Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03 M3 : Last Update 4th april

[Flaviusx]

Zhukov is still buggy. When you try to switch over to defensive posture, armies that fail the roll refund 5 PPs even when the cost to do this is actually zero with Zhukov in the theater. Presumably this also true for any costs above zero.

The weirdness I observed earlier with PP awards for the Sovs appears gone now and is tracking correctly.

Am very much enjoying the game more with Sovs now. I could win with them before easily enough against the AI, but the changes open up a lot of play options. Remains to be seen how this stuff flies in PBEM, but the bugs need stomping before I'll go there.

[RandomAttack]

Should have posted here vice tech support-- sorry!

To further request clarification, since I'm not sure I am cogently making my point, the Soviet AI counterattack penalty can only be expected to slightly reduce German casualties that are already relatively small. A counterattack doesn't seem to result in anything other than a "miss" for the counterattacker. Meanwhile, the unreduced entrenchment value seems to have a sizeable effect on reducing Soviet casualties. So I just don't see how these two things can be considered equivalent or a "small advantage" for the AI. Just from playing both ways (SP & hotseat)it seems there is a *significant* difference in favor of Soviet AI. That's fine for a higher difficulty, but I don't think it's right for "normal".

[Vic]

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

Should have posted here vice tech support-- sorry!

To further request clarification, since I'm not sure I am cogently making my point, the Soviet AI counterattack penalty can only be expected to slightly reduce German casualties that are already relatively small. A counterattack doesn't seem to result in anything other than a "miss" for the counterattacker. Meanwhile, the unreduced entrenchment value seems to have a sizeable effect on reducing Soviet casualties. So I just don't see how these two things can be considered equivalent or a "small advantage" for the AI. Just from playing both ways (SP & hotseat)it seems there is a *significant* difference in favor of Soviet AI. That's fine for a higher difficulty, but I don't think it's right for "normal".

Are you sure you fully understand the combat mechanics? For example Soviet Infantry indvidual #Y would typically have the following interactions in 1 combat round:

-German Infantry (X) attacks Soviet Infantry (Y) : No Sov Def Bonus applied. German Att Bonus applied.
-Soviet Infantry (Y) counter-attacks German Infantry (X) : Sov Def Bonus applied. No German Att bonus applied.
-Soviet Infantry (Y) attacks German Infantry (Z) : Sov Def Bonus applied. No German Att bonus applied.
-German Infantry (Z) counter-attacks Soviet Infantry (Y) : No Sov Def Bonus applied German Att Bonus applied.

Anyway I understand your point, but we feel the difficulty level for NORMAL is quite good as it is, especially with 1.03 which will be slightly easier for the German player than 1.02.

best wishes,
Vic

[RandomAttack]

Vic,
I hadn't seen it spelled out just that way, but it's pretty much as I thought it worked. My point was simply the Def Bonus (negative in this case) seems to have an almost inconsequential impact on combat results compared to the full entrenchment bonus. I will try and keep an open mind and play a couple of games of the official 1.03 when it comes out before commenting further. Thanks for listening!

[Franciscus]

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi,

Here's a copy of a post I've made on the bug forum. It's probably just as relevant here.

---

To clear up a bit of confusion here's how the early turn penalties work.

(...)
Overall the Soviet AI gets a better deal here than a Soviet Player, but not excessively so.

Cheers,
Cameron

Hi, Cameron

I find this design decision a bit questionable. IMHO, there should exist an AI setting (call it a new "normal" or easy AI), where the AI plays with exactly the same bonus/malus as a human player, FOW included if selected. "Hard" and above AI levels are there to give players the possibility to play against an AI with extra advantages.

As a side note, this is common in many games, but I can tell you my first hand experience, being part of the team that made the AJE-series of Ageod.
In AJE, the default AI level gives no advantages or disadvantages to the AI, that plays by the same rules as a human. The overall difficulty (including movement rate, cohesion recovery, stacking limits), aggression level, detection bonus, activation, and time for calculus can all be tailored to get a more or less challenging AI to play with.
Note however that when combat occurs in AJE, there are never different bonus/malus for the AI, whatever the difficulty selected. And exactly the same calculations in combat apply versus AI or in PBEM.
The AI also almost does not "cheat". There are only a handful of scripts to ease some moves by the AI (ex: naval invasions) that she has intrinsic problems with, but nothing that a human player could not do.

I like this kind of design.

Just my 2 cents

Regards

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: Vic

Are you sure you fully understand the combat mechanics? For example Soviet Infantry indvidual #Y would typically have the following interactions in 1 combat round:

-German Infantry (X) attacks Soviet Infantry (Y) : No Sov Def Bonus applied. German Att Bonus applied.
-Soviet Infantry (Y) counter-attacks German Infantry (X) : Sov Def Bonus applied. No German Att bonus applied.
-Soviet Infantry (Y) attacks German Infantry (Z) : Sov Def Bonus applied. No German Att bonus applied.
-German Infantry (Z) counter-attacks Soviet Infantry (Y) : No Sov Def Bonus applied German Att Bonus applied.

Anyway I understand your point, but we feel the difficulty level for NORMAL is quite good as it is, especially with 1.03 which will be slightly easier for the German player than 1.02.

best wishes,
Vic

Vic- this info, not being in the manual, is new for many of us. [X(]

As someone who, according to replies to my post on this subject in the Tech Support thread, makes bone headed attacks, I'm still quite confused. [&:] [&:] [&:]

When you use the word "bonus" above, do you mean bonus or malus?

In step 1, exactly which modifiers could be applied to the SU defender?

In step 2, why would a def bonus be applied to an attacking sub-unit?

In step 3, the modifiers seem to be the same as step 2, is that correct?

If yes, then same question, why would a def bonus be applied to an attacking sub-unit?

In step 4, same question as step 1.

Steps 3 and 4, where did German Inf. Z come from?

Would it be possible for you or Cameron to post footnoted screenies showing how this all works in a way that boni/malus can be confirmed by the player?

[&o]

[willgamer]

Since I being a bit of a PITA [:'(] anyway, here's another combat question-

I'm a big fan of the way the PP results are presented. You reveal the odds for the good or bad result, the d100 roll, and the corresponding result.

Could combat results be revealed in a similar manner? [&:]

With FOW off, I see the final attack and defense scores. The next line is the result. I'd like to see what occurred between the two lines.

Intuitively, it seems you may be arriving a percent to hit as: chance to hit = attack score / (attack score + defense score); then rolling d100 for the result.

Could you reveal this (or whatever is actually correct)? [&:]

[lancer]

Hi Franciscus,

Good point but I suspect we are looking at two different situations here.

I could be wrong but AJE is more 'point' based combat (stack of Romans vs. stack of whoever) fighting on an area based map.

That's very different to Barbarossa where an individual battle is a small part of a bigger picture front line and the map is divided into multiple small hexes. An individual battle matters less than the coordinated efforts of forces over the entire front.

Giving the AI no benefits compared to a Soviet player would have it overwhelmed in short order because a human's vastly superior ability to conceptualise an entire front, or theatre, as a coherent whole.

Cheers,
Cameron

[lancer]

Hi Flaviusx,

Zhukov is still buggy. When you try to switch over to defensive posture, armies that fail the roll refund 5 PPs even when the cost to do this is actually zero with Zhukov in the theater. Presumably this also true for any costs above zero.

If you've got a save game that shows this I'll take a look as I can't see this happening myself.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Vic]

@willgamer,

The thing is the combat details were never meant as an integral part of gameplay. They have just been made available to allow curious people a look under the hood. All the rules of thumb are in the manual and most players develop a sense of intuition after one or two games.

However to answer your core question of "why would a defensive bonus be applied to something thats attacking?".. Well because I strongly believe defensive successes are grounded in the ability of the defender to kill the attacker. So the defensive bonus does not give the defenders more armour to withstand attack and dammage, but simulates defensive doctrines, preperations and the like that lead to higher casualties for the attacker. Picture a defensive machinegun nest opening up fire on appoaching attackers. From the individuals perspective the MG is attacking (thats the perspective mentioned in the combat details) even though from a units perspective the unit as a whole is defending.

And answer to the other question: Basicly it is very simple.. the attack points for the attacker are calculated and the hitpoints for the defender. When this is done both numbers are randomized, score a value between 0 and their number and if attacker scores higher a hit is scored, otherwise not.

Best wishes,
Vic

[Templer_12]

I am very happy with the corrections of the German language. A little bit is still to do here!
I am looking forward to start a new game after the corrections.

[RandomAttack]

Any word on when the final version of 1.03 will come out?

[Franciscus]

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi Franciscus,

Good point but I suspect we are looking at two different situations here.

I could be wrong but AJE is more 'point' based combat (stack of Romans vs. stack of whoever) fighting on an area based map.

That's very different to Barbarossa where an individual battle is a small part of a bigger picture front line and the map is divided into multiple small hexes. An individual battle matters less than the coordinated efforts of forces over the entire front.

Giving the AI no benefits compared to a Soviet player would have it overwhelmed in short order because a human's vastly superior ability to conceptualise an entire front, or theatre, as a coherent whole.

Cheers,
Cameron

Hi Cameron
Thanks for replying!

For sure roman-age warfare was very different from Barbarossa. In AJE you are right that the campaign is much more fluid, and there are no "fronts", but each map region is indeed an "hex" and the AI is perfectly capable to "think" differentialy about different theaters. IMHO the main reason for AJE playing more "fluid", besides many others including the forces being much less numerous, is that Ageod games are WEGO and not IGOUGO.

Anyhow, I digress.
The main point I was trying to address is that IMHO, for a mediocre player like me, the soviet AI even in normal is too good
Specifically I find very hard to replicate in the first couple of turns the historical german advances and would like to see more "brittle" soviet units in combat, specially on turn 1.
So basically I feel that an "easier" AI option would be nice.

Regards

[Philippeatbay]

The difference in fluidity caused by WEGO as opposed to IGOUGO is profound.

Sometimes there is too much fluidity, and that can be caused by the turns representing too long a period of time. That is often the root cause of weird things happening during the opening offensive of WW I on the Western Front -- cut the timescale for turns in half and most of the problems go away.

Perhaps you are not looking for a lobotomized Russian AI as much as some kind of late June handicap.

I'm not sure that it would make much difference, since I tend to break through the Russian line and go on rampages, only to run out of gas or outrun my supply lines.

But I doubt that you are as mediocre player a player as you pretend. I might believe that when you play with Athena too much the Ageod engine doesn't't give you enough opportunities to practise hex-based kiel und kessel tactics. (When you stop playing chess for ten years and start up again the first few games are always ... interesting).

[RandomAttack]

(When you stop playing chess for ten years and start up again the first few games are always ... interesting).

I did that! My opponent called me out for paradropping my rook over a line of pawns to attack the king. And then later for declaring his bishop a heretic and sentencing him to burn at the stake. I mean, c'mon! [:'(]

[lancer]

Hi Franciscus,

During the Beta Normal AI difficulty was actually ramped well past the current point. We toned it down for the release.

However the game should be able to cater for the requirements of different Players.

Have you tried the, perhaps inappropriately named, Easy mode (option button at the start)?

Cheers,
Cameron

[RandomAttack]

I don't see the issues as being with the AI at all-- it's all the "balance issues" at the very start: full entrenchment modifier, morale at 60(!), etc. According to the tooltip all the "Easy" button does is give you more fuel & PPs. Again, if you had the same combat modifiers as in PBEM for an "Easy" SP difficulty it would make a huge difference. I understand you think that would somehow make the game insultingly easy and just aren't going to do it. I disagree but it's your call of course.

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: Vic

@willgamer,

The thing is the combat details were never meant as an integral part of gameplay. They have just been made available to allow curious people a look under the hood. All the rules of thumb are in the manual and most players develop a sense of intuition after one or two games.

However to answer your core question of "why would a defensive bonus be applied to something thats attacking?".. Well because I strongly believe defensive successes are grounded in the ability of the defender to kill the attacker. So the defensive bonus does not give the defenders more armour to withstand attack and dammage, but simulates defensive doctrines, preperations and the like that lead to higher casualties for the attacker. Picture a defensive machinegun nest opening up fire on appoaching attackers. From the individuals perspective the MG is attacking (thats the perspective mentioned in the combat details) even though from a units perspective the unit as a whole is defending.

And answer to the other question: Basicly it is very simple.. the attack points for the attacker are calculated and the hitpoints for the defender. When this is done both numbers are randomized, score a value between 0 and their number and if attacker scores higher a hit is scored, otherwise not.

Best wishes,
Vic

Firstly, I believe this combat system is simply brilliant!

Therefore when you make combat details "available to allow curious people a look under the hood", I hope you will forgive those curious people when they continue to be curious.

I don't mean to be tedious so if these basic explanations have been given many times before in forums for your other games, please just provide a link.

I accept your logic for how defensive bonus is applied, even if it does put a new twist on the meaning of defensive bonus... it's really a counterattacking bonus.

Still, I think showing the randomized results would allow further clarity into how the system works.

-----------------------------

However, the difference between the way that the Early Soviet Penalties are applied, between the SP and MP, could use more clarification. That there is a difference is no problem (AI needs a little boost).

However, the Blue Box Defensive Combat bonus/penalty during those turns is correct only for the German MP player who, over and above that, benefits from the Entrenchment Penalty. In SP, the Blue Box number seems to be the same number used in MP, but there is no Entrenchment Penalty.

Just knowing that, may speed the learning process for players trying to better understand how to evaluate combat on those first three turns, or so.

Thank you for the insights into combat resolution.

[Franciscus]

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I don't see the issues as being with the AI at all-- it's all the "balance issues" at the very start: full entrenchment modifier, morale at 60(!), etc. According to the tooltip all the "Easy" button does is give you more fuel & PPs. Again, if you had the same combat modifiers as in PBEM for an "Easy" SP difficulty it would make a huge difference. I understand you think that would somehow make the game insultingly easy and just aren't going to do it. I disagree but it's your call of course.

+1
The main issue I was trying to discuss is this. The balance (specially or even only in turn 1) in combat vs AI. I would like, even if only as an option, of having more advantages in combat resolution vs soviet AI units at least on in turn 1.

PS: So far I have been playing in "easy" mode, but only to reduce logistical and PP constraints, but that does not affect combat resolution.

Regards

[lancer]

Hi Franciscus,

Fair enough. You're not the only one asking for this so I'll add something in for the next update.

It'll be an option, though.

Cheers,
Cameron