Testing RHSMAIO

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Testing RHSMAIO

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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> Testing RHSMAIO

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Testing RHSMAIO - 5/26/2008 10:44:00 AM

Bogo Mil
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 286
Joined: 1/28/2008
Status: offline

I am playing RHS-MAIO 7.7971 against the AI for one game month now, and I have a few comments. Some things may be bugs, in other cases I probably didn't understand all the concepts of the designers...

* In turn one, the Japanese mine some of their landing sites (Suva, Pago Pago, ...). Then they hit many of their own mines. Shouldn't you give those minelayers a more sensible task?

* Very early (Turn 1?) the AI disbanded the Manila Barge Group at Takao. I don't know why they gave me those 12 points, this ship was never attacked.

* The AI repeatedly bombs Kamen (Amur) without activation of the USSR. The Russian AAA already downed dozens of planes (mostly Ki-51). If nothing else helps, maybe you should simply remove this base completely from the AI oriented scenarios. It wouldn't matter much, because the AI never activates the Russians.

* There are a lot of expanding facilities at the West Coast, New Orleans etc. I tried not to stop too much of the expansion because of this "primary house rule", but this was probably a misunderstanding of this rule. It is completely impossible to do - these construction sites eat up all supplies, all bases are at least light red, some have heavy starvation. But what is for instance an expanding naval shipyard good for, if not as a "supply sink"? The Allies don't need shipyards, HI points etc. The best decision would be to turn off all expansion except repair shipyards and plane factories.

* I don't really like player defined upgrades. I started this game with PDU on, but I try to use the default path when possible. But at some points this is hardly doable:
- The production of the AVG-P40 converts to P40E immediately. But the AVG units upgrade to P51A. Thus the AVG will sooner or later lose all its planes and it is impossible to replace them with PDU off.
- There is a B17D squadron which upgrades to B17D (in other words, it never upgrades at all and would eventually run out of planes).
- The floatplane of the AV Pelican upgrades to Ventura-NF - quite useless on a ship.
- There are a lot of Anson squads. They all upgrade to Lancasters, which are not available before 1945. Is this really intentional? I have no idea what I should do with all that crap until then...

Post #: 1

RE: Testing RHSMAIO - 5/26/2008 11:59:42 AM

el cid again
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

I am playing RHS-MAIO 7.7971 against the AI for one game month now, and I have a few comments. Some things may be bugs, in other cases I probably didn't understand all the concepts of the designers...

* In turn one, the Japanese mine some of their landing sites (Suva, Pago Pago, ...). Then they hit many of their own mines. Shouldn't you give those minelayers a more sensible task?

REPLY: Good idea. This is a modified EOS file - and there were no landings at these points. I didn't think about the Minelayers when I did the changes.

Turns out NO minelaying TFs exist in MAIO. Looks like if a ML is in a transport TF set to unload - it unloads the mines! This is a bad thing - and it is not very easy to fix - all ML must be removed - and then their value as escorts becomes nil. Not nice. It would have to be done in all three AI scenarios too. You have discovered a feature.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/27/2008 12:52:37 AM >

(in reply to Bogo Mil)

Post #: 2

RE: Testing RHSMAIO - 5/26/2008 12:58:58 PM

Bogo Mil
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 286
Joined: 1/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I have heard this from Scot in Seattle as well. We believe this hex may be in a different country in stock. AI is confused by it for some reason. I never have much faith in AI games - and this is just another reason on the long list of why.

Yes, the Soviet border is hard coded. This is also an issue when it comes to their activation (see the CHS house rule about Japanese Attacking the Soviets). I think you have to move all Soviet bases into the hard coded territory or remove them completely in the AI oriented scenarios.

quote:

Yes - this is a misunderstanding. You should expand only deliberately - when and where you can afford it.
Hint: if a thing is set to expand for 3 years AND IF you can afford it - let THAT expand.

Expanding a supply producer (HI or ressources) needs 1000 turns to amortise - almost 3 years. If my decision is not restricted at all, I will stop all that expansion immediately.
Naval and merchant shipyards are completely useless for the Allies. Why do I have them? I understand their function in Australia - the Japanese might capture and use them. But on the West Coast or even inside the offmap areas they are nonsense, imho.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 3

RE: Testing RHSMAIO - 5/27/2008 12:40:35 AM

el cid again
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

Unless someone tells us what hard coded territory is - that isn't possible - but it is a good idea. I once naively thought that "just look at the stock map and you will have it" might be a good technique - but alleged hard coded borders are not detectable in this way. For example, the manual and others say there is some militia rule re Indochina - but I have found NO way to make it happen. Looking at stock hexes for the border is 100 per cent not an indicator of what triggers this - if anything at all does. I have never managed to do it. The Russian border may have a similar issue - and in RHS we use Andrew Brown's solution in this area - we never changed the border (but we DID let rail lines cross it - with gage change penalties - so you can have a LOC crossing borders). It may be we have a problem with just one hex - in which case it might seem easy to fix - but that location is a vital one - and I see no way to ignore it.

(in reply to Bogo Mil)

Post #: 4

RE: Testing RHSMAIO - 5/27/2008 12:46:32 AM

el cid again
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Yes - this is a misunderstanding. You should expand only deliberately - when and where you can afford it.
Hint: if a thing is set to expand for 3 years AND IF you can afford it - let THAT expand.

Expanding a supply producer (HI or ressources) needs 1000 turns to amortise - almost 3 years. If my decision is not restricted at all, I will stop all that expansion immediately.
Naval and merchant shipyards are completely useless for the Allies. Why do I have them? I understand their function in Australia - the Japanese might capture and use them. But on the West Coast or even inside the offmap areas they are nonsense, imho.

I did not really understand - and I do not agree with - Allied shipyards having no function. Nor did I understand - or agree with - the fact they cannot be captured as such - but always turn into repair yards (never mind the Japanese DID build ships in them). Repair yards DO have a function for the Allies - and so do captured yards - as repair yards only.

But HI is different. It is true it takes 1000 turns to pay you back SUPPLY POINTS. But it ALSO pays you in fuel points - and in HI points. These latter may not matter for the Allies - but I build honest databases - and if/when they matter - the data is there. In my view it also is a good idea to have the capital cost modeled - if they are expanding - the steel (the most critical thing, but other stuff too) should not be used to make ships, tanks, ammunition, name it. Note however that there is something CRITICAL to the Allies - aside from fuel - which you will need too: the Allied forces grow so much you NEED that later production to be greater - big time - and if you fail to do it - your operations will be curtailed. THis was a Forum idea - you get what you need in 1944 - but not in 1941 - and it seems to work well. But if you don't let them expand - you will never get what you need in 1944.

In banking terms, you are paid back your investment in 1000 days - in supply point terms - and after that you are paid a dividend - every day for the rest of the game. On top of which you got 1000 fuel points plus an equal dividend in them after that 1000 supply points are paid back. If fuel = supply point in value, you get paid back in 500 days. In a sense you have traded 500 supply points for 500 fuel points at that point - and from then on - every day you are paid a profit dividend. For Japan add that these places produce HI points - and I hope one day to do the same for the Allies. If Matrix never does it - we probably will write a utility that does it anyway - once we have everything else done. Just as we now have ended all off map aircraft production - for technical reasons. Off map production occurs at the map edge now.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/27/2008 12:50:21 AM >

(in reply to Bogo Mil)

Post #: 5

RE: Testing RHSMAIO - 5/27/2008 1:16:52 PM

Bogo Mil
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 286
Joined: 1/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
In banking terms, you are paid back your investment in 1000 days - in supply point terms - and after that you are paid a dividend - every day for the rest of the game.

For investments made in 12/41, the "payback day" is in september 1944. Add the time you need to ship the "dividends" to the front line, and you see that there is no benefit until spring of 45 - the war is virtually over, then. Imho it is more advantageous to have more supplies earlier. But ok, it is a question of strategy, other players' mileage may vary.

quote:

On top of which you got 1000 fuel points plus an equal dividend in them after that 1000 supply points are paid back. If fuel = supply point in value, you get paid back in 500 days.

Will fuel production ever be a problem? I read some AARs (ok, they were not RHS), but I never read about someone who ran out of fuel at the homeland...

About the Soviet border: I don't think any place in the USSR is "vital" for the AI games. The Soviets activate in August 1945, and if the player is not a moron, the AI-lead Japan will not survive that long. Thus it does hardly matter if some of their "vital places" are missing. I think it is much more important to stop the AI from wasting it's planes in such stupid attacks. Again: I'm talking about the AI oriented scenarios only, there is no reason to change the pbem-scenarios.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 6

RE: Testing RHSMAIO - 5/27/2008 8:58:14 PM

el cid again
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

I will look at this - I have little hope for doing AI well - and I have gone farther down that road than anyone else has done. We have some things that "help AI" - but not enough to compensate for its innate lack of a brain. We may - someday - and not in WITP but more likely in AE or WITP II - write a program to fix the AI turn - but it will take years to write - and it is only a maybe. It would be better if AI were rewritten - actually easier. IF code becomes public domain we might do that too. But I don't think that will happen. And unless it does we are bound by a licence agreement term not to mess with code directly.

(in reply to Bogo Mil)

Post #: 7

RE: Testing RHSMAIO - 5/27/2008 9:04:15 PM

el cid again
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

RHS radically changed fuel needs.

We used fuel and range data that is real (I found CHS 155 data "practically nuclear powered" = a ship could go farther at too high a speed but on less fuel than it needed for a lesser distance at a lesser speed). Some players complain ship ranges are too small. If you think the Allies have problems - play Japan: its engines were less efficient - and its ranges suffer even more.

1) Reduced ranges for many ships - by factors as much as 2 or 3 - and usually by a major fraction if not that large.

2) Increased the fuel requirement by ships - again by similar factors.

3) Increased the number of ships - vastly - both in the simple sense - and by creating thousands of multiple ship units -
which can have dozens of landing craft, barges and tugs, dhous, junks, etc - and other times two or three sea trucks -
and all Minesweepers and PC - mainly as two ship units (there is a single three ship MSW unit). So the fuel needed by
these slots is multiplied accordingly.

It is SOP to need fuel - if not in the USA - then on the main map - and you GET it there by MOVING it there FROM the USA
(or other map edge points). We reduced fuel at Aden - in favor of Capetown - more distant - and also the mouth of the
Persian Gulf - which is present as Oman.

You DO need fuel in RHS, or operations will suffer - bye and bye if not right away - depends on your strategy where you send
ships in numbers - and when.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/27/2008 9:06:58 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 8

RE: Testing RHSMAIO - 6/7/2008 10:23:00 PM

el cid again
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

I am playing RHS-MAIO 7.7971 against the AI for one game month now, and I have a few comments. Some things may be bugs, in other cases I probably didn't understand all the concepts of the designers...

* The AI repeatedly bombs Kamen (Amur) without activation of the USSR. The Russian AAA already downed dozens of planes (mostly Ki-51). If nothing else helps, maybe you should simply remove this base completely from the AI oriented scenarios. It wouldn't matter much, because the AI never activates the Russians.

Investigating this I am unable to reconcile our theories with what happens: the borders in stock, CHS and RHS are not changed. But there IS a difference - the hex of Kamen (67,32) - is NOT a defined location - and AI probably does not attack hexes without formal locations - even if it would otherwise do so. The border may be wrong in stock - or some other issue may exist - but changing this hex to no location should work.

Stock has a location - still used by many Soviet reserves - at 66,33 - called Uglahamensk. I simply renamed and relocated Kamen - and moved the two Tank Brigades to the new hex - leaving a Rifle Division to cover the hex. This should mean there is no air attack on this hex when AI controls Japan.

These changes will ONLY occur in AIO, CAIO and MAIO.

(in reply to Bogo Mil)

Post #: 9

RE: Testing RHSMAIO - 6/8/2008 8:29:09 AM

el cid again
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

I am playing RHS-MAIO 7.7971 against the AI for one game month now, and I have a few comments. Some things may be bugs, in other cases I probably didn't understand all the concepts of the designers...

* In turn one, the Japanese mine some of their landing sites (Suva, Pago Pago, ...). Then they hit many of their own mines. Shouldn't you give those minelayers a more sensible task?

I cannot reconcile this report with the data in the scenario files. Unless somehow AI forces a ML to lay mines when it reaches an enemy port - it does not make sense. Not one submarine or ML TF exists - and as far as I know there is no way to create one in the scenario files -
so no such mines should be laid.

In spite of this problem (I don't understand the problem) - I removed the few minelayers from TFs at the start of AI scenarios. This way they cannot lay any mines. IF the problem persists - you are running into Allied mines - no matter what the messages may seem to say. But it would not surprise me the changes prevent the probem from occuring. I don't know if AI will lay any mines at all - but to the extent it will - it will have to create a special ML TF - or sub ML TF - to do so - and that should work properly. Having no ships with mines in initial TFs will prevent them laying any mines - even if they would otherwise do that.

(in reply to Bogo Mil)

Post #: 10

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> Testing RHSMAIO

Page: [1]