Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Download

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Pacific War: The Matrix Edition >> Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Download Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Download - 6/10/2019 2:50:03 AM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
Here's the latest version 3.2.15 of Pacific War available for download. This file is a zip of an entire directory (Pacwar3215). Unzip the directory and just run (double-click) the "0START THE GAME.bat" batch file within the directory to start the game. Pacific War 32.15 will run under a modified version of Dosbox contained within the directory. This version of Dosbox has been altered to improve the color display within Pacific War. I've also attempted to update all the scenario files to be compatible with this latest version. OBC41, OBC42, OBSOL and OBMARI are in relatively good shape. The other campaigns are all compatible, but will still need some more work. The directory also contains the latest list of ongoing fixes / modifications. You can download it here:

Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15

The latest version 3.2.15 EXE fixes / features are shown below.

68) I made some more alterations to the AI. When attacking an enemy base, if the enemy LCUs are very strong, then the AI may spend a few weeks softening up the enemy before sending in troop ships.

69) I adjusted the consumption of warship fuel consumption upward to so that major naval operations consume more fuel and have a bit more impact on the Japanese oil reserves, as was historical.

70) I adjusted the routine supply code so that it takes more cargo ships to move oil and resources back to Japan. This has been done in an effort to make maintenance of the oil and resources reserves more of a challenge for the Japanese player.

71) I altered the effectiveness of the Allied AI (only) submarine attacks against the Japanese routine convoy system to make it more effective.

72) I made a number of changes to the surface combat routines as follows:
• I eliminated an arbitrary hit odds reduction routine (whereby the odds of a gun type hitting the enemy drops by 50% with each successful hit), so you now get the same odds of hitting with each shot fired.
• I altered the non-penetrating armor damage routine. Instead of automatically getting 1 point of damage with each hit, 1 point of non-penetrating damage now occurs if: random(armor) / random(warhead) <= 10. This decreases the likelihood of relatively small caliber weapons doing damage to heavily armored ships (e.g. DD guns and flak vs. BB).
• I added increasing rates of fire with decreasing caliber guns. Guns with warhead > 30 (~BB 12"+) get a factor of 2, warhead > 8 (~CA 7"+) get a factor of 3, warhead > 3 (~CL 6"+) get a factor of 4, warhead <= 3 (DD 5"-) get a factor of 5.
• For guns other than in slot 1 (main weapon), the number of guns firing is divided by 2 to account for the side mounting of most non-primary guns, rounding up for odd numbers. This does not apply to torpedoes.
• I limited the number of ships firing in a single ship group to 4 (don't want 50 ship MCS firing multitudes of flak in surface combat).
All these changes hopefully make surface combat a bit more realistic, and make DD vs. DD and MCS ship actions more exciting and deadly. In my testing so far, it looks like ship losses are still reasonable and not out-of-whack with the original game.

73) I made some changes to AI TF creation routines. I restricted Allied CVEs with no aircraft to replenish missions only. This should reduce CVE losses in AI controlled games. Likewise, I restricted Allied CVEs with aircraft to air combat, escort & transport missions only. I also now prevent Japanese TKs from joining AI replenish missions (this was sucking up all TKs away from oil collection).

74) I eliminated some faulty code that sometimes converted replenishment convoys into surface combat TFs (not a good idea).

75) I fixed some of the issues with the airlift supply routines. There was a bug that caused atolls to get loaded up with excess supplies. This has been eliminated. Also, the code didn’t correctly subtract supplies from the base providing airlift; this has been fixed. Each cargo aircraft will deliver 1 unit of supply or fuel. Previously this value was multiplied by 10; this multiplier has been removed; so fuel and supplies are moved on a one for one basis. The AI is now a little smarter about where it airlifts. It only airlifts supplies to friendly bases with less than 200 supply points, and airlifts fuel to friendly bases with less than 100 fuel points. Airlift is still provided to friendly LCUs at enemy bases to increase readiness as indicated in the rules. I now allow a higher maximum LCU readiness with airlift supply (from 49 to 99). If the airlift keeps coming, the readiness can now gradually increase to 99. I also altered slightly the text description of the airlift operation from 1,000 of lbs to tons of supplies / fuel.

76) When calculating LCU combat and bombardment losses, low readiness LCUs have been extremely well sheltered from losses, as only LCUs up to the percentage of current readiness could be lost. I have altered this somewhat, so that now, the minimum readiness used to calculate losses is 25. This provides a minor increase in losses to very low readiness LCUs against land combat and air or surface bombardments.

77) LCU combat routines do not currently itemize losses during the artillery phase of combat. I have altered the combat report routines so that you can now see losses in all 3 phases of land combat (artillery, anti-tank, and assault). You will now see the first phase of combat which will show squad and new added text for gun (artillery) losses.

78) I found what I think is a major bug in the LCU combat routine. The original rules specified readiness checks for LCU combat. The first 2 dealt with low experience units. The first check decreases readiness of an LCU down to 1 (a death sentence) if they does not pass. The LCU experience check for this was: The LCU passes its Experience Check if Random (900) is less than Experience squared. The actual current code is: The LCU passes its Experience Check if Random 30 <= LCU Experience ^2 / 100. The rules meant that an LCU with experience above 30 was immune to this reduction. The actual code puts LCUs at risk up to an experience of about 54, and LCUs with an experience of 30 have a (30-9)/30 chance of getting hit by this. I have fixed the code so that now: The LCU passes its Experience Check if Random 9 <= LCU Experience ^2 / 100. There was a 2nd check that could reduce an LCU down to a readiness of 25. The code is similarly botched. I have altered the code so it now matches the rules: The LCU passes its Experience Check if Random 25 (instead of 50) <= LCU Experience ^2 / 100.

79) The final LCU readiness check allowed an LCU to have its readiness increased by up to 50 if it passes its checks. I believe this increase is too extreme, because it allowed a low readiness unit, say 10, to attack at 60 readiness, but only suffer losses at 10 readiness. I have decreased this value to 25, which makes losses caused by very low readiness isolated units a little less painful.

80) In a further effort to make maintenance of Japan’s oil and resource reserves more of a challenge, as is historical, I have tied the maximum value of the oil and resources reserves to the sum of Japan’s heavy industry factors, with a minimum of 1000 for each. This means Japan’s maximum reserves cannot exceed about 60,000-65,000 each, and they will be gradually reduced as the air assault against Japan grows and heavy industry is destroyed.

81) I have adjusted the LCU combat experience gain to be partially dependent upon readiness level of the unit. Lower readiness units have less participation in combat, so they now also get less of an experience increase. The function used is: Experience Gain = (113 + Readiness * 7/20 - Experience) / 50. This prevents isolated LCUs from easily gaining experience levels of 99.

82) Eliminated, hopefully, the “End of War” bug.

83) Fixed control level settings to “Full Human Control” at start of new scenarios in Human Player games.

84) Added airborne assaults to the game. Airborne units are now identified by using the editor to place a value of 255 in the “Unit” slot for detachment # of subordinate units; detachment #’s aren’t used by parent units making this slot available to non-subordinate units using this feature. So, for example, if we place the value of 255 in the “Unit” slot for units 85 (1st Para), 242 (11th Abn), 275 (44th Abn), 296 (5th Abn), and 337 (503rd Par), then all these units are available for airborne assault. In order to conduct an airborne assault, one of these units must be placed in a base with an air transport air group, like the 1st CCG (C-47 Dakota), and the air base must set a priority target (press key “B”). This priority target is the base where the unit will paradrop. It can be a friendly or enemy base. If the target is an enemy base, then it must be isolated (Ctrl O: by previous air attacks / bombardments) for the airborne assault to occur. The airborne LCU is air dropped during the air supply phase. If the LCU makes the move, you will see reported “Airborne Movement”. If the airborne LCU is too big for the air group, then the LCU will be moved gradually. Multiple air transport air groups will move the LCU more quickly. The airborne assault may not happen if enemy air zones of control are too strong, which is the same for flying air supplies. I have re-equipped the Japanese with air transport aircraft in the OBC41 file, so the Japanese can also use the airborne assault feature. The AI can also use this feature.

85) Aircraft in air groups on CVs in port are no longer damaged due to a small port airfield. Previously, if a CV went into port with an airfield size of, for example, 1, aircraft in excess of 10 in each air group on the CV became damaged. As it is, air groups on CVs in port currently perform no air operations, and this feature was a real problem for the AI, which routinely disbands its CV TFs in ports with small airfields.

86) Decreased slightly the impact of the new code added in item 23) that adds accumulating minor damage to ships in task forces each week in order to simulate the fact that a task force could not remain at sea forever; it must regularly return to report for repairs and refurbishment.

The new code still adds approximately 2 damage points (some minor randomness applied) to each ship that remains in a TF each week. Now, however, instead of a damage level of 30, now if a ship damage level exceeds 15, no additional damage is added for time at sea. In addition, above 15, a ship may make minor repairs at sea to reduce damage to as low as 15. This was done so a ship severely damaged in combat can make some at sea repairs to get it back to port. A ship with 15 or less damage points in a TF cannot remove damage due to repair at sea.

As before, once a ship returns to port and leaves the TF, it will start repairing all damage. If the damage level is not above 8 points, the ship will automatically repair 2 points of damage, at no cost to shipyard points. The ship may also get additional normal shipyard repairs, which may cost shipyard points. If the damage level is not above 15 points, the ship will automatically repair 1 point of damage, at no cost to shipyard points. The ship may also get additional normal shipyard repairs, which may cost shipyard points. Above 15 points of damage, the ship is repaired through the existing shipyard repair code, which may cost shipyard points.

86) Removed item 14) adjusting the on-hand fuel and supply multiplier as this code change didn’t actually have much effect.

87) Removed item 24c) which ratioed down routine convoy supply / fuel deliveries with dwindling reserves, as it didn’t actually much effect on actual supply routines.

88) Fixed the text gibberish that occasionally popped up when the AI move a submarine on patrol.

89) Made a number of minor tweaks to make the AI a little more competitive.

90) Fixed the bug in submarine patrol’s calculated distance from home port.

91) Fixed the bug that incorrectly allowed empty TF’s to “peek” at enemy base fuel, supply, and air groups.

92) Altered the Philippine Guerrilla function. Philippine guerrillas will now start appearing in 1943 if the Japanese do not properly garrison any Philippine bases. Guerrillas will also appear in support of an Allied invasion at a Philippine base.

93) Fixed a bug in the game weeks passed function which rolled over from 255 to 0 near the end of 1946, which wreaked havoc on a number of game functions including aircraft arrival time.

94) Changed the “Combat Report” to display number of squads lost instead of number of men lost. I think this makes the report much clearer reporting squads, guns, and AFVs lost. In addition, the report of “Attacked with” and “Defended with” now shows the number of squads, guns, and AFVs that participated at the start of combat, not what remains at the end of combat. This will eliminate the “defended with 2 squads” report, which really represented what was left after an LCU was eliminated.

95) Altered the maximum airfield / port sizes relative to terrain to be a little closer to Gary Grigsby’s original definition as shown below.
Terrain Airfield / Port Size
1 4
2 5
3 6
4 8
5 9
6 9
7 8
8 6
9 4

96) Fixed a couple of bugs in CV air group size calculation, including one that occurred at the start of 1946, which messed up the code calculation of which air group “formula” to use, which only accounted for year up to 1945.

97) Did some major re-work of the map. Altered the artwork slightly, improved land mass appearance, made minor alterations to base paths, and adjusted base locations to be much closer to real world inter-base distances. I also adjusted the code so that land masses more properly restrict naval movement.

98) Players will now be able to place multiple HQs at one base. The AI does this routinely; I think human players should also be able to do this.

99) Increased the effectiveness of naval bombardment TFs in damaging supply depots.

100) Added Kagoshima to code referencing key Japanese Home Island bases.

101) Made some minor adjustments to air group training / experience gain routines.

102) Altered the Kamikaze availability routines to more closely reflect the original intent of the rules. Kamikaze missions “will only be allowed late in the war, starting in 1944, after the Allies have cracked the Japanese inner defense perimeter. During 1944 the Japanese may convert 4 Air Groups per week to Kamikaze missions. During 1945 the Japanese may convert 8 Air Groups per week to Kamikaze missions.” I’m using 4 and 8, instead of the original rules of 5 and 10.

103) Altered the Allied “Kill” multiplier for Japanese victory point calculation to be calculated every month instead of only at the start of a new year. So now the victory points for Allied losses will increase every month starting in Jan 1943. The multiplier has been adjusted so that:
• 1 Jan 43 = x 1.0
• 1 Jan 44 = x 2.0
• 1 Jan 45 = x 3.0

This should improve Japanese chances for a decisive battle victory some time from late 1943 to early 1945. The player “Help” code now adjusts the kill multiplier up or down depending on help provided. On max help for Japan, the multiplier is as follows:
• 1 Jan 43 = x 1.0
• 1 Jan 44 = x 2.5
• 1 Jan 45 = x 4.0

On max help for the Allies, the multiplier is as follows:
• 1 Jan 43 = x 1.0
• 1 Jan 44 = x 1.5
• 1 Jan 45 = x 2.0

As provided in the original game, if Japanese production drops below 500, the kill multiplier is lost. This is generally what brings about an Allied victory. I’ve found that in general, it’s very difficult for Japan to win, so I’ve adjusted the multipliers accordingly. After trying these values, let me know if you think they need adjustment (up or down).

104) Made some minor alterations to improve text table appearances.

105) Fixed (I think) the bug that caused submarines to sometimes attack with the incorrect weapon.

106) Altered the aircraft factory and air group aircraft upgrade paths so the AI will make better use of the historical aircraft available.

107) Fixed a bug in the code that was affecting aircraft carrier air group size changes throughout the war. You should now see air group sizes changing as originally intended.

108) Fixed the bug that was giving a night fighter bonus to B-26 Marauder aircraft instead of the intended P-61 Black Widow.

109) Improved base building capabilities of the AI.

110) Made some test / experimental modifications to aircraft cannon values to better reflect the potency of high explosive cannon shells based upon information I found at the following web page: http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm and the Excel spreadsheet “ACWpns_Pacwar.xlsx” provided in the game update 3.2.15 zip file. The cannon values will be re-adjusted if found to be too high, although I haven’t seen any issues in my testing.

Best Regards,

Rich
Post #: 1
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 6/10/2019 4:10:35 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 1801
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
Thanks Rich!

_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 2
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 6/10/2019 7:41:19 AM   
zeke99


Posts: 415
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
Many thanks Rich, will run a test game asap

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 3
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 6/10/2019 6:03:12 PM   
wga8888


Posts: 380
Joined: 9/29/2010
From: Sachse, Texas USA
Status: offline
I do not know how to operate this. The link takes to to a dropbox with dozens of individual files. Am I to download each one into a folder? If so, why not just have a zipped folder all this revision of the game.

_____________________________

Bill Thomson
bill@wargameacademy.org
skype: wga8888
817-501-2978 CST [-6 GMT]

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 4
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 6/10/2019 6:56:39 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
Bill sorry you’re having trouble with this. There should be only one file to download. It is a zip file containing an entire directory. In the drop box window there should be a download button somewhere over on the top right of the screen. Click on this button to download the entire zip file to your download folder on your hard drive. Then just unzip the entire folder to a place of your choosing. Then just double click on the run the game batch file in the game folder. Hope this helps let me know if you’re still having trouble.

(in reply to wga8888)
Post #: 5
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 6/10/2019 8:53:55 PM   
Hattori Hanzo


Posts: 716
Joined: 3/21/2011
From: Okinawa
Status: offline
many thanks Rich, I will give it a try very soon - GREAT impressive work !!!

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 6
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 6/20/2019 2:43:42 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5298
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rich Dionne


78) I found what I think is a major bug in the LCU combat routine. The original rules specified readiness checks for LCU combat. The first 2 dealt with low experience units. The first check decreases readiness of an LCU down to 1 (a death sentence) if they does not pass. The LCU experience check for this was: The LCU passes its Experience Check if Random (900) is less than Experience squared. The actual current code is: The LCU passes its Experience Check if Random 30 <= LCU Experience ^2 / 100. The rules meant that an LCU with experience above 30 was immune to this reduction. The actual code puts LCUs at risk up to an experience of about 54, and LCUs with an experience of 30 have a (30-9)/30 chance of getting hit by this. I have fixed the code so that now: The LCU passes its Experience Check if Random 9 <= LCU Experience ^2 / 100. There was a 2nd check that could reduce an LCU down to a readiness of 25. The code is similarly botched. I have altered the code so it now matches the rules: The LCU passes its Experience Check if Random 25 (instead of 50) <= LCU Experience ^2 / 100.




I've been hoping that someone would fix that problem for a *very* long time. (I lost my first PBEM game because four infantry divisions with experience of 50 collapsed, when they should have been immune.) Kudos!


_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 7
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 6/22/2019 1:52:02 AM   
KurtC


Posts: 1302
Joined: 7/1/2011
Status: offline
Merry Christmas to me for looking here at this point. Thank you very much! Words cannot express how much I appreciate the work done to keep this classic alive.

_____________________________

My known forum name is H Gilmer

He that has a mind to fight, let him fight, for now is the time. - Anacreon
"There are no modern Nazis. The real Nazis in Hell laugh at the notion." - Gilmer, descendant of Poles.

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 8
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 6/22/2019 4:57:01 AM   
KurtC


Posts: 1302
Joined: 7/1/2011
Status: offline
Played several turns tonight. Japanese are much better on first turn. If you have ships hanging around the Philippines, they will get sunk. The British BB and BC got sunk twice in two tries. The Pearl Harbor attack only sunk 1 BB. (I'm playing allies). Not complaining as they sunk the crap out of my heavy cruiser near the Philippines and pretty much everything at Manila and around thereabouts. No more sneaking out a combat unit or two from Bataan!

_____________________________

My known forum name is H Gilmer

He that has a mind to fight, let him fight, for now is the time. - Anacreon
"There are no modern Nazis. The real Nazis in Hell laugh at the notion." - Gilmer, descendant of Poles.

(in reply to KurtC)
Post #: 9
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 6/26/2019 11:08:06 PM   
KurtC


Posts: 1302
Joined: 7/1/2011
Status: offline
I'd like to say this should be pinned to the top. Feel free to take out my comments, if needed when pinned.

_____________________________

My known forum name is H Gilmer

He that has a mind to fight, let him fight, for now is the time. - Anacreon
"There are no modern Nazis. The real Nazis in Hell laugh at the notion." - Gilmer, descendant of Poles.

(in reply to KurtC)
Post #: 10
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/7/2019 10:33:56 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
" I’ve found that in general, it’s very difficult for Japan to win, so I’ve adjusted the multipliers accordingly."

Why? Its supposed to be very difficult for Japan to win.

(in reply to KurtC)
Post #: 11
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/7/2019 5:50:48 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
Well, it is a historical simulation, so I agree it should be difficult for Japan to win. But it is also a game, right? So what percentage of time in this game do you think Japan should win?

Brad, you wrote in the Pacific War Update forum:

"RE Winning Human/Human
One of the reasons I think GG called the end of the game Jan 46 is so there would be some ties.
I think in a situation with two good and equally skilled humans 65% Allies win, 34.05% tie 0.05% IJ win.
With AI opponent and a good player, jump the human side percent.... 15 points? 20 points?"

So you're saying in your experience with human/human play, Japan wins about 0.05% of the time, right? And since the Matrix extension of the game to Jan 47, I know the odds of achieving a tie have also been reduced, or are you saying you get 34.05% ties with the game ending in Jan 47?

Don't you think that Japan should be able to win the game more than 0.05% of the time? If you could adjust the game, how often would you like to see a Japanese player win? 5%, 10%, 20%? I'd really like to know what you and others think about this.

So "Why"? I think Japan should win the game more than 0.05% of the time. That's why I've made some modification in the code in this direction. Even with these changes, in my tests of AI/AI play, Japan still wins less than probably 5% of the time. I'm open to suggestions, what do you think is an appropriate chance that is "very difficult".


(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 12
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/7/2019 9:05:21 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
I've been giving this victory conditions issue some more thought, and have some new options to consider:

The current Victory Conditions / End Game Conditions are as follows:

If the war reaches January 1947 without a decision, the game ends with...

The War is Over
The Allies Drop Their Demands
For Unconditional Surrender
The Japanese Agree to Withdraw
From Conquered Territories

If the Allies score 2:1 in total points they get a decisive victory...

Allied Forces Have Won
A Decisive Victory
the Japanese Agree to
an Unconditional Surrender

If Japan scores 2:1 in total points they get a decisive victory (very difficult)...

Japanese Forces Have Won
A Decisive Victory
Excessive Losses have Forced
the Allies to the Peace Table

It might be possible for me to edit some of the code to give us some additional / different game end conditions:

If the Japanese can hold out to January 1947, perhaps they should be given a minor victory...

Japanese Forces Have Won
A Minor Victory
The Allies Agree to
A Negotiated Peace

If the Allies score 2:1 in total points they still get a decisive victory...

Allied Forces Have Won
A Decisive Victory
the Japanese Agree to
an Unconditional Surrender

If Japan scores 2:1 in total points they still get a decisive victory (very difficult)...

Japanese Forces Have Won
A Decisive Victory
Excessive Losses have Forced
the Allies to the Peace Table

By saving text from the coding used for the above text, I could add a couple new conditions:

If the Allies score 2:1 in total points but have heavy un-multiplied losses (say something like 40-50,000) they get a costly victory...

Allied Forces Have Won
A Costly Victory
the Japanese Agree to
an Unconditional Surrender

If the Allies reach a high level of multiplied losses (say something like 250,000) Japan gets a minor victory...

Japanese Forces Have Won
A Minor Victory
The Allies Agree to
A Negotiated Peace

This last one would not require Japan to achieve 2:1 in victory points, it would reflect the Allies deciding unconditional surrender was too costly, regardless of how much damage they had inflicted on Japan.

Keep in mind, that I'm quite limited on text changes, so we can't get too elaborate. I'll check to see if I can actually manage to do this.

Let me know what you guys think.

Regards,

Rich

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 13
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/7/2019 10:09:37 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rich Dionne

Well, it is a historical simulation, so I agree it should be difficult for Japan to win. But it is also a game, right? So what percentage of time in this game do you think Japan should win?

Brad, you wrote in the Pacific War Update forum:

"RE Winning Human/Human
One of the reasons I think GG called the end of the game Jan 46 is so there would be some ties.
I think in a situation with two good and equally skilled humans 65% Allies win, 34.05% tie 0.05% IJ win.
With AI opponent and a good player, jump the human side percent.... 15 points? 20 points?"

So you're saying in your experience with human/human play, Japan wins about 0.05% of the time, right? And since the Matrix extension of the game to Jan 47, I know the odds of achieving a tie have also been reduced, or are you saying you get 34.05% ties with the game ending in Jan 47?

Don't you think that Japan should be able to win the game more than 0.05% of the time? If you could adjust the game, how often would you like to see a Japanese player win? 5%, 10%, 20%? I'd really like to know what you and others think about this.

So "Why"? I think Japan should win the game more than 0.05% of the time. That's why I've made some modification in the code in this direction. Even with these changes, in my tests of AI/AI play, Japan still wins less than probably 5% of the time. I'm open to suggestions, what do you think is an appropriate chance that is "very difficult".





I don't remember any complaints about scoring on the old PW mailing list concerning the GG method. Matrix which more than doubled control points - a pretty audacious act for a game made by one of the best war game designers ever - had no problem with kill points. You've put the control points back to original but more than doubled kill points. Explain why kill point values established by GG and affirmed by the Matrix Edition are so far off.

< Message edited by bradk -- 7/7/2019 10:11:23 PM >

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 14
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/7/2019 10:41:56 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk
I don't remember any complaints about scoring on the old PW mailing list concerning the GG method. Matrix which more than doubled control points - a pretty audacious act for a game made by one of the best war game designers ever - had no problem with kill points. You've put the control points back to original but more than doubled kill points. Explain why kill point values established by GG and affirmed by the Matrix Edition are so far off.

GG is a genius, no doubt, and many thanks to Matrix for helping keep this gem alive.

I haven't actually doubled the kill points relative to GGs original values, it's like this, using 10,000 as an example un-multiplied kill points:

Date / GG 1.22 / 3.2.15
Jan 43 / 10,000 / 10,000
Jan 44 / 15,000 / 20,000
Jan 45 / 20,000 / 30,000
Jan 46 / 25,000 / 40,000
Jan 47 / 30,000 / 50,000

The other change is 3.2.15 kill points ramp up linearly, month by month, while GGs jump up once per year.

Honestly, I'm not sure what the right number is Brad. As I said, I simply thought that Japan winning 0.05% of the time is too low, so what could I do about it. It seemed that the kill point multiplier is one of the better ways to try to tweak the win percentages, so I bumped it a little higher. If we think this is unreasonable, I'm not against making further adjustments.

You haven't responded to my question:

"Don't you think that Japan should be able to win the game more than 0.05% of the time? If you could adjust the game, how often would you like to see a Japanese player win? 5%, 10%, 20%? I'd really like to know what you and others think about this."

Please, what do you think? Are you happy with 0.05% win chance? Or is something a little higher better for the game? Also, what do you think of my other proposition about additional victory conditions above?

< Message edited by Rich Dionne -- 7/7/2019 10:44:17 PM >

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 15
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/7/2019 11:10:06 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
My anecdotal response is not data.

For IJ, a draw is a win. For Allies anything other than a win is a loss.

PBEM for IJ I play for a draw. PBEM Allies I play for a win. Vs AI, well, its a waste of time with the crippled AI.




< Message edited by bradk -- 7/7/2019 11:11:21 PM >

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 16
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/7/2019 11:39:46 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk

My anecdotal response is not data.

For IJ, a draw is a win. For Allies anything other than a win is a loss.

PBEM for IJ I play for a draw. PBEM Allies I play for a win. Vs AI, well, its a waste of time with the crippled AI.



Yes, I know it isn't data, but it's indicative, right? OK, so you consider a draw a win for IJ. Maybe we could actually call it a win in the game? What do you think about my proposal for additional victory conditions listed above? Unnecessary? I thought it might have some merit.

Also regarding the kill multiplier change, is it not reasonable to give Japan a little better chance for a decisive victory? That was my intent.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 17
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/8/2019 4:56:28 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
I think Istfemer's idea to change the wording is great.

Concerning the kill multiplier, and to expand on thoughts from some months ago, the score is an objective quantification of reality. But if people look at the map, at the losses, at the remaining capability, at the date, and decide its a win or a draw or a loss, the scoring has to confirm that. Which is why I think changing the kill multiplier depending on help is a bad idea. You have the same game situation with the scoring calling a different outcome.

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 18
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/8/2019 5:51:05 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk

I think Istfemer's idea to change the wording is great.

I remember seeing some great ideas from Istfemer on this, but they also involved some major changes in coding. What I've suggested above is a relatively minor code change. Where is "Istfemer's idea to change the wording", I can't seem to find it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk

Concerning the kill multiplier, and to expand on thoughts from some months ago, the score is an objective quantification of reality. But if people look at the map, at the losses, at the remaining capability, at the date, and decide its a win or a draw or a loss, the scoring has to confirm that. Which is why I think changing the kill multiplier depending on help is a bad idea. You have the same game situation with the scoring calling a different outcome.

I understand your concern here. I was trying to justify this as in addition to Japan on Max Help growing it's industry faster, etc. you also have a pansy Roosevelt hampering the Allies with a greater unwillingness to sustain losses. The higher multiplier forces an expert Allied player to be more careful about his losses and the timeline of his conquests. Seems reasonable to me. How much of an additional multiplier is another valid concern; that's why I was planning on placing the kill multiplier in the editor so players can decide ahead of time how much of a challenge they want.

I wonder if others think this is a good or bad idea?

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 19
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/9/2019 6:48:21 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
Changing the points doesn't change the situation. People don't consider in their hearts their team won or lost a game if everyone knows the result is because a referee blew a call.

Make everything editable. Its great for AI guys. AI won't argue no matter what the settings. But the PBEM guys, with everything negotiable, nobody will ever be able to come to an agreement for a PBEM game. And if they do the advantage goes to the better negotiator, not the better player.

< Message edited by bradk -- 7/9/2019 6:56:44 AM >

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 20
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/9/2019 2:10:03 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk

Make everything editable. Its great for AI guys. AI won't argue no matter what the settings. But the PBEM guys, with everything negotiable, nobody will ever be able to come to an agreement for a PBEM game. And if they do the advantage goes to the better negotiator, not the better player.

Ha! that's really funny! Negotiating Pacwar "house rules" with you must be a real nightmare!!

< Message edited by Rich Dionne -- 7/9/2019 3:03:02 PM >

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 21
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/9/2019 9:26:42 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
Ha to you too!!!

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 22
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/9/2019 10:20:01 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk

Ha to you too!!!

Well, at least we're laughing together, that's some progress!

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 23
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/9/2019 11:11:56 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
I've managed to move the human player aircraft selection list mostly outside of the EXE. What creates the list of aircraft available for upgrade is now contained in the scenario extension files I already added to hold the AI aircraft and factory upgrade paths. The new data for each aircraft is contained in one byte. Bit 1 = IJA, Bit 2 = IJN, Bit 3 = Netherlands, Australia, and New Zealand, Bit 4 = Great Britain, Bit 5 = USAAF, Bit 6 = USMC, Bit 7 = USN, and Bit 8 = Carrier based air. So now each aircraft can be individually selected for which service it was available to. This gives much more selectivity than was available previously, and can be varied from scenario to scenario. It will fix issues like the USMC being unable to select the F4U-1 but able to select a Seafire that Zeke mentioned in another post. This will be coming when I can manage to issue 3.2.16 along with other fixes like the oil depletion problem. I'll try to do more testing pre-release this time.

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 24
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/9/2019 11:49:15 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
"Well, at least we're laughing together, that's some progress!"

Its not personal Rich.

< Message edited by bradk -- 7/9/2019 11:57:59 PM >

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 25
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/9/2019 11:52:25 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rich Dionne

I've managed to move the human player aircraft selection list mostly outside of the EXE. What creates the list of aircraft available for upgrade is now contained in the scenario extension files I already added to hold the AI aircraft and factory upgrade paths. The new data for each aircraft is contained in one byte. Bit 1 = IJA, Bit 2 = IJN, Bit 3 = Netherlands, Australia, and New Zealand, Bit 4 = Great Britain, Bit 5 = USAAF, Bit 6 = USMC, Bit 7 = USN, and Bit 8 = Carrier based air. So now each aircraft can be individually selected for which service it was available to. This gives much more selectivity than was available previously, and can be varied from scenario to scenario. It will fix issues like the USMC being unable to select the F4U-1 but able to select a Seafire that Zeke mentioned in another post. This will be coming when I can manage to issue 3.2.16 along with other fixes like the oil depletion problem. I'll try to do more testing pre-release this time.



Over there --->

Tap Tap... Rich?

Over there ---> The crippled AI.

A lot more important than the effect of exploding shells.

Needs a real fix. Not a nuclear bandaid with all kinds of fallout.

I'm pushing for a decent AI not because I play vs AI - I don't - but because its good for the game. Why am I the advocate on this?

< Message edited by bradk -- 7/9/2019 11:53:40 PM >

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 26
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/9/2019 11:56:36 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
For those who might be unaware, what you have is a crippled AI. The Matrix Edition had a tantrum over "AI Cheating" and disabled a lot of AI features. Then when the game didn't work well instead of backing up they told people to play with Max Help for AI.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 27
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/10/2019 12:34:13 AM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk

For those who might be unaware, what you have is a crippled AI. The Matrix Edition had a tantrum over "AI Cheating" and disabled a lot of AI features. Then when the game didn't work well instead of backing up they told people to play with Max Help for AI.


I've already put much effort into the AI, for the last couple of years; probably 75% of my effort! I've been advocating this from the beginning, when it was low on your priority list. It'll never approach a human opponent, but it's doing a pretty damn good job now (in 3.2.15). I think folks will already have fun with it during their testing. If you'd look beyond the oil depletion issue, Brad, you might have already seen it playing a respectable game. The AI is no longer crippled. It might not kick your ass, but it may scare the hell out of you at times! Even with the oil issue in 3.2.15, you can still see a couple years of excellent combat. Give it try and you'll see. Both Japan and the Allies are strong, particularly when on the attack.

I've even created the ability for the AI (both Allies and Japan) to choose between 3 different attack strategies. The code is all there, I just haven't had time to add strategies 2 and 3 yet. I've been too damn busy responding to unproductive comments from certain people! Trying to get strategies 2 and 3 down is next on my list.

I can't believe you've harped on this Brad, it's one area where I think I've made a lot of progress. You have know clue on the changes that have been made, and you clearly have spent no time actually watching the details of play, or playing against the AI yourself. You've been hyper-focused on watching oil levels drop.

If you're going to make comments, please try to be constructive...

< Message edited by Rich Dionne -- 7/10/2019 12:36:22 AM >

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 28
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/10/2019 12:42:09 AM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rich Dionne

I've managed to move the human player aircraft selection list mostly outside of the EXE. What creates the list of aircraft available for upgrade is now contained in the scenario extension files I already added to hold the AI aircraft and factory upgrade paths. The new data for each aircraft is contained in one byte. Bit 1 = IJA, Bit 2 = IJN, Bit 3 = Netherlands, Australia, and New Zealand, Bit 4 = Great Britain, Bit 5 = USAAF, Bit 6 = USMC, Bit 7 = USN, and Bit 8 = Carrier based air. So now each aircraft can be individually selected for which service it was available to. This gives much more selectivity than was available previously, and can be varied from scenario to scenario. It will fix issues like the USMC being unable to select the F4U-1 but able to select a Seafire that Zeke mentioned in another post. This will be coming when I can manage to issue 3.2.16 along with other fixes like the oil depletion problem. I'll try to do more testing pre-release this time.



Over there --->

Tap Tap... Rich?

Over there ---> The crippled AI.

A lot more important than the effect of exploding shells.

Needs a real fix. Not a nuclear bandaid with all kinds of fallout.

I'm pushing for a decent AI not because I play vs AI - I don't - but because its good for the game. Why am I the advocate on this?


Unbelievable you would attack progress I'm making...

The crippled AI is already fixed. I worked on it for 2 years. It's already in 3.2.15.

These attacks are pretty pathetic. Seriously, please be constructive.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 29
RE: Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Dow... - 7/10/2019 12:47:12 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
" The AI is no longer crippled."


Yea, but you have a nuclear solution with plenty of fallout. You sure didn't spell out your solution was an extra 275 PPs per turn for IJ AI and free LCU activation for both AIs. Why didn't you just put back the GG stuff Matrix took out? THAT is a constructive suggestion made MANY times.

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Pacific War: The Matrix Edition >> Pacific War Update Version 3.2.15 Available for Download Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.176