polog command line (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design



Message

Arimus -> polog command line (7/3/2006 5:43:05 AM)

I read mention of a command line flag for toawIII exe but the link with details was dead.
Can I have just a brief summary on how to use the polog flag? Thanks!



JAMiAM -> RE: polog command line (7/3/2006 6:16:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arimus

I read mention of a command line flag for toawIII exe but the link with details was dead.
Can I have just a brief summary on how to use the polog flag? Thanks!

Right click on your desktop shortcut for TOAW III, select "Properties" from the menu, then the "Shortcut" tab. Insert into the end of the "Target" line a space then "polog" as shown in the screenshot. Click OK. Then, each time that you start a game where there is a PO opponent, the game will write a po log file in the Saves folder. It will be a .TXT file named per the scenario. Subsequent games will overwrite any existing po logs, so if you want to keep them, then you should rename them, or move them to a different folder.

[image]local://upfiles/10882/1B5727A3F2364430A86EEBDEBB43C3D5.jpg[/image]



Arimus -> RE: polog command line (7/3/2006 6:31:05 AM)

Thanks.
I was pretty close, was using -polog



ralphtricky -> RE: polog command line (7/3/2006 8:24:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arimus

Thanks.
I was pretty close, was using -polog

That should work too.



Arimus -> RE: polog command line (7/3/2006 3:34:03 PM)

doh! I had -prolog...

That article you referenced in the other thread, does it explain the log entries? Most are obvious, but some, like "Formation flank is not secure" are not as clear. I'm not asking anyone to repeat information that is available elsewhere. If it is in that other thread, I will wait till it is forum is repaired.

Thanks!



ralphtricky -> RE: polog command line (7/3/2006 11:37:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arimus

doh! I had -prolog...

That article you referenced in the other thread, does it explain the log entries? Most are obvious, but some, like "Formation flank is not secure" are not as clear. I'm not asking anyone to repeat information that is available elsewhere. If it is in that other thread, I will wait till it is forum is repaired.

Thanks!

There isn't anything formal that describes the polog.

Formation Flank is not secure means exactly what it says. The flank is determined by a line perpindicular to a line drawn from the last objective to the center of the formation. For some reason, Elmer felt that his flank was threatened. That will sometimes change his stance.

Ralph



Arimus -> RE: polog command line (7/4/2006 2:42:55 AM)

Then what was the article on the PO that you were referring to? I would like to know more about how the PO reacts. Currently its all trial and error...



ralphtricky -> RE: polog command line (7/4/2006 4:11:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arimus

Then what was the article on the PO that you were referring to? I would like to know more about how the PO reacts. Currently its all trial and error...

The manual has a good overal description. I started a post over here on SZO. I thought I staerted one here at Matrix, but the search isn't working.

For an initial cut, program it like you'd tell a person to play it.

http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38098




Arimus -> RE: polog command line (7/5/2006 12:40:33 AM)

Thanks for the link, that is what I was looking for.



Szilard -> RE: polog command line (7/5/2006 5:19:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38098



Tks for that thread - hadn't seen it before.

Is this still correct - seems very different from earlier versions (not that that's a bad thing):

quote:

Place objectives every 10-20 hexes at most. Don't place them too close together, it isn't necessary, and will confuse Elmer. You'll have to experiment with the scenario and the spacing to find out the 'best' spacing for that scenario.


On this:

quote:

Local Strength - the local strength can modify any orders you give. For example in Arracourt, even though the Germans are ordered to attack, they will sometimes 'Consolidate' (retreat) because they are outnumbered both in the theater and locally. This can make for Elmer reaslistically falling back to regroup in some scenarios, but makes some scenarios like Arracourt seem to perform worse than they do. One HUGE advantage that this behavior has is that there is less 'tweaking' required using events to get ELmer to recognize local conditions.


As in the other thread on formation orders/loss tolerance/etc, I think a prob here is that it can conflate things too much. Think of it on the defense - eg, if I want a formation to move away from its position to and deploy to defend somewhere else. If Elmer thinks he is locally very strong, and depending on other loss tolerance, force bias etc etc, it can result in his orders to the formation actually being something like "advance" - away from any objectives. (I need to go back into the polog to isolate the actual occureence, but that's the effect.) The formation ends up forward & unsupported, to be deeply outflanked next turn by enemy forces which were not part of the Local Strength calculation (because they were too far away, or unspotted, or not deployed until the next turn etc etc).

Maybe there should be a set of formation orders which ignore Local Strength, or a flag you can set to make Elmer ignore it, or something like that.

Also, I'm not sure how far out Elmer looks for the LS calculation, but at least on defense i think it should be about equal to the movement allowance of the faster enemy forces (for obvious reasons). I get the impression it's less than that at the moment.



ralphtricky -> RE: polog command line (7/5/2006 8:08:32 AM)

The 10-20 is just a guess. The designers will have to offer feedback on what the correct way to do it is.

I think the reasoning behind the local strength was that it would make the PO more responsive, and easier to program. It normally does. I think that eventually, I'll have to add an obedience slider or something for each formation, although I might be able to get away with Hold at all costs and Advance at all costs orders.



Szilard -> RE: polog command line (7/5/2006 10:59:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

The 10-20 is just a guess. The designers will have to offer feedback on what the correct way to do it is.

I think the reasoning behind the local strength was that it would make the PO more responsive, and easier to program. It normally does. I think that eventually, I'll have to add an obedience slider or something for each formation, although I might be able to get away with Hold at all costs and Advance at all costs orders.



Don't think you want "Hold at all costs" ?? Doesn't seem to address the prob, as far as I can see.

Maybe this is the nub of it: Attacking is generally OK, but defending needs work. At the moment, there seems to be a symmetry between the two - an attacker will turn into a defender if its prospects don't look good enough; and a defender will turn intoan attacker if its prospects look excellent. But this is a mistake. By default, formations should be defensive; attacking should require some explicit instruction.

So a formation with "Defend"-like orders should never have these orders modified to anything "Attack"-like by Elmer; but the reverse is fine - perfectly OK for an attacker to turn into temporarily into a defender if opposition is too strong. (Obviously, "Defend" should continue to allow local attacks to restore a line, pinch off breakthroughs etc. )

I think this might work well, and it appears to have the implementation advantage of just requiring some stuff to be turned off, rather than anything much new in the way of code.



golden delicious -> RE: polog command line (7/5/2006 5:05:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Szilard

So a formation with "Defend"-like orders should never have these orders modified to anything "Attack"-like by Elmer;


That would be great for the player. He can completely denude sections of the front and have no fear of being attacked there.



Szilard -> RE: polog command line (7/6/2006 2:18:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious



That would be great for the player. He can completely denude sections of the front and have no fear of being attacked there.


Doh! back to th drawing board ....



Arimus -> RE: polog command line (7/6/2006 11:11:37 PM)

I wouldn't be so hasty to dismiss the changes discussed above because a few players may use "gamey" tactics to beat the PO in a few scenarios.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.25