|
cbelva -> RE: Love This Game (12/3/2014 3:36:26 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wadortch
Hello all.
Not to put a damper of any kind on what I think is potentially a great game too, but after playing it pretty intensively now against a human and becoming somewhat bewildered about the AI mechanics actually work.
Someone mentioned in a post not long ago that the missed the designers notes section of the old (and wonderful mostly) SPI games. Development of such notes focused on how the AI is working would help hugely here.
Well, after experiencing a lot of seemingly inconsistent game actions, it would sure help me try to become a better and less frustrated player of the game to understand several things and above all, if there is not some basic imbalance in the game in favor of NATO that goes beyond doctrine or weapons superiority on the NATO side.
I can guarantee you that there is no "coded in-game NATO bias". In fact we have had posts accusing us of the opposite. That the NATO tanks were too weak against the Soviets. Unfortunately this is just a computer program and it does what it does. Computer AI will always only be just so good. It can't and won't mimic appropriate human behavior all the time. With the technology that we have today, I think the AI in FPC does quite well.
quote:
My list below comes from an ongoing head to head contest in the HM BS scenario.
1) Multiple Soviet artillery neutralizing artillery strikes against a singe Chieftan tank in the open cause no casualties. Multiple British artillery strikes against Soviet Tank and Infantry units under Hold orders in Urban Terrain cause multiple casualties. These are not dense targets--single infantry units and 2 tank units (in another next totaling 20 tanks before they get blown away in a single turn).
There are different factors that go into casualties caused by arty. One of the main culprits that I have found when I have noticed one's side arty is not as effective is the number of guns firing. That's on the scenario designer. The caliber and number of guns can make a big different.
quote:
2) Soviet Tank units under assault orders in the same hex with British infantry fire at targets 2-5 hexes away and sit in the that same hex without causing any casualties to the infantry literally undertrack. British tanks fire into this same hex and cause casualties to the Soviet Tanks. How does the assault order actually work with respect to the unit so ordered executing the order and assaulting units in the target hex?
I need to know a little more info. Where is the hex in question? Are the tanks and inf in an urban hex? Infantry in urban are hard for tanks to kill. There are a lot of calculations ongoing and routines being called ref spotting and firing. Capn D can speak to the technical side of this since I am not a programmer, just a player who have had a lot of time in the game. Yes they will fire on a unit in another hex even if they have units in the same hex that are engaging. Units in other hexes can and are a threat to them too. My experience, they fire on them both. However, they usually fire on the units in their hexes more than others.
Think of assault as the old cavalry charge. The idea is to move fast towards the enemy you are attacking. You use it is you want to actually want to assault the enemy's hex. I don't use it very often. Its a good way to get units killed since they are more exposed as they move towards the enemy. \Since units are moving fast, they are not using cover very well. On the other hand, deliberate movement is slower, the units is using available cover and possibly even fire and maneuver techniques.
quote:
3) Helicopter tactics, same issue. How does the AI decide that a helicopter overhead a visible enemy unit engage targets hexes away (and I am not talking about enemy AD units firing at them) instead of the guys right under them?
As far as spotting, basically what I said above. I see them doing both. Capn D will have to speak to the technical side of things.
quote:
I have read a lot about Soviet doctrine, superiority of NATO weapons in books and in the Forums for this game. But it does not seem to play out. Soviet tanks do not score kills at close range commensurate with NATO tanks at long range, etc.
We could argue all day on some of these things. My experience is that Soviet tanks are more deadly up close, but so are NATO tanks. That naturally gives them an advantage. Soviet's greatest strength is their number. NATO tanks dug in in defensive terrain have a real advantage and the Soviets have a hard time assaulting them. But if you were to flip it around, the same NATO tanks trying to assault Soviet tanks dug in have a hard time too.
quote:
ALL of which is to say some explanation about how the game AI is doing things would be very helpful for me to continue to play this game and to learn to play it well. Right now, it is real tough to tease out what is systematic, random, or simply biased in the execution of the turns.
Walt
I was an army officer in the 80 who trained to fight this war (So glad I didn't have to). I have played a lot of wargame and have found that very few have struck me like Red Storm in putting me back in the command track as an operations officer planning and coordinating the battlefield. It is not perfect and it has its warts. But the development team is trying to learn and improve as we go along. We are constantly looking at the combat model, the AI, etc, evalutating them and tweaking them by trying to push them a little farther. But they will never be perfect. But as a simulator that allows a player to experience the decision making process that a commander goes thru as he plans and fights the battle, it does a pretty good job.
|
|
|
|
