AE Land and AI Issues [OUTDATED]

[Halsey]

Cool site, thanks...

[Andy Mac]

Data Gathered to this point

[erstad]

Question on Allied pools and TOE upgrades, etc.

If I understand correctly, when a <blah blah>infantry squad 42 upgrades to a <blah blah> infantry squad 43, the LCU gets the 43 squads, and the upgraded squads are returned to the pool as 43 (upgraded) squads.

So far, so good.

But 42 squads in the pool don't seem to ever upgrade to 43 squads. Is that correct?

In which case as allied, it would seem you have to make sure you use up all of the xyz squads in the pool before the xyz+1 becomes available. If you pull them into an LCU, they will automatically upgrade (over a period of time as upgrades roll through the units, once enough have been added to the pool to prime the pump, so to speak). But if you don't get them out of the pools before they obsolete, they are essentially lost forever.

Is that fundamentally correct, or am I missing something?

[Gormadoc]

Tried searching the forum for this but i got no hits, so i suppose it has not been up yet.

In korea in scenario 001 there are three static base units:

Rashin Special Base force (located in Rashin next to soviet border hex 110 46).
Chinkai Naval Base Force (located in Chinhae, south Korea hex 103 54).
Ryojun Special Base Force (located in Port Arthur, hex 99 44).

These three static base forces are attached to China Area(R) command which seems to be impossible to change.

The Ryojun Fort CD unit also located in Port Arthur belongs to Kwantung Army(R).
The Rashin Fort CD unit located in Rashin are attached to Korea Army(R)

Are these three static units attached to China Area(R) on purpose or can i assume its a bug and make the necesary changes to scen 001?

EDIT: Looking more into this in the editor reveals that all the units attached to China Area(R) are actually attached to China Area Fleet HQ, which actually makes sense since these units are all belonging to IJN.

A minor naming issue i gues, a bug with the suffix "49 - Fleet" not being correctly shown ingame.

[Itdepends]

Unit 6186 Freemantle Fortress, Coastal Defense Unit.
&nbsp;
Freemantle is spelt "Fremantle"&nbsp;- no double "e". There is a "Freemantle" in New South Wales (eastern Australia)- but it's not the one in W.A. There was also a coastal defence battery on Rottnest island- just off the coast from Perth and Garden Island- but from the looks of the "Freemantle" battery- I'm guessing they're combined in game as a single CD unit.

[vicberg]

There seems to be a major supply problem.

I had all chinese cities south and east of the major river running south of Nanchung. I had troops stationed on the roads accross the river as well as strategic road junctions within the area. I isolated Chuhsien with the hopes that it would be out of supply and easy to take. Chuhsien has resources but no light industry. What I found out 3 weeks later from my opponent, after daily bombardments and air bombings, is that the base was at zero supplies but the troops were fully supplied each day for 3 weeks from the closet chinese supply base which was 240 miles away. That tells me that supplies moved overland, accross a major river, around my troops stationed on roads, through rough terrain over 240 miles every day.

Read PzBs AAR. Allies are launching a major attack into Burma in 42 accross 120 miles of jungle, no roads, and not nearly sufficient air transport to make it happen. The combination of the massive land attack and using 4E bombers, which seem to be invulnerable to jap fighters is negating all japanese early war advantages, which are naval and air power.

It looks like supplies can move any distance through non-road, non-base hexes, with the only impact being wastage. If true, that's a problem. Katherine and Derby both have limits they can draw, 300 and 100 respectively, and that's across roads. Same principle should be applied to non-road, non-base hexes, further reduced by range to supply source (base, a road in communication with base, or a railpoint), terrain and weather, if achievable within the code base. Moving supplies through the jungle during a monsoon would be extremely difficult at best. Moving supplies daily accross 120 miles of jungle with no roads would be impossible.

If this issue has already been posted and responded to by the devs, please let me know. There's 67 pages of posts on this thread and I haven't had time to go through them all.

[Andy Mac]

Please dont quote PZB's game I am his opponent and the former land team lead - he has no idea of my supply status or of the efforts I am going to and I dont want to know his.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

There seems to be a major supply problem.

I had all chinese cities south and east of the major river running south of Nanchung. I had troops stationed on the roads accross the river as well as strategic road junctions within the area. I isolated Chuhsien with the hopes that it would be out of supply and easy to take. Chuhsien has resources but no light industry. What I found out 3 weeks later from my opponent, after daily bombardments and air bombings, is that the base was at zero supplies but the troops were fully supplied each day for 3 weeks from the closet chinese supply base which was 240 miles away. That tells me that supplies moved overland, accross a major river, around my troops stationed on roads, through rough terrain over 240 miles every day.

Read PzBs AAR. Allies are launching a major attack into Burma in 42 accross 120 miles of jungle, no roads, and not nearly sufficient air transport to make it happen. The combination of the massive land attack and using 4E bombers, which seem to be invulnerable to jap fighters is negating all japanese early war advantages, which are naval and air power.

It looks like supplies can move any distance through non-road, non-base hexes, with the only impact being wastage. If true, that's a problem. Katherine and Derby both have limits they can draw, 300 and 100 respectively, and that's across roads. Same principle should be applied to non-road, non-base hexes, further reduced by range to supply source (base, a road in communication with base, or a railpoint), terrain and weather, if achievable within the code base. Moving supplies through the jungle during a monsoon would be extremely difficult at best. Moving supplies daily accross 120 miles of jungle with no roads would be impossible.

If this issue has already been posted and responded to by the devs, please let me know. There's 67 pages of posts on this thread and I haven't had time to go through them all.

Much of what you are saying is incorrect. There are limits - any distance, any terrain is just not so. It is extremely difficult to move supplies overland to NW Australia.

Units in a base are only allowed to draw supply from that base. This IMO is a problem with the supply routine, BTW. But that's how it is, so when you say units at a base had full supply but the base had 0 supplies, that tells me that the base in question 1) did have a supply path (no, supplies do not hop over enemy units) and 2) the terrain-distance was short enough and supplies available plentiful enough to keep those units in supply. If you and your opponent are certain otherwise then start posting save games along with detailed descriptions in tech support and I am sure they will look at it. The team is great and very responsive (and all volunteers, BTW).

There are a few tweaks that might help the supply routines but the things you have mentioned are not among them.

A word of caution - you are citing a players complaints/postings in his AAR about his opponents supply situation. As Andy says that violates the confidentiality of the AAR, but also there is the point how does a player know his opponent's supply situation? I have seen players actually complain about their opponents bountiful supply at some location when they were dead wrong about the facts and giving themselves heartburn for nothing. FOW is big in this game, and as supply is a critical factor you do not want your opponent to have full knowledge of your supply situation. So when you see a player post about their opponent's supply situation, 90% of the time they are surmising what they think is going on because the only way they can know is 1) their opponent tells them or 2) they capture a base and there are tons of supplies present. And quite often their assessment is as much a product of what they fear is going on as anything else.

[vicberg]

Thank you for the caution. I wondered if I should have been more clear referencing PzB AAR. I'm referencing his AAR not because of anything he said, but because I'm questioning the supply rules based on my experience with it and reading his AAR. I did ask MY opponent about his supply situation and he did tell me that his troops remaining in supply every day.

That's why I'm posting in this thread vs. others, like tech support or the general forum. I'd like to know what's happening. I'd like to know if this truly is a problem, because it doesn't feel right. I understand there has to be a positive supply value. How is that calced? In my situation, the closet Chinese base was 8 hexes away. I "owned" every hex around Chuhsien, every road and had troops stationed in strategic junctions. Does supply move through enemy owned hexes? If so, then that adjusts my strategy significantly. Even without owned hexes, the positive supply value still seems a bit high because of the distance and off road that the supply lines must have taken and the strategic junctions I did have troops stationed at.

Please don't get me wrong. Living with it is something I'm more than willing to do. Understanding how it works is the goal. Understanding if the devs see something as a problem and are going to work on it helps also.

[vicberg]

And Andy, I apologize. I didn't realize you were the thread moderator before I posted. I immediately jumped to end of thread. Yes, it was inappropriate for me to mention anything about your game in this thread.

[Andy Mac]

I canot comment about my supply status in this thread but if you read mine you will some of the steps I had to take.

re Supply routines I know some folks dont like them but we have reached the end of the road on this one they are what they are there are so many consequential knock ons that its almost impossible to change it again now.

maybe someday if someone rewrites the whole thing but it wont be soon and it wont involve me that much I know !!!

Some of the devs had some really nifty ideas to make all this better but they would have killed to speed of the game and send the code round in circles.

Believe me when i say we have looked at this a lot and what we have now is the best set of bad compromises we can put in place for the 3 bad areas (China, Burma, North Aus)

I am not saying there wont be tweaks but fixing the core of this issue without buggering up everywhere else is I suspect a total re write job. As WITPQS is saying do not under estimate the impact FOW

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

Thank you for the caution. I wondered if I should have been more clear referencing PzB AAR. I'm referencing his AAR not because of anything he said, but because I'm questioning the supply rules based on my experience with it and reading his AAR. I did ask MY opponent about his supply situation and he did tell me that his troops remaining in supply every day.

That's why I'm posting in this thread vs. others, like tech support or the general forum. I'd like to know what's happening. I'd like to know if this truly is a problem, because it doesn't feel right. I understand there has to be a positive supply value. How is that calced? In my situation, the closet Chinese base was 8 hexes away. I "owned" every hex around Chuhsien, every road and had troops stationed in strategic junctions. Does supply move through enemy owned hexes? If so, then that adjusts my strategy significantly. Even without owned hexes, the positive supply value still seems a bit high because of the distance and off road that the supply lines must have taken and the strategic junctions I did have troops stationed at.

Please don't get me wrong. Living with it is something I'm more than willing to do. Understanding how it works is the goal. Understanding if the devs see something as a problem and are going to work on it helps also.

If you definitely have something that looks like a problem - a completely surrounded unit that seems to keep receiving supply by ground (he's not airlifting in supply, is he?), then post a save game here in the Tech Support sub forum. I am not a developer but I see them be very helpful constantly. You have to give them something to look at or else the most they can do is say "Gee, that sounds strange." If they have a save game they can see what is happening. Maybe it is what it looks like to you, maybe it is something else and they can tell you that.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

maybe someday if someone rewrites the whole thing but it wont be soon and it wont involve me that much I know !!!

Say it ain't so!

[crsutton]

Andy,

I posted in the tech forum but wanted to make sure you saw this.

I have two games going both started when AE came out and both patched up to current with patches applied at the same times. Both are scen #2. One is in 6/42 and the other is in 2/43. In my 6/42 game the 4th Australian cav brigade has recently upgraded to a fully mobile armor unit and looks like this.

It is already filling out and looks to be like a very nice unit indeed.....

Now see my next post.

[crsutton]

Now in my game that is much further along, 2/43. The same unit looks like this. It is still an infantry class unit and has pretty much looked like this from the start. Which is correct? (Prays it is the first..) and can it be fixed?

[Nomad]

The unit in your 1943 game has a TOE upgrade available and the 1942 doesn't( you can tell by the yellow text at the top). Try putting it at rest opmode and see if it doesn't change it's TOE.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The unit in your 1943 game has a TOE upgrade available and the 1942 doesn't( you can tell by the yellow text at the top). Try putting it at rest opmode and see if it doesn't change it's TOE.

I don't think that is the problem. The unit in the game currently at 6/42 has just changed from a cavalry (infantry) into a armored brigade and is now upgrading to that nice fat tank brigade that you see in image one. The very same unit in my 2/43 game is already at the shown TOE, is still an infantry unit and does not look to upgrade any further than it already has. This is the exact same unit in both games. Resting the unit with upgrades on makes no difference as the actual TOE is the same as the shown future TOA. This unit and the 3rd tank brigade both seem to be stuck as cavalry (infantry) brigades in the 2/43 game and will not upgrade. They have been knocked about a few times so I a fairly certain that I have had them at rest and in plenty of supply numerous times since 6/1942, (8 months) so I think this is a bug.

I am currently marching away from an action but as soon as I get it back to a base I will rest it to see but have my doublts.

[crsutton]

Never mind..... I got it. I was my mistake. A double check shows that you are correct Nomad. I never knew that a second click of the yellow TOE lable gave you the added information. (Garbage in-garbage out[;)]) I must have just not ever rested those units. Thanks for helping me out.

[Shark7]

I've been playing with an invasion of Russia in 01-1942 for a couple of games and restarts. One thing I have noticed is that the Russian AI has a considerable weakness...it only leaves a few CD and base force units at Vladivostok.

The problem is that I have captured Vladivostok on the 3rd day of the invasion by sea...my BBs are easily able to absorb enough of the CD fire for a significant landing force to get ashore (generally 2-3 divisions is sufficient) and I capture Vladivostok on the first deliberate attack....along with about 700k of supplies.

The second problem with this is that this allows a Japanese player to effectively cut off around 70 Russian units from supply and strand them in the middle of nowhere...you just have to have enough AV to hold the line...the Russian units seem to take the same route every game. A player would not make this mistake, the AI has done it on 6 games so far.

AI may need to be tweaked a bit in this area to prevent such as easy take-over of the Vladivostok area.

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I've been playing with an invasion of Russia in 01-1942 for a couple of games and restarts. One thing I have noticed is that the Russian AI has a considerable weakness...it only leaves a few CD and base force units at Vladivostok.

The problem is that I have captured Vladivostok on the 3rd day of the invasion by sea...my BBs are easily able to absorb enough of the CD fire for a significant landing force to get ashore (generally 2-3 divisions is sufficient) and I capture Vladivostok on the first deliberate attack....along with about 700k of supplies.

The second problem with this is that this allows a Japanese player to effectively cut off around 70 Russian units from supply and strand them in the middle of nowhere...you just have to have enough AV to hold the line...the Russian units seem to take the same route every game. A player would not make this mistake, the AI has done it on 6 games so far.

AI may need to be tweaked a bit in this area to prevent such as easy take-over of the Vladivostok area.

Sounds like a workable way to get the Soviets out of the game very early and free IJA units for work elsewhere...