Wishlist: AI Tank delay

[Brian61]

Originally Posted by DRG

However, your theory that "artillery all of a sudden got a lot more accurate and dangerous" has no basis in fact. There is NOTHING in code tied to reinforcement delay that's connected to artillery so what you've seen is either what you hoped to see or another case of randomnumberitis ( i.e you got lucky or you had good eyes on the target or both)

Don

Sorry if it wasn't clear from what I stated, it was an observation, and only applied to computer opponent artillery - my theory is that it is due to the increased number of eyes on the targets and less smoke from wrecks interfering.

Anyhow, glad to hear you're considering something along these lines, it will be a worthwhile improvement from what I'm seeing

Thanks!

[Note: continuing the test battle I think I made the delay a bit too long and the chance for (per turn?) reinforcement too low. A 8 turn, 70% reinforcement might have been a better choice for the 80x80 delay(me)/advance(computer) battle.]

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Brian61

Actually its much worse than that. There is no AI. In games of this generation, there are just some simple hardwired behaviors. That said, one surprising outcome of simple behaviors is when you add enough of them together they start seeming to be 'smarter'.

I wasn't going to bring this up except, after finding out I could edit the files for a long campaign, I did an experiment. I simply made every armor unit on the computer side a 10 turn 50% reinforcement. Wow! What a difference!

Some very unexpected things did occur, for one, artillery all of a sudden got a lot more accurate and dangerous. Your scout cars start getting half blinded by ATR fire and then finished off by early arriving tanks. By the time the tanks arrive you're already up to your eyeballs in enemy infantry.

If I knew the layout of the dat files, I'd simply write a script to apply a reinforcement delay and chance to all vehicles on the computer side.

What - to add to the armour that the AI already holds back in reserve when assaulting, attacking or in the meeting engagement (when it has lots of armoured formations)?

Oh - and the attack helos it reserves in MBT, and the heliborne infantry that is also held back in reserve?

In other words - nice idea, but already thought of, back in the DOS days when reinforcements were added.

And if the AI routinely held its tanks back, then the player would probably exploit this by advancing his own armour to stomp the grunts approaching his front, most likely (since the tanks would be back in the deployment area, or off the map if reinforcements).

Nor would holding back armour be a great idea in the meeting engagement either - the human would snaffle the available V-hexes and turn it into an impromptu 'delay' mission.

Cheers
Andy

[DRG]

....and that's what those nice little "random variables" are for.... keeping people on their toes and why more variety is better than less and what's being discussed is more randomness and less predictability like knowing the tanks will almost always arrive before the infantry will

Don

[Brian61]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

What - to add to the armour that the AI already holds back in reserve when assaulting, attacking or in the meeting engagement (when it has lots of armoured formations)?

I can only state what I'm seeing repeatedly in long campaign battles. The computer opponent is sending a wave of tanks, indeed the majority of its armor strength, forward long before any infantry other than the riders arrive. I've been seeing this behavior consistently.

I only play WinSPWW2 these days so I have no idea about MBT's behavior.

If the delay of the initial armor was too long, certainly it would be exploitable. Perhaps a degree of randomness? The current behavior is certainly exploitable, simply put AT units up front and the majority of the computer opponent's forces are destroyed before the first ten turns are done.

Thanks,
Brian

[DRG]

BOTH of you see what I wrote in post 13

Don

[Brian61]

Originally Posted by DRG

BOTH of you see what I wrote in post 13

Don

Sorry, you ninja'd me I'm gonna shutup and step out of the convo now

[Mobhack]

As a matter of interest - what sort of map depth are you using?

In other words - are you expecting the AI's grunts to walk 3+ KM (60 hexes+) to get to you.

(I find 60 hex deep maps to be about right for WW2 type combat, where the infantry is leg by default.)

Andy

[Brian61]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

As a matter of interest - what sort of map depth are you using?

In other words - are you expecting the AI's grunts to walk 3+ KM (60 hexes+) to get to you.

(I find 60 hex deep maps to be about right for WW2 type combat, where the infantry is leg by default.)

Andy

The long campaign generator around the time of Stalingrad likes to ignore my settings and go to 80x80, I'm guessing that's because of the Stalingrad maps. In the autumn 1942 period I'm changing the map location to 45 (Russia) to simulate the Rzhev pocket battles (Soviet operation Mars offensive) which occurred at the same time.

So 80x80 human delay, computer advance, my setup line is 40. Not sure where exactly the computer setup line is but I'm guessing 60. So about a 1.5km walk until effective range allowing for a few hexes back from the lines.

I play with smaller (heavily reinforced company to understrength battalion) force sizes, core force point value is 2586. I buy pretty much the full allotment of support forces and have the ai strength set to 125% in config.

I'll try 60 depth to see if that makes a difference (would prefer 60 height too for my force type/size).

Thanks,
Brian

[Mobhack]

A generated Stalingrad map won't override what you have in your settings, but remember to change those at the correct point in the LC (simply changing the one in preferences, will not change the preference held internally by the LC - it will hold onto its last setting). I think you get the opportunity to change that at the build/repair screen point - MAP/preferences button.

Otherwise, it simply uses the setting you had when you started the campaign.

Cheers
Andy