Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! 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 Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Are you serious???

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Are you serious??? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Are you serious??? - 6/25/2012 12:36:53 AM   
Rufus T. Firefly


Posts: 42
Joined: 4/28/2012
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome



That's the problem with the south in the early game, as the Soviets were attacking German armor almost immediately after they crossed the border. This can't be modeled in an IGOUGO system unless a new option (Strategic/Operational Reserve) is added which actually moves reserve units towards the area of combat. (TOAW had this option, IIRC)



I have been thinking along the same lines. An IGOUGO system in which units have such tremendous mobilibty, like possibly moving 25 hexes through enemy territory if unupposed before the other side can react, is problematic at best.

I'm not a software developer but I would think that the framework for making the enhancement that notenome suggests already exists in the air interdiction code. I don't see that this necessarily requires another kind of reserve mode. Units in reserve mode could be checked each time an enemy unit moves within n hexes and if it passes the required checks the ai would stop the movement of the phasing unit and move the activated reserve unit by the most direct route to an ajacent hex. Surprise! The phasing unit would then be forced to deal with this by attacking the enemy unit or expending significant additional movement points to manuever around it.




_____________________________

Rufus T. Firefly: Do you realize our army is facing disastrous defeat? What do you intend to do about it?
Chicolini: I've done it already. I've changed to the other side.
Firefly: What are you doing over here?
Chicolini: Well, the food is better

(in reply to notenome)
Post #: 61
RE: Are you serious??? - 6/25/2012 12:41:43 AM   
notenome

 

Posts: 598
Joined: 12/28/2009
Status: offline
Such a mode would add a (welcome) new layer of complexity to the game, as drawing off reserves (and positioning reserves) would gain a much greater importance, as they do in real life. Operational and strategic surprise would become much more important.

(in reply to Rufus T. Firefly)
Post #: 62
RE: Are you serious??? - 6/25/2012 8:04:56 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2088
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufus T. Firefly
I'm not a software developer but I would think that the framework for making the enhancement that notenome suggests already exists in the air interdiction code. I don't see that this necessarily requires another kind of reserve mode. Units in reserve mode could be checked each time an enemy unit moves within n hexes and if it passes the required checks the ai would stop the movement of the phasing unit and move the activated reserve unit by the most direct route to an ajacent hex. Surprise! The phasing unit would then be forced to deal with this by attacking the enemy unit or expending significant additional movement points to manuever around it.


Other player have recommended this approach, and while it is attractive in theory I think that it would never work in practice--the AI simply will not be able to make intelligent decisions about what should react when.

(in reply to Rufus T. Firefly)
Post #: 63
RE: Are you serious??? - 6/25/2012 11:19:28 AM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 887
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
I think something along those lines could be made to work.I seem to remember that Avalon hill's Russian Front had something called a reaction move which did the same sort of thing.I don't think the non-phasing unit should physically move though otherwise the phasing player can use decoy tactics.
My solution would be for movement into the ZOC of defending units in reserve mode to trigger a battle in that ZOC hex subject to a leadership check.Defending units would defend as though they were in that hex with regards terrain bonuses etc, but wouldn't physically move.If defeated the defending unit would either rout or retreat as if it had been in the battle hex.If undefeated the unit would stay in it's original hex and be eligible for more reactions, the phasing unit would return to the hex it attacked out of.In an ideal world the defender would even be able to stipulate which ZOC hexes could trigger the reaction.
Obviously there would have to be far greater restrictions than currently on units eligible for reserve mode.
As a bonus, this sort of system would also allow for ambushes on unwary phasing units.If a phasing unit stumbled into the ZOC of a concealed unit and a reaction was triggered, the non-phasing units would get a very large combat bonus.




< Message edited by timmyab -- 6/25/2012 11:36:28 AM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 64
RE: Are you serious??? - 6/25/2012 1:28:13 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2088
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
timmyab, you are talking about mechanics which might be fine in a boardgame, but given that this action would take place during the enemy's movement phase, the AI would have to handle it, and I don't think it would be capable of doing so in an intelligent manner. Players would figure out how to decoy and dupe the AI into doing all sorts of stupid things to clear out the portion of the front that interested them. I just can't see this working well.

< Message edited by 76mm -- 6/25/2012 1:30:25 PM >

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 65
RE: Are you serious??? - 6/25/2012 1:36:41 PM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 229
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
I think 76 hit the nail on the head so to speak.. a great idea, but until AI becomes much, much better, fairly easy to dupe.(and duping SHOULD be a tactic against it, as it is in reality, except a person can make the choice far better than AI)

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 66
RE: Are you serious??? - 6/25/2012 1:38:40 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2088
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007
...(and duping SHOULD be a tactic against it, as it is in reality, except a person can make the choice far better than AI)


exactly!

(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 67
RE: Are you serious??? - 6/25/2012 3:03:06 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 887
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
The system I've described would be disconnected from the AI.It would be mainly mechanical with some elements of human guidance and difficult to dupe.Obviously it's not ideal, but it's a lot better than having the defenders stand around like statues while enemy units pass either side of them.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 68
RE: Are you serious??? - 6/26/2012 12:57:35 AM   
Rufus T. Firefly


Posts: 42
Joined: 4/28/2012
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
I think you guys are overestimating the sophistication needed by the AI to perform a reaction move.

I liken this to a cavalry reaction charge in a Napolenic wargame, a feature that has been available in some Napolenic games for approximately 300 years . OK so I exagerate slightly. Generally, in these games, a cavalry unit can be given orders to react and charge (sometimes called an opportunity charge or a counter charge) any enemy unit that moves inside its charge radius. If this occurs and the cavalry passes some reaction check, bang! all phasing movement stops and the cavalry executes a charge on the target. Players balance the risk of their cavalry being duped with the advantages of having mobile units ready to react.

If, say, the maximum reaction move was 2 hexes, players would place their reserves at least 3 hexes behihnd the MLR (so they wouldn't run out in front of the lines), and a simple AI rules that state (1) An enemy unit moves within 3 hexes of a reserve unit, (2)there are no friendly units on the direct path between the reacting unit and the enemy and (3) the reacting unit passes various checks, then the phasing movement is stopped and the reacting unit moves adjacent to it. I don't think we want the reacting unit to actually counter attack because, especially on turn one when this problem is its most egregious, you will likely get a result of sttacker slaughtered, phasing unit unphased. I think it's better to place the reacting unit in the way and force the phasing player to deal with it.

In this way rather than a standing opportunity charge order, you have a standing order to "intercept breakthroughs to your front." Duping the reserves then becomes part of the game as it should, but could be minimized by AI rules that would only allow a counter attack against say a mechanized unit of a certain minimum cv (if known) or by increasing the chances of a reaction with each check a unit makes.

With all due respect, although Timmytab's suggested approach is good, I don't think it's completely adequate. This approach is really a glorified ZOC movement penalty rule where you effectively suffer a random movement penalty (and maybe some casualties) if you move past a unit in reserve. In itself, not a bad idea and probably easy to implement, but it fails to address the big problem that occurs when leading units blast a 3 hex or more wide hole in the defense and then the exploiting units poor through without even having to worry about a ZOC penalty while your reserves stand there doing nothing.

< Message edited by Rufus T. Firefly -- 6/26/2012 1:38:12 AM >


_____________________________

Rufus T. Firefly: Do you realize our army is facing disastrous defeat? What do you intend to do about it?
Chicolini: I've done it already. I've changed to the other side.
Firefly: What are you doing over here?
Chicolini: Well, the food is better

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 69
RE: Are you serious??? - 6/26/2012 2:02:08 AM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 887
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Actually it would be nice to have both options in your armory as a defender.Your mobile but dupable system and my more static and undupable one.

(in reply to Rufus T. Firefly)
Post #: 70
RE: Are you serious??? - 6/26/2012 3:43:00 AM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 229
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
I think making it somewhat random(not overly so, mind you) would help..then attempts could be made to trick it, or test to see where reserves are(this is a generally used real tactic, 'duping' so it should not be seen as a bad thing, just as mentioned above, the AI is probably not capable of dealing well with it)..but if the reserve commitments were somewhat randomized, as perhaps by the leader check mentioned, then the entire affair becomes a little better. The phasing player can try to set up decoys, etc, but there is no guarantee they will work...especially as units behind the lines are not always known very well to begin with. The player on defense can make realistic judgement calls on whether to place units in reserve or not..and I rather like the ability to set how many hexes would be the reaction zone as well, so that the phasing player cannot really be certain how close they would even have to come to set off its commitment, and the defending side then could essentially set up its own decoy/dupe efforts.

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 71
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Are you serious??? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

0.076