(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Paul Vebber -> (1/7/2001 7:31:00 AM)

Point taken, although I think that limitations of AI vs a human opponant are necessarily flaws as much as limitations... Suggesting that proper tactics mitigates much of a problem (tactics that take a human to implement in the game) didn't deserve quite that big a slam [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] We will do our utmost to see that your faith is not misplaced :-)



orc4hire -> (1/7/2001 9:47:00 AM)

Heh. Well, okay, maybe I was a little too harsh, I'll give you that one, but I was surprised, and it was a bit late for me to be up posting.... [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]



frank1970 -> (1/8/2001 3:40:00 PM)

I asked my great uncle about the attacking of KV1 with bad trained boys. He told me that in the beginning of the war all methods of tankfighting with infantry were new. Until Russia the Wehrmacht fought enemy tanks with their Paks or with 88s. In Russia the frontlines were too long to give every unit 88s and the Pak did not work at all (ok, it worked but it didn´t knock out enemy tanks but just knocked on the armour). The first weeks the troop paniced, then the soldiers attacked the tanks with infantry weapons. They had losses but they got the experience they needed to effective kill enemy tanks. My great uncle told me that he was fighting the most time in forests or swamps. In this areas tanks were rare and the surrounding was good for infantry: the tanks moved slowly and the tankers could not see too much. The "Panzerbekämpfer"(=tankfighters) climbed up trees or hid in trenches then jumped and attacked the tanks. He told me it was a defence measure and rarely used in attacks,(" We weren´t silly, it wasn´t the infantry´s job to attack enemy tank formations, that was the job of the Panzer units or the Luftwaffe"). The "Panzerbekämpfer" were organized in small troops (2 or 3 men), who were specialiced on fighting tanks. A company had about 2 or 3 troops of those tankfighters (this means about 9 men out of 150 ) they were handpicked soldiers, fast good trained, very fit and clever. My great uncle told me you had a good chance to survive the attack on a SINGLE tank, even in open area. But attacking more than one in the open was very dangerous and was only done in nightfights or when the tankfighters could use lots of smoke ammo. He also told me that one man was lost at almost every attack (per troop). The type of tank was not so important, he told me. The slower and greater the better he says (Maybe the dead circle around a tank depends on the size of a tank?? I don´t know it and my great uncle didn´t explain it). Summary: He would in no case have attacked attack any tanks (more than one) in the open, no T34, no KV1, no BT7, not with green boys and not with elite soldiers. [This message has been edited by Frank (edited January 08, 2001).]



orc4hire -> (1/8/2001 10:32:00 PM)

Thanks, Frank, that's very interesting. Sounds like tough duty; I'm glad your great uncle made it through.



Larry Holt -> (1/9/2001 12:02:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Point taken, although I think that limitations of AI vs a human opponant are necessarily flaws as much as limitations... Suggesting that proper tactics mitigates much of a problem (tactics that take a human to implement in the game) didn't deserve quite that big a slam [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] We will do our utmost to see that your faith is not misplaced :-)
If I may continue to harp on the AIP, not intending to minimize the work Matrix is doing... I just see "simple" things that might make better tactics for the AI. Now I'm working on a mail gateway and the addressing logic is basicly a rules based AI so I look at the SPWAW AIP from this perspective. Things like if a hex has units killed in it in the last turns, don't go there unless its a victory hex could be implemented based on rules and would help the AIP to be less brain dead. Please take this as constructive critism and not a slam against all the hard work Matrix has done. I'm still ready to order you first commercial game, whether or not its a subject I like, just to support you all. By the way, when can I order a Matrix hat or T-shirt? That would generate income and be appreciated by the your gaming supporters. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.



orc4hire -> (1/9/2001 12:18:00 AM)

Hmm.... Paul, if you guys don't have a 'buy Matrix crap' infrastructure already in place, the kids at http://www.cafepress.com/ do it for free. Supply them with a logo (or logos) and they setup an online store where people can buy mugs, mousepads, and tee-shirts (in a few different styles). You set the price the items sell for; they take a fixed cut ($10.99 for a tee-shirt, $9.99 for a 12 ounce mug, etc), you get everything above that. I'm not affiliated with them, etc., etc., Larry just reminded me of them and it does look like a good way to maybe turn a few bucks while you're finishing those new games....



Scipio Africanus -> (1/9/2001 2:36:00 AM)

I can attest that in the game, against a real opponent (read human), an infantry company will not succeed unassisted against a tank platoon in open ground- in fact you will lose every single time as the infantry if you are required to cross any distance (say 200 yards). Infantry assisted by halftracks, smoke, and artillery will do much better in open ground when facing tanks- but the tanks will also do much better if assisted by the same... Of course this assumes a human opponent and full realism (no non C&C wussies need complain about any realism issues- "my platoon are avatars of Vishnu, they see all and hear my command")- Any tank platoon that can't stop an infantry company in open ground is commanded poorly- So the AI falls into this category for sure- but if your tanks can't stop an infantry charge, you need to check to see if suppression is turned on or something- I've played dozens of email games, usually taking a lot of infantry against tanks- unassisted infantry will not do well in open ground against tanks under full realism and against a human opponent with any skill. Combined arms with a large percentage of infantry, applied properly, will do quite well against tank heavy formations. Cheers, ------------------ Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus



Scipio Africanus -> (1/9/2001 2:53:00 AM)

I also want to mention that the comment I just made about the AI was not meant to be disparaging to Matrix- the current state of the art is that AI is pretty bad in all games. I know, I've modified the AI of several games and it takes a tremendous amount of time even to see marginal improvements. Complaining about AI is often done by those who know absolutely nothing about it- any idiot can say "that's not what a real person would do..."- congratulations on your 60 I.Q. and 7th percentile analytic skill in recognizing that. But actually getting the AI to respond to the variety of situations that may arise in a game is extremely difficult- sports games, which have very limited scope and have massive production budgets, still routinely fail in terms of AI (generally falling back on brute force cheating rather than anything more interesting and challenging). AI does goofy things, that's the way it is and that's the way it'll be for a while- so what? so play other people, who cares if you beat the computer anyway? Cheers, ------------------ Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus



Paul Vebber -> (1/9/2001 7:23:00 AM)

We don't take any barbs at the AI personally...We have just as much trouble as any of you :-) But if we are going to develop a new AI - we have to be able to recover teh investment, so it will be used in Combat Leader. There is just no way to do what we want to do in SP... [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/frown.gif[/img] That was a big reason we went to online play, so it was easier to play a human...



Larry Holt -> (1/9/2001 8:46:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Scipio Africanus: I can attest that in the game, against a real opponent (read human), an infantry company will not succeed unassisted against a tank platoon in open ground- in fact you will lose every single time as the infantry if you are required to cross any distance (say 200 yards). ... Cheers,
Scipio Africanus, I would agree if the infantry has to advance. However, if the infantry is dug in, using reverse slope defense, with some AT sited for good cross fire and killing zones, I'd take the infantry. Tanks would be popped open by unseen infantry/engineers unless the armor has heavy artillery to supress them first. IRL an armor force just can not lay a carpet of HE in front of its every move. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.



Paul Vebber -> (1/10/2001 1:05:00 AM)

A note on patch progress in this area. Crews and snipers attacking tanks were tested, outof 20 attempts with an average 2% success rate, none were succesful. IT is now harder for troops to pass their pre-assault morale check, especially if they have much of any suppression. A 75 morale unit with no suppression will have a 50/50 chance or so. A bug was also fixed that was essentially tripling the hit chance behind the scenes.



orc4hire -> (1/10/2001 1:26:00 AM)

Thanks Paul. It sounds like that will bring things down to a reasonable level.



Larry Holt -> (1/10/2001 2:31:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: A note on patch progress in this area. Crews ... A bug was also fixed that was essentially tripling the hit chance behind the scenes.
That's why we love matrix. Players bring up this issue, Matrix looks at it and when warranted (as in this case) we get what we want, a bug fix. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.



BA Evans -> (1/10/2001 6:39:00 AM)

Hi Larry, From previous discussions, I believe that the % chance during an assault is NOT the % chance to hit, it is the % chance to DESTROY! Supposedly this took into account the weapons used, experience, and other factors Can this be confirmed, Paul? I am referring to the assault percent, not shooting or using the 'c' key. Thanks, BA Evans
quote:

Originally posted by Larry Holt: Fantastic discussion!! OK, I have two gripes: 1)Soviet squads equipped with moltov cocktails (could also be other armies with them but I've only tried the Soviets): They have some chance to hit, shown by the pop up box just before the attack is resolved. It seems if they hit, they are always (100% of the time) effective. BUT just because they hit the target does not mean that the burning gasoline should always destroy the target. I mean, AT rounds must first hit, then penetrate. I do not have any statistical analysis from WWII on the number of MCs thown that were effective but one of the things I learned in the current US Army is that MCs are NOT very effective. When the container breaks, most of the fuel is consumed in a fire ball, leaving little fuel for raising the temperature of the target to the burning point. I think MCs should either have a two step attack resolution (hit then effect) or have their effectiveness reduced. 2) My attacks by elite (~110 experience) German engineers on imobilized Soviet tanks show a probability of around 30%! How hard is it to place a satchel charge under an imobile tank? Granted some troops would be shaking in their boots for fear of supporting fire hitting them while crawling up on a tank but elite, battle hardened troops? I think the routine should boost the to hit probability way up there (+90% or so) for veteran or elite troops with low suppression (5 or so). Clearly green troops or highly suppressed troops could still rush up and stumble or run away from fear so they should not get any advantage.



BlitzSS -> (1/10/2001 7:08:00 AM)

Great job of debuging Paul and company, Thanks.



Scipio Africanus -> (1/10/2001 11:58:00 AM)

Hi Larry, I agree with you completely- in fact I almost always take infantry over tanks and then try to confuse my tank heavy enemy into error upon error... I was just responding to one of the main lines in this thread in which someone was saying that they were able to charge infantry across open ground at a bunch of (AI) tanks and never lost a unit. Having won many battles against human controlled tank formations with my Russian infantry, I have never come close with the "charge 'em up the hill" routine. In fact, my infantry in open ground gets hosed by tanks unless they are supplemented by combined arms tactics... I should have been more clear about to whom I was speaking. Cheers, ------------------ Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus



Scipio Africanus -> (1/10/2001 12:01:00 PM)

That's correct B.A.- I had asked Paul a while back why I was getting higher bazooka percentages at 2 hexes than 1- the 2 hex number is % to hit (and good luck once you've done that) and the 1 hex number is % to kill. ------------------ Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.703125