Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA

 
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] >> Tigers on the Hunt >> Tech Support >> RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/24/2018 3:34:09 PM   
Peter Fisla


Posts: 2363
Joined: 10/5/2001
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

Just tested the "ATTACK HEX" feature by giving such order to part of a German force. It appears to work fine: they actually moved towards the hex they were told to attack. What are such units supposed to do once they have reached their objective? Do they stay there, or will they move to capture VP hexes?

As I was testing the feature, I noticed another case of an IA unit not firing (this time I have a saved game ).

In hex 14,21 there is an A** leader, a 1st Line squad (armed with a PF) and an Engineer squad (armed with a LMG). In the previous three fire segments, the A** leader and the 1st Line squad fired at the US units in 14,17. The Engineer squad didn't fire it FP (its range is 3 hexes and the US units are 4 hexes away), but it didn't fire its LMG (which is well into its normal range), neither alone nor together the other units in the hex. Usually, GE Engineer squads usually fire their LMGs only when the target is greater than 3.



I will take a look...

(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 61
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/24/2018 5:38:38 PM   
Peter Fisla


Posts: 2363
Joined: 10/5/2001
From: Canada
Status: offline
UP844, the Assault Engineer with LMG actually has a move order towards VPO at hex [19,16]. I have tweaked my code so that actually now (just posted Build 1.0.94) the AI personnel unit will move towards the VPO, check it out with your saved game file :)

< Message edited by Peter Fisla -- 2/24/2018 5:58:55 PM >

(in reply to Peter Fisla)
Post #: 62
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/25/2018 12:14:39 PM   
UP844


Posts: 1019
Joined: 3/3/2016
From: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)
Status: offline
The three Assault Engineer squads, one 1st Line squad and two leaders all have "ATTACK" orders set to [19,16], the northernmost exit+VPO hex.

The "ATTACK" feature for AI with "Advance" orders works fine: these units headed towards [19,16] while the rest of the German force advanced straight towards the southern exit hex.

I'm loading the saved game and provide a report as soon as possible.

_____________________________

Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

(in reply to Peter Fisla)
Post #: 63
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/25/2018 12:25:20 PM   
UP844


Posts: 1019
Joined: 3/3/2016
From: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)
Status: offline
The Engineer squad didn't fire [the only possible target was broken by fire from the other units], but in the Movement Segment it moved towards its objective.

On a side note (I know my fellow players will hate me for this): would it be possible to have the AI fire on broken units if it has no other eligible targets in the Advancing and Defensive Fire Segments? It is a trick I often use, just to make things harder for the AI.

_____________________________

Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 64
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/25/2018 1:30:08 PM   
Big Ivan


Posts: 529
Joined: 6/9/2008
From: Mansfield, OH
Status: offline
Actually that not a bad idea at all UP844. Like you I want as many broken units for the A/I in B+ status during the next rally phase.
If the A/I would fire more at your broken units it would force you to consider moving them more in the rout phase to get away from the
B+ if at all possible.

_____________________________

Blitz call sign Ivan the Big.

(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 65
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/25/2018 1:30:16 PM   
Peter Fisla


Posts: 2363
Joined: 10/5/2001
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

The Engineer squad didn't fire [the only possible target was broken by fire from the other units], but in the Movement Segment it moved towards its objective.

On a side note (I know my fellow players will hate me for this): would it be possible to have the AI fire on broken units if it has no other eligible targets in the Advancing and Defensive Fire Segments? It is a trick I often use, just to make things harder for the AI.


Since the AI gave order to that assault squad to move, ( as of build 1.0.94) it is now correctly moving towards the VPO; this is the correct behaviours.

There is no point for AI to shoot at player's broken units, since player's broken units are not a threat to AI. The AI doesn't really know if the player has nearby hidden somewhere good order units.

< Message edited by Peter Fisla -- 2/25/2018 1:31:42 PM >

(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 66
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/25/2018 1:47:21 PM   
fuselex

 

Posts: 650
Joined: 8/2/2014
Status: offline
I feel honoured I got to see the game develop.
Every patch , every comment , every idea .
Has made the game better .
It`s a classic

(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 67
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/25/2018 2:21:10 PM   
Peter Fisla


Posts: 2363
Joined: 10/5/2001
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fuselex

I feel honoured I got to see the game develop.
Every patch , every comment , every idea .
Has made the game better .
It`s a classic



Glad to hear that! More to come :)

(in reply to fuselex)
Post #: 68
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/25/2018 2:21:57 PM   
Peter Fisla


Posts: 2363
Joined: 10/5/2001
From: Canada
Status: offline
I have just uploaded build 1.0.95, see the item #9...

(in reply to Peter Fisla)
Post #: 69
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/25/2018 2:23:46 PM   
UP844


Posts: 1019
Joined: 3/3/2016
From: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)
Status: offline
Broken units are not an immediate threat to the AI, but "he who turns and run away, may turn and fight another day" (or another move).

I understand the AI cannot know if there are lots of good unit out of its sight. This is the very reason I specified the AI should be able to take this option only:
1) in its Defensive or Advancing Fire Segments (in both cases, even if the opponent has units that cannot be seen by the AI, the AI cannot fire at them anyway)
2) if it has no other eligible targets, where "eligible targets" are to be intended as Good Order or Pinned units that can still fire at the AI units later (if AI fire is occurring during the Defensive Fire Segment).

I didn't mention:
3) AI fire in the Fire Segment, as it would be foolish to forfeit movement to shoot at a broken unit (even though I often do so when I have some unit to spare).
4) AI fire in the Defensive Fire segment, as the human player could have other units the AI does not know about (as you correctly pointed out).

Even though the improved leader behaviour has greatly improved the rally capabilities of the AI, I don't see why human players should be spared the tactic of keeping as many opponent units as possible at "Broken+" status.

Of course, if implementing such an option implies great technical or programming trouble, I can live with it.

_____________________________

Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

(in reply to fuselex)
Post #: 70
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/25/2018 2:31:52 PM   
Peter Fisla


Posts: 2363
Joined: 10/5/2001
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

Broken units are not an immediate threat to the AI, but "he who turns and run away, may turn and fight another day" (or another move).

I understand the AI cannot know if there are lots of good unit out of its sight. This is the very reason I specified the AI should be able to take this option only:
1) in its Defensive or Advancing Fire Segments (in both cases, even if the opponent has units that cannot be seen by the AI, the AI cannot fire at them anyway)
2) if it has no other eligible targets, where "eligible targets" are to be intended as Good Order or Pinned units that can still fire at the AI units later (if AI fire is occurring during the Defensive Fire Segment).

I didn't mention:
3) AI fire in the Fire Segment, as it would be foolish to forfeit movement to shoot at a broken unit (even though I often do so when I have some unit to spare).
4) AI fire in the Defensive Fire segment, as the human player could have other units the AI does not know about (as you correctly pointed out).

Even though the improved leader behaviour has greatly improved the rally capabilities of the AI, I don't see why human players should be spared the tactic of keeping as many opponent units as possible at "Broken+" status.

Of course, if implementing such an option implies great technical or programming trouble, I can live with it.


Yes, I know what you mean but to implement this feature that works correctly and the AI gives the player challenge is a very difficult balance act :) It's definitely something to think about for the future.

(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 71
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/25/2018 2:39:32 PM   
UP844


Posts: 1019
Joined: 3/3/2016
From: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)
Status: offline
Thanks Peter! Unfortunately, being fully illitterate as regards to programming , I cannot even remotely estimate the feasibility of what I suggest.

As regards to play balance, in my opinion most scenarios are already unbalanced, with the human player winning regardless of the side he takes and with loss ratios reminding 1991 Gulf War, even when playing at "Very hard" level. The exception to such rule of thumb are those scenarios where the AI is given 2 or 3 times the forces the human player has in that same scenario.

Thanks for 1.0.95! I noticed a leader of the group with the new "ATTACK" order strolling around the battlefield and I was about to report it, but you anticipated me .

< Message edited by UP844 -- 2/25/2018 2:44:16 PM >


_____________________________

Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

(in reply to Peter Fisla)
Post #: 72
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/25/2018 3:07:36 PM   
Peter Fisla


Posts: 2363
Joined: 10/5/2001
From: Canada
Status: offline
Writing a good scenario is work of art - regardless of a game. Of course good AI is important; having enough AI units to challenge the player is also important, in addition plying a scenario on higher difficulty helps as well (example: use "very hard" level as that makes the AI in command all the time, yet the player has to keep his units in command using the command & control rules).

(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 73
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/25/2018 5:07:07 PM   
Gerry4321

 

Posts: 765
Joined: 3/24/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

The Engineer squad didn't fire [the only possible target was broken by fire from the other units], but in the Movement Segment it moved towards its objective.

On a side note (I know my fellow players will hate me for this): would it be possible to have the AI fire on broken units if it has no other eligible targets in the Advancing and Defensive Fire Segments? It is a trick I often use, just to make things harder for the AI.


Since the AI gave order to that assault squad to move, ( as of build 1.0.94) it is now correctly moving towards the VPO; this is the correct behaviours.

There is no point for AI to shoot at player's broken units, since player's broken units are not a threat to AI. The AI doesn't really know if the player has nearby hidden somewhere good order units.

Hi Peter:

One reason to fire at broken units in general is it makes them B+ (like DM in ASL?). So it is harder for them to rally.

Here is an idea to help the AI fire more. Instead of making the AI more challenging by playing on very hard why not give the AI more knowledge about the surrounding hexes it cannot yet see. So it could see if there are enemy units just say for a range of 3 hexes out of its LOS. When there aren't any enemy units hiding just out of sight, then it would fire more often at units in LOS.


(in reply to Peter Fisla)
Post #: 74
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/25/2018 5:10:53 PM   
Peter Fisla


Posts: 2363
Joined: 10/5/2001
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gerry4321


quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

The Engineer squad didn't fire [the only possible target was broken by fire from the other units], but in the Movement Segment it moved towards its objective.

On a side note (I know my fellow players will hate me for this): would it be possible to have the AI fire on broken units if it has no other eligible targets in the Advancing and Defensive Fire Segments? It is a trick I often use, just to make things harder for the AI.


Since the AI gave order to that assault squad to move, ( as of build 1.0.94) it is now correctly moving towards the VPO; this is the correct behaviours.

There is no point for AI to shoot at player's broken units, since player's broken units are not a threat to AI. The AI doesn't really know if the player has nearby hidden somewhere good order units.

Hi Peter:

One reason to fire at broken units in general is it makes them B+ (like DM in ASL?). So it is harder for them to rally.

Here is an idea to help the AI fire more. Instead of making the AI more challenging by playing on very hard why not give the AI more knowledge about the surrounding hexes it cannot yet see. So it could see if there are enemy units just say for a range of 3 hexes out of its LOS. When there aren't any enemy units hiding just out of sight, then it would fire more often at units in LOS.



Yes that makes sense of course, though additional logic means more processing for the AI and making the game run slower; there is no such thing as a free lunch if you know what I mean. However, it's good idea to come with these ideas to further enhance the AI for sure.

Cheers!


< Message edited by Peter Fisla -- 2/25/2018 5:11:34 PM >

(in reply to Gerry4321)
Post #: 75
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/26/2018 10:51:53 PM   
UP844


Posts: 1019
Joined: 3/3/2016
From: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)
Status: offline
Two questions about smoke: will the player be able to fire smoke into empty hexes? Will WP have adverse effects on the unit in the target hex?

< Message edited by UP844 -- 2/26/2018 10:52:34 PM >


_____________________________

Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

(in reply to Peter Fisla)
Post #: 76
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/27/2018 12:37:01 AM   
Peter Fisla


Posts: 2363
Joined: 10/5/2001
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

Two questions about smoke: will the player be able to fire smoke into empty hexes? Will WP have adverse effects on the unit in the target hex?


At this point ordnance/AFV can only fire smoke at enemy unit hex, WP does have adverse effect on units in the target hex.

(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 77
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/27/2018 12:49:22 AM   
UP844


Posts: 1019
Joined: 3/3/2016
From: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)
Status: offline
Isn't smoke/WP an artificial hindrance?

If it can only be fired into a enemy-occupied hex, it won't provide any protection from fire coming from that same hex .

_____________________________

Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

(in reply to Peter Fisla)
Post #: 78
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/27/2018 12:18:50 PM   
Peter Fisla


Posts: 2363
Joined: 10/5/2001
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

Isn't smoke/WP an artificial hindrance?

If it can only be fired into a enemy-occupied hex, it won't provide any protection from fire coming from that same hex .


It will provide protection, as if a smoke is either in the target or source hex, smoke hindrance will count.

Example Pz IIIN has T-34 85 in LOS, the Pz IIIN has a no chance to kill the T-34 from the front, however it can fire smoke and so it will fire smoke into the T-34 hex. Hindering the T-34 fire, in which case the T-34 either fires at the Pz IIIN at lower odds or moves.

(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 79
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 2/27/2018 12:44:09 PM   
UP844


Posts: 1019
Joined: 3/3/2016
From: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)
Status: offline
I thought smoke - being an hindrance - only provided protection unless the LOS crossed a hex, but I was wrong. My failure ,

The tactic you mentioned is exactly what I did when dealing with stronger AFVs in ASL, and I'm glad to know I will be able to use it in ToTH .

Will chemical mortars (U.S. 4.5" and the German 100mm NbW35) and dedicated CS AFVs (e.g. British CS Churchill and Cromwell) have a higher allocation of smoke rounds?

P.S. Is there any chance to add smoke dischargers to AFVs?

< Message edited by UP844 -- 2/27/2018 12:45:05 PM >


_____________________________

Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

(in reply to Peter Fisla)
Post #: 80
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 3/12/2018 1:33:31 AM   
UP844


Posts: 1019
Joined: 3/3/2016
From: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)
Status: offline
Just for the sake of change, some additional whining about the AI .

At the start of the Rout Segment, the AI had a leader and three squads in the Russian-controlled VP hex and three other squads in the adjacent hex NW of it. All the units were broken.

The first group routed in the hex NE of its starting hex (move D), as it was its only option.
The second group routed away (move A) in the only available hex and suffered interdiction, then routed again (move B) following the only available route path and suffered interdiction again, and finally (move C) moved in a wooden building.

So far, so good, but... the three squads that routed first moved in the hex initially occupied by the other group, exhausted their movement allowance and finished the Rout segment adjacent to a German stack. Score three kills for the Germans. I wonder why they moved there (and the leader that was stacked with them didn't).

Does the AI evaluate the status of possible rout hexes every time it is about to move? If this is the case, I can (barely) understand the reasons for its move: considering the German units that are known just before the second routing move (move E) in the hex where they were they could be fired by three squads behind the AFVs, a StuG, an Elite squad and a sIG 33. In the adjacent hex, the last two units cannot fire, so it could appear a desirable move, but... doesn't the AI "remember" there were enemy units adjacent to that hex?

Some other times, I have noticed the AI loses units remaining adjacent to enemy units because it does not rout when its only option would imply being subject to interdiction, which can be dangerous but in my opinion beats certain death

P.S. Of course, I have no saved game: I'll try to provide one, even though it's hard to tell when a similar situation will occur again.







Attachment (1)

< Message edited by UP844 -- 3/12/2018 1:34:46 AM >


_____________________________

Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 81
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 3/12/2018 3:21:05 AM   
Peter Fisla


Posts: 2363
Joined: 10/5/2001
From: Canada
Status: offline
UP844, Rout Segment is very CPU demanding because there is a lot of LOS checking going on and also once a broken unit routs and discovers an enemy unit in LOS and then it routs away, it cannot go back to the hex were it was as known enemy units are tracked. So yes, Rout Segment is very abstracted...

(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 82
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 3/13/2018 11:49:03 PM   
UP844


Posts: 1019
Joined: 3/3/2016
From: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

it cannot go back to the hex were it was as known enemy units are tracked.


If known enemy units at the start of the Rout Segment are tracked, cannot the hexes adjacent to them be defined as "off limits" for routing units? This would spare many unnecessary losses among AI routed units.


_____________________________

Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

(in reply to Peter Fisla)
Post #: 83
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 3/14/2018 4:15:30 AM   
Peter Fisla


Posts: 2363
Joined: 10/5/2001
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844


quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

it cannot go back to the hex were it was as known enemy units are tracked.


If known enemy units at the start of the Rout Segment are tracked, cannot the hexes adjacent to them be defined as "off limits" for routing units? This would spare many unnecessary losses among AI routed units.




sorry, I don't follow...can you please explain

(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 84
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 3/14/2018 1:27:01 PM   
UP844


Posts: 1019
Joined: 3/3/2016
From: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)
Status: offline
I was in a hurry and I didn't explain what I meant in detail.

I did not understand the criteria the AI applies to decide if a specific hex is eligible as its next destination during the Rout Segment.

In figure 1 below, the routing units have no choice: they must rout away from their current hex since they are adjacent to enemy units, and two of the three hexes they could rout into are not eligible as destinations since there are adjacent enemy units. The only viable option, therefore, is to move North-East (move "D"). Here, the units could stop (that's what the leader did and, in my opinion, it the wisest move), but they choose to continue.

Figure 2 shows the next possible move for the routing units. This time, there are six possible hexes the units can rout into:
"no-1" is not eligible as it is the starting hex;
"no-2" is not eligible as it is adjacent to the visible DC-armed German unit (the stack with the broken and wounded leader is not visible at this time);
"no-3" is not eligible as it is adjacent to three visible German units: the DC-armed squad, the Elite squad and the sIG33;
"no-4" is not eligible as it is adjacent to three visible German units: the StuG, the Elite squad and the sIG33;
"yes-1" is eligible (but dangerous)
"yes-2" is eligible if the AI does not "remember" the presence of the German stack with the Elite unit on top which caused the route of the other broken units (see Figure 3). This appears to be the case, since the units rout again ("E" move) and are subsequently eliminated.

From your reply, I understood the AI "remembers" the situation at the start of the Rout Segment, i.e. what hexes have known adjacent units and are, as a consequence, not eligible as destinations for routing units (Figure 4). I was unable to understand why the routing units moved adjacent to an enemy stack that was known at the start of the Rout Segment.

I had the vague (very vague) idea that "marking" all the hexes adjacent to known enemy units as non-eligible as destinations for routing units might be a significant impact on CPU use: perhaps marking in such a way only the hexes from which broken units had to rout could have a lesser impact on CPU use?




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by UP844 -- 3/14/2018 1:31:50 PM >


_____________________________

Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

(in reply to Peter Fisla)
Post #: 85
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 3/16/2018 9:06:16 AM   
rico21

 

Posts: 2224
Joined: 3/11/2016
Status: offline
UP844 is busing with "Check you 6", so I continue modestly his piece.I downloaded 1.097 but,
With 1.095, I've seen:
1-In AI Phase Movement, tanks move then Infantry move then tanks move, I've been nicely surprised or I dreamed?
2- The stack of units not automatly with leader above the stack.
3- An AI squad with malfunctiuned weapon don't fire then it always should fire like an AI squad with no weapon.
4-Autosave is planned?

Thanks Peter for your great work.

< Message edited by rico21 -- 3/16/2018 10:22:40 AM >

(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 86
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 3/20/2018 12:10:52 AM   
UP844


Posts: 1019
Joined: 3/3/2016
From: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)
Status: offline
Another case of AI "avoidable losses".

A British leader and two squads (all of them broken) started their Rout Segment in the VP hex indicated by the red arrow.
They first moved south-east, in the only eligible hex (the sole hex not adjacent to unbroken enemy units known to them) and there they "saw" the Pz II. This should force the units to continue routing.
The leader and one of the squads, in fact, moved south-west (again, in the only eligible hex), took interdiction from the German 1st line squad 2 hexes away (no effect) and ended their rout in the wooden building.
The remaining squad, however, did not rout with the other units . It remained in the stone building and at the end of the rout segment was eliminated for being adjacent to an enemy unit.

Why didn't the second squad rout, considering that the alternative was certain elimination? There was room for it in the wooden building where the other units routed (it only contained a squad and a LMG), so it could have followed their route.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

(in reply to rico21)
Post #: 87
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 3/24/2018 9:58:07 PM   
UP844


Posts: 1019
Joined: 3/3/2016
From: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)
Status: offline
I played Rico's last work, "The Red House", with v.1.0.98.

The AI does not appear to be especially trigger-happy: on the contrary, it appears to be extremely reluctant to fire, especially in the Advancing Fire Segment.

The screen below was taken when I played with the Germans: the AI has three stacks that can fire on the German units:

Group A (cyan) consists of a B* leader, a 1st Line SMG squad, another 1st Line SMG squad (pinned) and an Engineer squad. Only the two Good Order squads fired, with an overall FP equal to (5/2 (FRD) + 1) + (6/2 + 1) = 7 FP. The stack fired on the easier target, i.e. German 1st Line squad in the wooden rubble, with a net +1 modifier (-1 leadership, +2 TEM). The DR required to have some effect is 7 or less (58.33%).
The chances to affect at the broken 2nd line unit are identical, but I would also have fired on the Good Order Unit.

Group B (yellow) consists of a C* leader, a 1st Line SMG squad, another 1st Line SMG squad (pinned) and an Engineer HS armed with a DC. It didn't fire, even though it had two possible targets: a C leader with a squad and a MMG in the fortified building (DR required 5 or less = 27.77%) or the OOC 2nd line squad in the stone rubble (DR required 6 or less = 41.66%).

Group C (red) consists of a 1st Line SMG HS armed with a DC, an Engineer squad armed with a LMG and an Engineer HS armed with a MMG (that cannot fire after having moved). It didn't fire, even though it had two possible targets: the OOC 2nd line squad (DR required 5 or less = 27.77%) or the OOC 2nd line squad in the stone rubble (DR required 5 or less = 27.77%).

I would have fired with both Group B and C: these units have nothing better to do, anyway. End even though their chance to actually hurt the Germans are pretty slim (let's say 50% of the probability to obtain an effective result), why waste an opportunity? The AI, however decided not to fire.

For the record, the game ended with a record 25:1 loss rate for the Germans (1 HS lost vs. 12.5 squads).




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by UP844 -- 3/24/2018 9:59:08 PM >


_____________________________

Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 88
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 7/12/2018 8:52:42 PM   
rmmwilg

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 5/2/2018
Status: offline
Hi guys,

Updated to v5 (1.1.09) but no joy on playing with it playing in 4k resolution (3840x2160); however I see prev. comments about lowering the zoom level, This Lenovo zoom defaults to 300% at that setting. Is that the inhibiting factor?
I did try changing the config file for a windowed setup with 4k resolution, but still no joy. At the mo, the highest it runs on is 2560x1600, in which this Lenovo zoom defaults to 200%

(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 89
RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA - 7/12/2018 10:42:55 PM   
Paullus

 

Posts: 826
Joined: 6/9/2015
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Try the new alpha build Peter has put in this thread. Zoom out to 100%. This should work. After that try zooming in incrementally until it stops working.

_____________________________

For my part, I shall do my duty as a general; I shall see to it that you are given the chance of a successful action. /Lucius Aemilius Paullus

(in reply to rmmwilg)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Tigers on the Hunt >> Tech Support >> RE: Testing UPDATE5 - 1.0.88 - ALPHA 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

0.172