaughtered if it fired at any one of them. The reaction (or "opportunity") fire would be devastating.

It's generally an issue where several units on each side have line of sight to each other. In this case it's pointless to shoot on the defensive since every attacker will shoot back at the firing unit. So the game gets very passive, and basically plays itself (when playing the AI). The problem as I see it is that every unit gets reaction shots vs. every other unit. It doesn't feel realistic, and makes defending very passive.

Originally Posted by jivemi

What exactly do you mean by "Enemies without a target will get a chance, and enemies with another target will get a smaller chance"?

It means exactly what it says. When a unit shoots, enemy units without a target gets a chance to shoot back at it with reaction fire (they will then have a target). Enemy units who already have a target also has a chance to shoot at it (switching targets), but at a reduced chance since they are already engaged with someone else.

Originally Posted by jivemi

As far as units being more likely to fire at closer targets is concerned, I dunno how that could be arranged.

It would be arranged by measuring the distance in hexes at the time the reaction fire was to be resolved.

Originally Posted by jivemi

And even if a unit IS closer when a particular firing sequence begins, it doesn't always follow that the closer unit is going to fire at all (its suppression might be too high to begin with, or it might be suppressed/damaged/whatever in the first round[s] of fire). So it would be pointless for op-firing units to hold fire in expectation of a better shot at a closer unit, if that unit won't fire anyway during that turn. As you can imagine, there's a whole bunch of variables at work here.

This was about reaction fire when a unit does shoot or move. It makes sense to me that a unit is more likely to switch to another target if the new target is closer, and less likely to switch to another that is further away. The way I see it, having a target in this game represents engaging it and also getting the benefits of incremental accuracy increases. It makes little sense logically or realistically to constantly switch targets.

[jivemi]

OK PKH, thanks for your reply. The suggestions you make are beyond my puny capabilities to evaluate, so I'd better let others handle it. Good luck.

[Warmonger]

I like PKH's suggestion. Here's an example of how it could work.

For example, assume friendly unit A has targeted enemy unit 1 at a range of 5 hexes. Enemy unit 2 moves into A's LOS at a range of 8 hexes; A would not fire at 2 since it is farther. Enemy unit 3 pops up 3 hexes from A; A MAY fire at 3 since it is closer. Enemy unit 4 shows up adjacent to A; A would fire at unit 4.

Units appearing adjacent would be fired on 100% of the time if visible, same as now. Units closer than the current target could be handled by an algorithm which would make it more probable to fire the closer the the appearing unit is to the firing unit. Per the example: divide 100 by the range of the current target minus 1 (100 / (5 - 1) = 25). So each hex closer would have a 25% chance of being fired at; a unit at a range of 3 would have a 50% chance of being fired at, at a range of 2 a 75% chance.

[jivemi]

OK, so you're talking about opfire during your opponent's turn, right? Sorry if I misunderstood the OP.

Marmonger's suggestion has merit, although I'm not sure it would make all that much practical difference. As Imp notes from his own experience and observation, there already seems to be some consideration for hit probability and danger assessment.

Besides, if you believe the reaction fire is excessive, then why not simply hit the y-key and adjust the firing range of your units so they don't fire beyond a certain distance? That should ameliorate at least some of your objection to what you consider over-aggressive opfire.

Cheers and have fun.

[PKH]

Originally Posted by jivemi

Besides, if you believe the reaction fire is excessive, then why not simply hit the y-key and adjust the firing range of your units so they don't fire beyond a certain distance? That should ameliorate at least some of your objection to what you consider over-aggressive opfire.

Cheers and have fun.

I could still not fire myself without getting reaction/op fire from all enemy units in range. So the best strategy in defense is to do nothing a lot of the time, and instead rely on reaction fire in the opponents turn.

[jivemi]

Originally Posted by PKH

I could still not fire myself without getting reaction/op fire from all enemy units in range. So the best strategy in defense is to do nothing a lot of the time, and instead rely on reaction fire in the opponents turn.

You got it. Set your units to fire at half-range, quarter-range or even less (I often set mine to one hex, or 50 meters, if there's armor in the neighborhood) depending on the circumstances. If, as a defender, you fire during YOUR movement/fire phase you don't get the same benefit as when ENEMY units are moving and firing, especially if you restrict your reaction/opfire to an effective (shorter) range.

Naturally, if you're attacking, things are a bit different . Sometimes I'll fire "blind" into hexes I believe are occupied before moving anybody forward. It's called "area" fire (z-fire in the game) and was used plenty of times in WWII, notably by Rommel in France 1940 and the Eighth Army in North Africa (British infantry would advance through a smokescreen, firing from the hip until they came on the enemy trenches; then it was hand-to-hand IF the enemy didn't run or surrender first).

This is a terrific game and all of us are privileged to play it, whether we appreciate it or not. Cheerio and carry on.