Matrix Games Forums

Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patchNew Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge Update
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Help Improve Elmer (also how he works)

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 10/17/2010 10:32:34 PM   
ralphtrick

 

Posts: 4940
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
I'm starting this thread to both ask for help, and to explain some of what Elmer does. I'm starting at the big picture level and going down to the detail later.

Everything is subject to change, and there's always the chance that I'll figure out how to write an awesome strategic AI and this will become obsolete. I'll also update this first post as I find out more things and answer questions, etc.

I know it's going to be confusing, I'm putting this together so that designers understand a bit better some of the restrictions, and so that some people may help me correct some of my bad assumptions, and places where I simply didn't write the code correctly.

Note : If you're a player, you may not want to read this. I know once I found out for first person shooters work, it totally ruined them for me. I don't think that's true for Elmer, since he doesn't use many tricks, but I can't guarantee it.

Commons problems I see in scenario design... Not spacing objectives at least 4 hexes apart so he understands front and back. Not having a 'safe' objective 0 to fall back on. Without this, special case code kicks in that probably isn't what you want like fallling back to supply sources, etc.

If you really want to understand what's happening, you should go into the Opart 3.ini file and turn on the POLog Flag, I wouldn't do unitpolog unless you're a masochist.

First, the only cheats I know of are
1) Overruns are always at the same odds. He gets multiple attempts, but while humans are multiplied by between .7 and 1.3, his are always at 1.0. Modifying him to move the units likely to do overruns first may be possible, but it would take a lot of restructuring.
2) He does know the overall strength on the board and uses it to set his aggression ratings only if the designer didn't set it.
3) He does know the ownership of hexes in a radius, he uses this to set the individual stance of his formations. It's a minor information cheat. If I ever allow the designer to set biases instead, I can get rid of that, and go by the visible hexes.
4) He does know the strength of units which have an unknown counter, and uses that to calculate his attack odds. I consider this to be the only cheat of any consequence, and I don't think he's smart enough to really use that to any effect. Unknowns like that are the hardest thing to deal with in an AI, and I'm not sure which version will change that. Probably sometime after he starts playing well enough to be taken seriously by the PBEM crowd I'll have to add probing attacks so he can determine what units have what without cheating.

Full Strategic Layer
This is where he decides how he's going to make his attacks. Right now, it consists mainly of the events that choose objective tracks and set the expernal po bias.

Pseudocode
NOTE: // means this is a comment

Set the po_search Radius to between 7 and 11 for a smart opponent and 5 and 9 for a dumb one.

disembark_all();

Set general orders biases. This depends on the unit strength on the map, with a bit more agression near the end of a scenario. It will be one of these 5 values. I assume the reason that this was coded this way was so that scenarios like Korea could be coded with fewer events and be more dynamic. If the external PO bias is set, it's assumed that you are setting it by hand, and this logic is ignored.

FLEE,
RETREAT,
STAND,
ADVANCE,
BANZAI

if < 1:3 odds, general_orders_bias=FLEE;
else if < 1:2 odds, general_orders_bias=RETREAT;
else if > 3:1 odds, general_orders_bias=BANZAI;
else if > 1:1 odds, general_orders_bias=ADVANCE;
else if losing and > 7/8 way through game, or a 2% chance, general_orders_bias=ADVANCE;
if losing and within 3 turns of the projected end, general_orders_bias=BANZAI;
if(external_po_bias[current_player]!=STAND)
  general_orders_bias=general_orders_bias+external_po_bias[current_player]

if(general_orders_bias>RETREAT)
    rebuild_bridges();

//move individual formations
move_all_formations();

if(general_orders_bias<=RETREAT)
    blow_bridges_near_enemy();
set_air_missions(current_player);


More Strategic Stuff. (Formation Orders)

I need to explain a little about how the path actually works.

When looking at objectives, Elmer actually draws a line between them, and then draws another line perpindicular to the first objective passed in. HE ONLY DOES THIS IF THE OBJECTIVES ARE MORE THAN 3 HEXES APART. If they're 3 or less hexes apart, he does a circle of 1/2 the PO Radius instead.

For example, if he's advancing, and one objective is at 5, 10 and the previous was at 5, 5, he would draw a line from 5,5 to 5,10, then draw a line perpindicular to that that has a PORadius length and counts the units that you have behind that line in a half-circle compared to the number that he has behind that line. If the enemy owns more than 1/2 the hexes behind that line, then he is considered to 'own' that objective for planning purposes. It's kind of like the center circle of a soccer field.

If he's advancing, and one objective is at 5, 10 and the previous was at 5, 9, he would draw a circle of diameter of PORadius/2 length and count the units in that circle. If the enemy owns more than 1/2 the hexes behind that line, then he is considered to 'own' that objective for planning purposes. Note that the 1/2 was only for illustration purposes, different stances actually dictate what percentage of units are allowed 'behind' Elmer.

There is a special case for the 3.4 patch, where he sees if the objective hex has a victory point value, if it does, he has to actually occupy that hex for it to be considered owned. For other hexes, that isn't true, he considers that he 'owns' it when a percentage of the hexes in that half-circle are owned by you. This can be used to fine tune forcing him to take out hard points instead of avoiding them.

The important thing to note is that if the points on the paths are spaced at least 4 hexes apart, you should generally get better behavior since he does understand what is behind and in front mean.

Now that that's out of the way, here's what the formations do.

If the formation orders are DEFEND_ORDERS, and the enemy controls any points then the formation orders become ATTACK orders.
If the formation orders are ATTACK_ORDERS, and the enemy controls no points then the formation orders become DEFEND orders.
If the formation orders are SCREEN_ORDERS, and the enemy controls any points then the formation orders become SECURE orders.
If the formation orders are ADVANCE_ORDERS, and the enemy controls no points then the formation orders become SCREEN orders.
If the formation orders are SECURE_ORDERS, and the enemy controls no points then the formation orders become SCREEN orders.

Adjust formation local orders bias by the displayable strength in PORadius.

If the formation is unsupplied, if the center hex of the formations is not owned by you or the center hex is supplied, then flee otherwise lunge forward.

Determine the pullback objective. This is either a a safe hex on the path, a supply hex or an enemy supply hex, or objective 0.

Sets the local orders based on the formation orders and the strength bias. This is generally pretty straightforward.

The following units ignore being able to be flanked. airborne_unit, airmobile_unit, special_forces_unit, hq_unit, unit_is_embarked, unit_in_deep_water_hex.

Determine whether the hex is secure based on the pullback objective and whether attacking or defending. Attacking requires 33% of the hexes 'behind' you to be secure, defending requires 50%. This should have the effect of not letting formations get too far ahead to where they are likely to be cut off.

If the hex isn't secure, then back off the agression.

Override retreats if no formation objectives remain to fall back on, or unsupplied airborne.

If emphasis isn't all costs and it's round 1 and the formation readinessandsupply is less than 50% then there's a chance of doing nothing to get caught up on readiness and supply.

cock_airborne_units
cock_airmobile_units
cock_disembark_units
cock_amphibious_units
cock_rail_reinforcements

Elmer actually moves by formation, sets up assaults, terminates ones that are late before moving the the next formation. After moving all the formations, he runs through another several optimizing steps.

move_formation(current_formation);

if((local_orders==PUSH_FORWARD)||(local_orders==LUNGE_FORWARD))
	divide_special_forces_units();
if(local_orders==EXPAND)
	divide_expansion_units(); //I don't remember seeing this, but apparently units with screen orders will divide.
else
	integrate_children();
set_up_unit_queue(the_formation); //This determines the order units will move in a formation. Helicopters are last, AA are first, artillery second, bridging engineers third, etc.
//move all units
move_formation_units();
release_unused_transport_assets();
	
Now for the fun part, Moving Units.

These are the local orders that formation orders are translated into, depending on local strengths.
BUG_OUT                = 10,   //Back up and form a defensible line.
PULL_BACK              = 11,   //Back up one hex and hold???
CONSOLIDATE            = 12,   //Centralize and attempt to establish a line. Attack locally.
MOP_UP                 = 13,   //Attempt to establish a perimeter. Attack locally.
PUSH_FORWARD           = 14,   //Advance and engage.
MOVE_FORWARD           = 15,   //Advance but do not engage.
LUNGE_FORWARD          = 16,   //Advance without regard for security. avoid engagements if movement is possible
EXPAND                 = 17,   //Independently move to secure nearby territory
LOCAL_SECURITY         = 18,   //Pull individual units back from non secure locations
DO_NOTHING             = 19,   //Just sit there and keep your mouth shut
//following are sub categories of po orders
SUPPORT_FORWARD        = 20,
ENGINEER_FORWARD       = 21,
SUPPORT_COMBAT_FORWARD = 22

I'll update this first post later. Please feel free to post any questions, and I'll try to answer most of them. I'm trying to keep this at a high enough level to be useful without getting down into the weeds. Engineers, for example, can get very complicated in how the look for bridges to repair.

Please let me know if you have a specific case where you don't believe he is doing as good as he could, and I'll be glad to look into it. Some of them I may be able to fix, others may need to wait until I can add either more designer control or a better high-level understanding of how things work. For example, adding in a count of dead units per hex might help him avoid suicidal attacks, adding in more control over the formation objectives like allowing the designer to override the radius, percent of enemies allowed, whether a perpindicular line should be formed, etc. Any suggestions along that line are welcome as well. I want to strike the best balance between allowing control and not requiring control to allow flexibility for changing conditions.

Ralph




_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW III Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.
Post #: 1
RE: Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 10/18/2010 9:03:47 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2738
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
With regards to objectives being more than 3 hexes apart:

In the screen shot, I would expect the formation to strike for Troarn and then head for Janville. If objective #3 was actually more then 3 hexes beyond Troarn by being placed one hex beyond Janville, would Elmer act any differently?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ralphtrick)
Post #: 2
RE: Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 10/19/2010 9:21:07 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2738
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

Not having a 'safe' objective 0 to fall back on.


By 'objective 0' do you mean 'track 1, objective 1' ? By 'safe' do you mean out of harms way and in supply ? I only ask because I know of no objective '0'.

quote:

...Not spacing objectives at least 4 hexes apart...


I've done this under the assumption that Elmer may not recognize he is being outflanked unless the enemy actually occupies one of his objectives. If Elmer does know that enemy units are behind him, I can stop doing this.

quote:

... with a bit more agression near the end of a scenario.


Often noticed this, Elmer doesn't get fiesty until near the end of a scenario. I'm not so sure it should be that way, or what to do about it.

quote:

... it's round 1 and the formation readinessandsupply is less than 50% then there's a chance of doing nothing to get caught up on readiness and supply.


Stupid question, but is this for round 1 or the entire turn. It wouldn't make much sense to sit during round 1 and then move during round 2. But I ask because I suspect I may have seen this behaviour ... or, maybe not.


All the formation stuff is pretty complicated for me. I'm ok with slapping down some objectives and playing to see what the results are, then making adjustments as necessary, even if it means putting in 10-20,000 objectives.

(in reply to ralphtrick)
Post #: 3
RE: Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 10/20/2010 1:20:02 AM   
ralphtrick

 

Posts: 4940
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
quote:

Not having a 'safe' objective 0 to fall back on.

By 'objective 0' do you mean 'track 1, objective 1' ? By 'safe' do you mean out of harms way and in supply ? I only ask because I know of no objective '0'.
By objective 0, I mean the first objective for the formation in the current track. Some scenarios set up the first objective close to the enemy which won't work.
quote:


quote:

...Not spacing objectives at least 4 hexes apart...

I've done this under the assumption that Elmer may not recognize he is being outflanked unless the enemy actually occupies one of his objectives. If Elmer does know that enemy units are behind him, I can stop doing this.
You were actually right for COW. For III I re-enabled some code that Norm had which said to look in a half-circle instead. If the objective has a value, he will try to occupy it directly, otherwise he will only try to control 75% of the hexes in a 10 hex radius or some such number. In theory it would make those formations slow down so the others can catch up and he won't get flanked. in practice, I don't know if it works or not.
quote:

quote:

... with a bit more agression near the end of a scenario.

Often noticed this, Elmer doesn't get fiesty until near the end of a scenario. I'm not so sure it should be that way, or what to do about it.
It probably depends on the scenario. I may try to give the designer more control in 3.5 over some of the variables. I'm also thinking seriously about separating most of the AI from the rest of the scenario to allow for 'minor AI Mods'
quote:

quote:

... it's round 1 and the formation readinessandsupply is less than 50% then there's a chance of doing nothing to get caught up on readiness and supply.

Stupid question, but is this for round 1 or the entire turn. It wouldn't make much sense to sit during round 1 and then move during round 2. But I ask because I suspect I may have seen this behaviour ... or, maybe not.


It should be for the entire turn so they can recover supply and readiness. I'll retest that for 3.5.
quote:


All the formation stuff is pretty complicated for me. I'm ok with slapping down some objectives and playing to see what the results are, then making adjustments as necessary, even if it means putting in 10-20,000 objectives.

That's part of why I'm thinking about separating the AI part of the scenario design. It may encourage people to experiment with changing how the scenarios play in solo mode. I may try to do something for 3.5 like allow you to set the formation stance at each objective and add radius and some other formation variables to the objective so that once taken, it reverts to that stance. I'm thinking that's a lot easier to understand than the current system of events, although it only works for that specific setting. I'll have to think about how that would work for a unit that's retreating.


_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW III Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 4
RE: Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 10/20/2010 1:23:06 AM   
ralphtrick

 

Posts: 4940
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
With regards to objectives being more than 3 hexes apart:

In the screen shot, I would expect the formation to strike for Troarn and then head for Janville. If objective #3 was actually more then 3 hexes beyond Troarn by being placed one hex beyond Janville, would Elmer act any differently?

He should act a little differently, but it depends on the formation setting he's actually using. In theory because they're placed 4 apart, he now knows that they are a line, and the line perpindicular to them and some things are different because of that.

_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW III Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 5
RE: Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 10/20/2010 6:08:16 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2738
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

In theory it would make those formations slow down so the others can catch up and he won't get flanked. in practice, I don't know if it works or not.


I think maybe it does. But I have also noticed he might have the oppurtunity to exploit but he doesn't. Not sure what setting might affect this behavior. For example, if there is a one hex gap in my line that I am hard pressed to plug, and Elmer has 3 or 4 good units next to the gap, and a nice continuous line elsewhere, and I only have one unit on either side, he could afford to move or try to move one of his units into the gap. A human player could identify that the risk isn't too great, if he has overall superiority. Not sure at all if Elmer can do something like that. If he was under 'cautious' or 'normal', maybe he shouldn't shoot the gap.

quote:

I'm also thinking seriously about separating most of the AI from the rest of the scenario to allow for 'minor AI Mods'.


Neat.

quote:

... but it depends on the formation setting he's actually using.


I pretty much like to use 'defend' as it seems to work the same as 'attack' (depending on the situation). I'll definately stick to the 4 hexes apart thing. But, if I want to get Elmer to cover a 6 hex spread in order to block a possible breakthru, I like to sprinkle 3 or 4 objectives in that spread, making them closer than 4 hexes apart. Don't know if that makes any difference, depending on the biases and formation orders.


I'm working on two smaller scenarios that are designed for the PO/German Defense against an Allied Assault. The new turn orders are great, because now Elmer has a chance to move during his turn. As a human player I always looked on that apect of the old turn rules as a good challenge during a defense, but it really strapped Elmer.

(in reply to ralphtrick)
Post #: 6
RE: Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 12/13/2010 5:08:14 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 1999
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
Ralph, i observed that Elmer uses his Supply Units in an unreasonable way. He moves them to the front and he moves them almost in every turn, which quite defeats their purpose. We had this here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2645842&mpage=1&key=� .

The formation the Supply Unit is attached to is set to independent orders. Strategic Bias was Berzerk. I can understand that Elmer's deployment of the Supply Unit is somehow related to this over-aggression, but on the other hand he seems to use his artillery quite well (same formation and bias).

So i assume (as does sPzAbt653) that there is some special code for Elmer how to treat artillery and HQ units. But Supply Units? Maybe you want to create some code for a more effective use of Supply Units regarding deployment and to keep him from moving every turn with thse units.


_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 7
RE: Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 12/13/2010 5:18:42 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 1999
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
And one more thing: Elmer can evaluate wether he is flanked or not. Does he do this on a formation by formation basis? What if he had a line consisting of five formations and the outer ones (on each end of the line) are flanked. Will this affect the behaviour of those formations in-between? Does he understand his entire line is being flanked and in danger? (i expect a no, but one never knows..)

_____________________________


(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 8
RE: Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 12/14/2010 2:41:16 AM   
ralphtrick

 

Posts: 4940
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar
And one more thing: Elmer can evaluate wether he is flanked or not. Does he do this on a formation by formation basis? What if he had a line consisting of five formations and the outer ones (on each end of the line) are flanked. Will this affect the behaviour of those formations in-between? Does he understand his entire line is being flanked and in danger? (i expect a no, but one never knows..)

I'll look into the supply units, I should be able to make them more sticky and less likely to move around.

Everything is done right now per formation. I'm not sure exactly how I could code for that, I'll have to think about it.

_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW III Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 9
RE: Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 12/14/2010 3:53:33 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 1999
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Everything is done right now per formation. I'm not sure exactly how I could code for that, I'll have to think about it.


With a hierarchic OOB as in real life maybe?

He then would be able to check flanking not only for, say a Division, but for the entire Corps, and then up the hierarchy for an entire army etc. He could be able to evaluate not only the single formation's status, but also to regard the high level formation these formations are attached to as a formation and check flanking, too.

Only dreaming..



_____________________________


(in reply to ralphtrick)
Post #: 10
RE: Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 12/14/2010 7:54:39 PM   
ralphtrick

 

Posts: 4940
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar
With a hierarchic OOB as in real life maybe?

Maybe for 4. It's a popular request, but the details need to be worked out on how it would work.

Even if it doesn't fully make Into into 4, adding relations to the .ai file might make sense for the ai.

_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW III Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 11
RE: Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 1/1/2011 2:09:20 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2738
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
Regarding having 'at least 3 hexes between objectives', does the placement of obj. 9 in the screenshot violate this as it is too close to obj.7, or does this only apply to sequenced objectives ?




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by sPzAbt653 -- 1/1/2011 2:22:22 AM >

(in reply to ralphtrick)
Post #: 12
RE: Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 2/4/2011 3:30:23 PM   
shunwick


Posts: 1691
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline
Ralph,

Elmer is much too cavalier with specialized units. HQs, Arty, Flak, MP, Eng, RR Eng, Bridging, supply units, embarked units etc. Even special forces. He has a tendancy to use them all as line infantry. Telumar alluded to this with supply units. I have just seen an Axis 1-3 supply unit attack a Soviet mech brigade. Doesn't happen. Shouldn't happen. He still leaves HQs extremely vulnerable.

Best Wishes,
Steve

< Message edited by shunwick -- 2/4/2011 3:31:11 PM >

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 13
RE: Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 2/5/2011 11:24:37 PM   
ralphtrick

 

Posts: 4940
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Ralph, i observed that Elmer uses his Supply Units in an unreasonable way. He moves them to the front and he moves them almost in every turn, which quite defeats their purpose. We had this here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2645842&mpage=1&key=� .

The formation the Supply Unit is attached to is set to independent orders. Strategic Bias was Berzerk. I can understand that Elmer's deployment of the Supply Unit is somehow related to this over-aggression, but on the other hand he seems to use his artillery quite well (same formation and bias).

So i assume (as does sPzAbt653) that there is some special code for Elmer how to treat artillery and HQ units. But Supply Units? Maybe you want to create some code for a more effective use of Supply Units regarding deployment and to keep him from moving every turn with thse units.

can pretty easily do something like say that if the next good position needs to be at least xx hexes away. 1/4 max mps of that unit or something like that. Would that help?

_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW III Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 14
RE: Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 2/5/2011 11:33:16 PM   
ralphtrick

 

Posts: 4940
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

Ralph,

Elmer is much too cavalier with specialized units. HQs, Arty, Flak, MP, Eng, RR Eng, Bridging, supply units, embarked units etc. Even special forces. He has a tendancy to use them all as line infantry. Telumar alluded to this with supply units. I have just seen an Axis 1-3 supply unit attack a Soviet mech brigade. Doesn't happen. Shouldn't happen. He still leaves HQs extremely vulnerable.

Best Wishes,
Steve

I can say that support units don't do direct attacks, although they may still bombard if appropriate with the new rules. Artillery under 3.4 should bombard if adjacent. Embarked units shouldn't attack, that one is very strange. I'll think about special forces. I don't think they're generally handled much differently.


_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW III Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to shunwick)
Post #: 15
RE: Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 2/8/2011 3:26:53 PM   
shunwick


Posts: 1691
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

I can say that support units don't do direct attacks, although they may still bombard if appropriate with the new rules. Artillery under 3.4 should bombard if adjacent. Embarked units shouldn't attack, that one is very strange. I'll think about special forces. I don't think they're generally handled much differently.



Ralph,

Sorry. Not delibrately trying to confuse you. Never seen an embarked unit conduct an attack. It just leaves them a bit vulnerable. The supply unit attack probably was a bombardment.

Attacking is not really the problem. It is the exposed position they get themselves into sometimes.

Best wishes,
Steve

< Message edited by shunwick -- 2/11/2011 3:41:05 PM >

(in reply to ralphtrick)
Post #: 16
RE: Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 2/17/2011 1:20:51 AM   
ralphtrick

 

Posts: 4940
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
Steve,
Keeping them from exposing themselves is going to be tough. It's like herding a bunch of three year olds.

Do you have a specific scenario or save I can test against?

The best solution would be to walk through each hex and prefer hexes that couldn't be attacked by an enemy unit. I'll see if I can figure out a simpler way.

Ralph


_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW III Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to shunwick)
Post #: 17
RE: Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 2/18/2011 8:13:55 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2738
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

HQs, Arty, Flak, MP, Eng, RR Eng, Bridging, supply units, embarked units etc. Even special forces. He has a tendancy to use them all as line infantry.


In reference to artillery only, just finished a playtest and looking at Elmers dispositions at the end of the scenario, he has all of the artillery units 3 or 4 hexes from the nearest enemy unit. The scenario doesn't really have any of the other units mentioned so can't speak for them in this case. At the end, the PO was outnumbered by units 90-200, so maybe this has something to do with it, but I thought I would mention it as using artillery as line units isn't something that Elmer does all the time.

(in reply to ralphtrick)
Post #: 18
RE: Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) - 3/26/2011 4:38:55 AM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline
Ralph, or anyone . . .

quote:

Set the po_search Radius to between 7 and 11 for a smart opponent and 5 and 9 for a dumb one.


Where is this set? Events? Force editor? I see supply radius. I see theater recon. Just not clear to my brain.

Thanks for the insight Ralph. Very handy. Much appreciated.

_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 19
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> Help Improve Elmer (also how he works) Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.104