quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

He should not be overstacking, I'll look at that and the flanking. Part of that is that he can be much less cautious depending on the formation stance.

I just realised that changes may have been made since 3.4 or early 3.5, so I may be using an outdated Elmer. Sorry about that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Here's a good talk about the difference between 'good' and 'fun' AI. Eventually, I also want to add 'personality' to the AIs, some might be more aggressive, some might be more passive. Usage of armor for breakthroughs, different levels of reserves might be kept, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJcuQQ1eWWI&feature=sub

IF year = 1900 AND playerwinning = "Yes" THEN DOWHuman()

Wow.

if (Events.winner() != currentPlayer) {
	if (OPCalendar.calendar.currentTurn > (OPCalendar.calendar.finalTurn - 3)) {
		generalOrdersBias = BANZAI;
		generalEmphasis = ALL_COSTS;
		poAttackFlavor = ATTACKING_STATUS;
		poLog(logPOGeneral, " PO general orders: Banzai.");
		poLog(logPOGeneral, " PO general emphasis: Ignore losses.");
	}
}

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
Ralph,

There is an hour long lecture from Dave O'Connor, (Arjuna), the developer of Command Ops here:

http://www.wargamer.com/hosted/dropzone/articles/index.html

You are probably familiar with the description of the game, but the audio file on the AI algorithms is quite interesting and the short articles are hopefully useful to improve the AI a bit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

He should not be overstacking, I'll look at that and the flanking. Part of that is that he can be much less cautious depending on the formation stance.

I just realised that changes may have been made since 3.4 or early 3.5, so I may be using an outdated Elmer. Sorry about that.

I don't think it has changed that much. I guess the question is what do you mean by overstack? He DOES overstack when prosecuting an attack on the most aggressive level. Other than that he does stack, but tries not to exceed the limit where the overstacking indicator appears.

quote:

(OPCalendar.calendar.finalTurn - 3))

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

The current code tries to help the AI make good decisions, but it may make it a little harder for people to program it. It does this using the total AP force on the map, then it does something else for each of the formations to modify it based on all VISIBLE units within about 9 hexes of the center of the formation. It uses this final multiplier to determine how the AI reacts.

This initial check is the one that I wonder if I shouldn't just eliminate (except for the final push[:D].) I understand why it's there, and how it can help, but it seems like it makes it harder for designers. The other option I might pursue is to treat the designer value as an override instead of a modifier if set to anything other than 'stand'.

quote:

It seems to be a good defensive position, but with a horrible defensive unit arrangement. Can Elmer make a determination like 'if on defense, and stacked in the red, go for some depth' ?

quote:

A unit not planning to move the rest of the turn should/must always dig in.

quote:

Elmer would never push a unit into the subsequent gap.

quote:

assigned his SP unit to Tac Rsv. (assuming Arty is range 5 )

quote:

the above example is a little better than his usual behavior. I probably would not assault that position w/o a few more assets.

quote:

Another question would be is the 'overstacking' necessary. I would think defense in depth would be better. What would other players do if facing a human opponent ?

quote:

This is an example using 3.4. As the German (grey) units are on the defense, they are in a good terrain position (the mountians to the southwest have badlands, so they are good flank protection). But, they are too dense, on minimal losses and not dug in. It seems to be a good defensive position, but with a horrible defensive unit arrangement. Can Elmer make a determination like 'if on defense, and stacked in the red, go for some depth' ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

(OPCalendar.calendar.finalTurn - 3))

I know there is good reason for this, but it usually means that Elmer plays better on the final three turns. I've tried setting him to Attack and Berzerk but he still doesn't go for it unitl the last three turns. Is there a way to trick him into thinking its that late earlier in the scenario ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

The current code tries to help the AI make good decisions, but it may make it a little harder for people to program it. It does this using the total AP force on the map, then it does something else for each of the formations to modify it based on all VISIBLE units within about 9 hexes of the center of the formation. It uses this final multiplier to determine how the AI reacts.

This initial check is the one that I wonder if I shouldn't just eliminate (except for the final push[:D].) I understand why it's there, and how it can help, but it seems like it makes it harder for designers. The other option I might pursue is to treat the designer value as an override instead of a modifier if set to anything other than 'stand'.

I don't understand enough of this to make a useful comment, but the 'VISIBLE units within 9 hexes' thing is something I think Soren Johnson discussed. He said that a human player will generally know the probability of a unit being in a location even if its not visible, and in may cases it is therefore 'ok' to let the PO see units that have been seen previously. I think that's what he said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognard

quote:

Another question would be is the 'overstacking' necessary. I would think defense in depth would be better. What would other players do if facing a human opponent ?

Exactly; this illustrates the difference 'tween Elmer & us. Against Elmer I will overstack to get the odds under 2:1 because I know Elmer won't attack. Against a Hu-man - never, never, never - defense in depth is more tactically sound. Reversing the roles, I would certainly do a frontal assault against a red stack at less than 2:1 just to produce the excess casualties and I would expect any Hu-man opponent to do the same. Whereas if I see your defense in depth (even with > 2:1 odds for the initial attack), a possible counterattack would certainly give me pause in the example above.

Would it be possible to program Elmer with a chance variability in his attack routine? i.e. instead of Elmer just crunching numbers - if certain conditions are met (red stacks, objective hex, key terrain hex) give him a binary yes to attack where he normally wouldn't.

To what extent does Elmer currently recognize key terrain? Chokepoints, flank anchors, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

This is an example using 3.4. As the German (grey) units are on the defense, they are in a good terrain position (the mountians to the southwest have badlands, so they are good flank protection). But, they are too dense, on minimal losses and not dug in. It seems to be a good defensive position, but with a horrible defensive unit arrangement. Can Elmer make a determination like 'if on defense, and stacked in the red, go for some depth' ?

Probably, one issue is that the only defense that Elmer knows right now is a a rolling defense, not a static one. I'll take a look at what he does on defense so see if I can stiffen it.

quote:

He does recognize good defensive terrain and bad defensive terrain

quote:

improve the ability of Elmer to create a 'continuous' front

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris K

I decided to register to see if I could maybe contribute to this thread. I do play a a fair amount of TOAW, but almost exclusively against the PO. Trying not repeat anything anyone else has said (sorry if I am) I would say the greatest weakness of a objective based system is there is no true strategic reserve. For smaller and shorter scenarios this is not a problem but when you get to the large and long scenarios this will leave the PO at a real disadvantage against a player. When a problem or an opportunity appears the player can use their reserves while the PO cannot. You would almost want a group of units without objective that could then take a formations objective (if it is worn out) or share one (to bolster attacks and defence). If the PO could do this, which I know is no simple matter, it would certainly help it. Although once you have the PO being able to do that, it then needs to decide when it should do that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris K

I decided to register to see if I could maybe contribute to this thread. I do play a a fair amount of TOAW, but almost exclusively against the PO. Trying not repeat anything anyone else has said (sorry if I am) I would say the greatest weakness of a objective based system is there is no true strategic reserve. For smaller and shorter scenarios this is not a problem but when you get to the large and long scenarios this will leave the PO at a real disadvantage against a player. When a problem or an opportunity appears the player can use their reserves while the PO cannot. You would almost want a group of units without objective that could then take a formations objective (if it is worn out) or share one (to bolster attacks and defence). If the PO could do this, which I know is no simple matter, it would certainly help it. Although once you have the PO being able to do that, it then needs to decide when it should do that.

This is indeed a PO weakness, but one that can at least partially be compensated by programming a reserve in the editor. In theory the designer can immobilize a formation when under PO control and release it by an event when certain conditions are met like a hex (with or without radius) changing ownership, the variable reaching a certain value, by the victory differential etc pp. However scenario designers can not forsee all possibilities and a flexible, intelligent reserve logic as you propose would certainly be better than a 'hard coded' one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Come on, one more.. ;) for the quadruple...[:'(]

quote:

I have always found the instructions on how to precisely do that a little obscure

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
One of the things I really liked of v3.4 was the opportunity of letting the PO manage the formations, but allowing the player to change their objectives and emphasis on a turn by turn basis. That is fun and close to how I 'd like to play a lot of scenarios, especially the large ones. Also, probably a lot simpler in terms of AI programming.

However, I have always found the instructions on how to precisely do that a little obscure and I am not sure that the option is available in PBEM play. But it is something it'd be nice to emphasize in 3.5/4.