RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (Full Version)

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



Message

ColinWright -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (5/19/2008 7:14:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: viridomaros


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

not something that actually occurs on a regular basis.



Take any scenario where player 2 counter attack on a large scale for several turns and it's a nightmare for player 1 because of what Legun, Colin are saying.

I'm currently playing Braunschweig as the axis and the russians have started to counter attack. I can't count the number of units which stay unsupplied despite being able to reestablish the supply lines at the end of my turn.


Deleted uncalled for, personal attack. Keep it clean, Colin.


So 'Bobism' is out. How about 'Bobismo'?



JAMiAM -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (5/19/2008 8:49:13 AM)

I'm pretty sure you know that 'Bobism' isn't what got your post edited, and that what was edited was clearly not appropriate for a company-managed website. It's fine for you and Bob to debate, argue, cajol, and needle each other in trying to make your points, but what you previously posted has no place on these boards. Like I said, let's keep it a 'clean fight'.



ColinWright -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (5/19/2008 9:09:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I'm pretty sure you know that 'Bobism' isn't what got your post edited...


It's perhaps pointless to mention it, but in that case, I have no idea what you are talking about -- your certainty to the contrary notwithstanding.



JAMiAM -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (5/19/2008 10:33:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I'm pretty sure you know that 'Bobism' isn't what got your post edited...


It's perhaps pointless to mention it, but in that case, I have no idea what you are talking about -- your certainty to the contrary notwithstanding.


PM sent.



ColinWright -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (5/19/2008 10:41:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I'm pretty sure you know that 'Bobism' isn't what got your post edited...


It's perhaps pointless to mention it, but in that case, I have no idea what you are talking about -- your certainty to the contrary notwithstanding.


PM sent.


Oh that. The intention was to accuse Bob of rigidly denying everything regardless of the evidence. It wasn't meant as you read it, but I suppose you do have a point...



JAMiAM -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (5/19/2008 4:31:02 PM)

Thank you, now carry on...



Legun -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/3/2008 9:38:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

Back to the problem of big pocket from picture above:
1. The Germans enter the critical hexes and the bulge isn't cut:

2.I attack the narrow connection and the group is cut again:

3. The Germans push off my spearheads again:

4. My main forces are coming and cut the retreating group one more time:

The cut group is without supply for 3 turns, although a two hexes wide pass to supply source was established two times.


That seems to be a sequence that you contrived just for this discussion - not something that actually occurs on a regular basis.


Oh, Bob. You try to doubt my frankness again, don't you? No - this is a game I was playing. Could I send you e-mail adress of my opponent?
This is just a trick I always try to implement when I'm P2.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Regardless, note that your alternative would have meant that, despite having been cutoff during three consecutive Russian player turns, no German units in the pocket would have ever been considered cutoff when attacked by Russian units. And that would be the case, even if they were cutoff right from the start of the Russian player turns and just relieved at the very end of the respective German player turns. And note that it just takes Russian combat units to cutoff the Germans, while establishing communications requires more vulnerable supply columns and retreat paths for "evaporated" units instead.


This isn't perfect, but there are 3 grades if my proposition is impemented:
1) An unit isn't cut off and gets full supply
2) An unit has strongly contested supply lines and it gets half of possible supply
3) An unit is completely cut off and doesn't get any supply.

It's much better than using one of present situations:
"P1 standard" - situation 2 gets supply like situation 1
"P2 standard" - situation 2 gets supply like situation 3



Curtis Lemay -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/5/2008 6:32:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun
Oh, Bob. You try to doubt my frankness again, don't you? No - this is a game I was playing. Could I send you e-mail adress of my opponent?
This is just a trick I always try to implement when I'm P2.


1. I remain dubious. It just looks contrived. But, regardless of how that example originated, we know that such cases (total reversals of initiative occurring multiple times in very short intervals) are rare in history. And, therefore, by definition, they should be rare in historical simulations as well. I still think that most surrounded units don’t recover from that condition.

2. And regardless of how common it may be, we’ve seen that it’s not clear-cut just how to deal with it, given the abstractions of IGOUGO.

3. Finally, regardless of either of the above, it is for certain that what you want will cause a doubling of the supply calculation time. That would be a black stripe against it even if its value were not so ambiguous.



ralphtricky -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/5/2008 7:59:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun
Oh, Bob. You try to doubt my frankness again, don't you? No - this is a game I was playing. Could I send you e-mail adress of my opponent?
This is just a trick I always try to implement when I'm P2.


1. I remain dubious. It just looks contrived. But, regardless of how that example originated, we know that such cases (total reversals of initiative occurring multiple times in very short intervals) are rare in history. And, therefore, by definition, they should be rare in historical simulations as well. I still think that most surrounded units don’t recover from that condition.

2. And regardless of how common it may be, we’ve seen that it’s not clear-cut just how to deal with it, given the abstractions of IGOUGO.

3. Finally, regardless of either of the above, it is for certain that what you want will cause a doubling of the supply calculation time. That would be a black stripe against it even if its value were not so ambiguous.

3.4 should reduce supply calcualtion time substantially. I'm seeing times of less than a second for CFNA, and about 2 seconds for FITE for example.




ColinWright -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/5/2008 8:31:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




1. I remain dubious. It just looks contrived. But, regardless of how that example originated, we know that such cases (total reversals of initiative occurring multiple times in very short intervals) are rare in history.


Something of a red herring. We're not discussing what happens in history, but what happens in the game. Now, if you feel that what happens in the game isn't realistic, and want to propose a more sweeping revision...

Anyway, and in any case, I've seen exactly what Jarek is talking about in scenarios I've played. If it's a close fight, it's often a dog fight, and given two competent players, the two sides quickly wind up alternately cutting each other off.

It really is something that commonly happens in OPART. Trust me. Trust Jarek. So can we concentrate on how to solve the anomalies that result instead of arguing about whether the situation exists in the first place?



Curtis Lemay -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/6/2008 6:10:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
3.4 should reduce supply calcualtion time substantially. I'm seeing times of less than a second for CFNA, and about 2 seconds for FITE for example.


Then that would make it a moot point. But, just to be safe, tell us what your equipment is, please.



ralphtricky -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/6/2008 7:56:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
3.4 should reduce supply calcualtion time substantially. I'm seeing times of less than a second for CFNA, and about 2 seconds for FITE for example.


Then that would make it a moot point. But, just to be safe, tell us what your equipment is, please.

Pentium-M 2 Ghz, 1 processor. It was top of the line 3 years ago.




Karri -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/6/2008 10:16:06 PM)

I remember when FitE took like 3-4 hours to calculate...boy was that boring. Now it takes a few minutes.



ralphtricky -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/6/2008 10:22:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

I remember when FitE took like 3-4 hours to calculate...boy was that boring. Now it takes a few minutes.

Faster CPUs and better algorithms. The faster CPUs are at least a 10x speedup and the faster Algorithms are at least a 10x speedup. The only slowdowns I'm seeing are the darn Aircraft carriers. They'll be up on the chopping block sometime. I figure I can speed them up a bunch too with a little creativity.

Ralph



rhinobones -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/7/2008 2:57:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
The only slowdowns I'm seeing are the darn Aircraft carriers. They'll be up on the chopping block sometime. I figure I can speed them up a bunch too with a little creativity.


With one of the major Wish List items being a more realistic naval game, this has to be a priority if you plan to accomodate the Navy.

Regards, RhinoBones



ralphtricky -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/7/2008 3:13:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
The only slowdowns I'm seeing are the darn Aircraft carriers. They'll be up on the chopping block sometime. I figure I can speed them up a bunch too with a little creativity.


With one of the major Wish List items being a more realistic naval game, this has to be a priority if you plan to accomodate the Navy.

Regards, RhinoBones

The issue is that it looks at moving the carrier one hex, then at all the hexes the planes can reach, then looks at moving it another hex, and .... As you can imagine, you end up with one huge circle for all the spots the carrier can hit, then one for each of those that the planes can hit.

It's an incredibly simple and very expensive check. I just need to figure out what a more efficient way to do this is. Even just doing one circle with a range of the combination of the ranges of the carrier and the aircraft would be a lot better. I need to look at that again sometime and figure out why Norm did it the way he did.

There are some other problems like this with land, aircraft and navy, so I'll eventually end up with doing something to fill a 'field' with their influence and the other influences and working from their to figure out 'what would elmer do'<g>

The full rewrite is definitely something for the next version, since it's a major redesign for Elmer.

Ralph



morganbj -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/7/2008 4:42:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

3.4 should reduce supply calcualtion time substantially. I'm seeing times of less than a second for CFNA, and about 2 seconds for FITE for example.



Outstanding. While it's better than before, it could still use some improvement. Thanks!



rhinobones -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/7/2008 4:50:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
The full rewrite is definitely something for the next version, since it's a major redesign for Elmer.


I suspect that this is only one of many features that require a total rewrite.

BTW, what are your Nazgul doing?

Regards, RhinoBones



ColinWright -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/7/2008 5:29:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
The only slowdowns I'm seeing are the darn Aircraft carriers. They'll be up on the chopping block sometime. I figure I can speed them up a bunch too with a little creativity.


With one of the major Wish List items being a more realistic naval game, this has to be a priority if you plan to accomodate the Navy.

Regards, RhinoBones

The issue is that it looks at moving the carrier one hex, then at all the hexes the planes can reach, then looks at moving it another hex, and .... As you can imagine, you end up with one huge circle for all the spots the carrier can hit, then one for each of those that the planes can hit.



This probably isn't helpful, or maybe it's what the program already does -- but how about viewing the aircraft carrier and its planes as a single piece of ranged artillery?



Curtis Lemay -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/7/2008 6:16:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
The issue is that it looks at moving the carrier one hex, then at all the hexes the planes can reach, then looks at moving it another hex, and .... As you can imagine, you end up with one huge circle for all the spots the carrier can hit, then one for each of those that the planes can hit.

It's an incredibly simple and very expensive check. I just need to figure out what a more efficient way to do this is. Even just doing one circle with a range of the combination of the ranges of the carrier and the aircraft would be a lot better. I need to look at that again sometime and figure out why Norm did it the way he did.

There are some other problems like this with land, aircraft and navy, so I'll eventually end up with doing something to fill a 'field' with their influence and the other influences and working from their to figure out 'what would elmer do'<g>

The full rewrite is definitely something for the next version, since it's a major redesign for Elmer.


One simplification that pops out to me is to restrict the carriers to their objective paths, or very near them. Isn't that why we program those paths anyway?

Regardless, note that this is only an issue with the PO. Human use of carriers is not an issue. Personally, I think the PO has already gotten too much revision attention for not much effect. It's a gigantic black hole, down which an almost unlimited amount of effort can be poured without any discernable result.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/7/2008 6:19:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
This probably isn't helpful, or maybe it's what the program already does -- but how about viewing the aircraft carrier and its planes as a single piece of ranged artillery?


The problem is that it's a piece of ranged artillery with a movement allowance of 300 and a range of 300.



ColinWright -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/7/2008 8:48:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Personally, I think the PO has already gotten too much revision attention for not much effect. It's a gigantic black hole, down which an almost unlimited amount of effort can be poured without any discernable result.


Hear hear. I usually bite my tongue when it comes up -- but I for one have limited interest in the P.O. I'd far rather revision effort went elsewhere.



Legun -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/8/2008 12:51:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Personally, I think the PO has already gotten too much revision attention for not much effect. It's a gigantic black hole, down which an almost unlimited amount of effort can be poured without any discernable result.


I strongly support. I've tried to test my scenario against the new Elmer, but he still isn't challenging opponent for experienced player. Ralph, sorry to say it, but it looks you try to reach situation when playing against Elmer isn't boring for a beginner after 3 turns, but after 6 turns[sm=nono.gif].



Karri -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/8/2008 3:34:01 AM)

Even with Silvanskis unchallenged skills the PO still can't accomplish anything really...let's face it, it would need a COMPLETE overhaul. I mean, currently it's so poor that even if you improve current system to be ten times better, it still sucks.



ColinWright -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/9/2008 12:19:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

Even with Silvanskis unchallenged skills the PO still can't accomplish anything really...let's face it, it would need a COMPLETE overhaul. I mean, currently it's so poor that even if you improve current system to be ten times better, it still sucks.


The only uses I see for the P.O. -- pending Ralph making a major breakthrough in the field of artificial intelligence -- is for newbies to get their feet wet, sadists to rout hapless enemies over and over (no offense intended -- I happily do this myself in some other games), and simulating combatants who pretty much lacked coherent command and control of their forces: the Dutch in 1940, the Russians in 1941, the Arabs in 1948. I suppose in principle it would also work fairly well for any force that was conducting an extremely static defense. Like, one might be able to do a pretty good Operation Compass with the P.O. as the Italians or a Crete scenario with the P.O. as the British.

In other words, the P.O. has its uses -- but improving it isn't the same as improving the game itself. It's like getting the ultimate stereo for your car -- nice, but how about those transmission problems?



viridomaros -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/10/2008 12:54:33 AM)


I have the same oppinion, TOAW is really fun when you play against a human opponent. Playing against the AI can be fun for some scenario but just for a while or to do some kind of tests. i'd prefer to see the game's engine to be completely revised before having a better AI.



JMass -> RE: P1/P2 supply and movement recovery (6/10/2008 6:12:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: viridomaros
I have the same oppinion, TOAW is really fun when you play against a human opponent.

i'd prefer to see the game's engine to be completely revised before having a better AI.


I agree, I never play against the AI.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625