Combat Events vs Combat Reports

Combat Events vs Combat Reports (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

jcax101 -> Combat Events vs Combat Reports (8/12/2017 10:11:08 PM)
Hi, Stock game with current patch but no beta. Why do some naval searches show up on the combat events and not on the Ops report? And when you play the AI, does the AI follow the torpedo supply rules for its bombers? Thanks, Scott

rustysi -> RE: Combat Events vs Combat Reports (8/14/2017 7:00:16 PM)
quote: Why do some naval searches show up on the combat events and not on the Ops report? I can only say that maybe those in the combat events report were there due to an attack. Not really sure. Never even checked before. Does it really matter? quote: And when you play the AI, does the AI follow the torpedo supply rules for its bombers Again, never really checked. The AI is given certian 'liberties' to make it easier to function. Don't know if this is one of them. Again, does it really make a difference. Just as a curiosity, why no 'beta'. They're really not a 'beta' in the true sense of the term. It was just MichaleM fixing and tweaking bugs and things. The latest did fix a big one I would think the Allies would appreciate late war. It had the do with AE's and 'unrep'. The AE's were not properly resupplying Allied warships. Fixed!!![:)]

BBfanboy -> RE: Combat Events vs Combat Reports (8/14/2017 9:10:40 PM)
Many "Combat Events" are total FOW phony, only there to give the atmosphere of the real life FOW. If you are following the text in the lower left window, the blue text is almost always pilot imagination. I think D/L of things plays a part in what gets into the Ops Report. No idea about the torps supply question, but as rustysi says some things were streamlined for the AI because of programming limitations. For example, I had a careful blockade and search cordon around a Japanese base and the AI produced a CA SCTF many hexes behind my lines, too far (36 hexes) to reach in a "cloaked" sprint! The CA had been attacked unsuccessfully in the blockaded port the turn before. A programmer of the game later confirmed that the AI can just "place" such a TF on the map without sailing a path there. I don't think that was "cricket" logically, but I guess the idea was to force players to escort their stuff back in rear areas. That would be a fair way to prevent the Allied player from forward-loading everything.

Barb -> RE: Combat Events vs Combat Reports (8/15/2017 7:00:06 AM)
Combat Events - this is what is shown to you during main replay (Supply, contacts, etc.) - both sides share some of the messages (upper case), side specific are lower case Combat Report - this is where combat takes place (exception being CAP vs LRCAP type of combat) - both sides should see the same, text report generated can differ from combat animation (mainly air-air), others are close Operational Reports - this is just side specific messages, search results, kills, crash landings, construction and unit arrivals, etc. AI use of torpedoes - IIRC AI treats Torpedoes as always available - even without Air HQ presence.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Combat Events vs Combat Reports (8/15/2017 1:56:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy Many "Combat Events" are total FOW phony, only there to give the atmosphere of the real life FOW. If you are following the text in the lower left window, the blue text is almost always pilot imagination. I think D/L of things plays a part in what gets into the Ops Report. No idea about the torps supply question, but as rustysi says some things were streamlined for the AI because of programming limitations. For example, I had a careful blockade and search cordon around a Japanese base and the AI produced a CA SCTF many hexes behind my lines, too far (36 hexes) to reach in a "cloaked" sprint! The CA had been attacked unsuccessfully in the blockaded port the turn before. A programmer of the game later confirmed that the AI can just "place" such a TF on the map without sailing a path there. I don't think that was "cricket" logically, but I guess the idea was to force players to escort their stuff back in rear areas. That would be a fair way to prevent the Allied player from forward-loading everything. I think it's just an artifact of the scripted AI, not any attempt to affect gameplay either way. When trigger points of various kinds are met, the script "fires" the next script or sub-script. If this requires TFs to be formed, particularly combat TFs, the AI "teleports" available ships to the formation port. I always suspected when I played the AI that there were limits to this, either in number or kind, but I don't have firm data. When you look at the programming it's easy to see why teleporting is needed. The "new" script isn't visible to the AI code until it fires. The need for the new TFs is a function of the new script(s). For the AI to "see" that, say, the three CAs and five DDs it will need at Truk in an unfired script are currently at Rangoon, and then form them, sail them, protect them from Rangoon to Truk, is a massive coding challenge, and moreover would require forward viewing unfired scripts in an environment where they may never BE fired. A human player knows he may need those ships at Truk in a month, so he begins to move them. The AI doesn't have that ability. So it teleports when it needs TFs to service the new script.

Alfred -> RE: Combat Events vs Combat Reports (8/15/2017 5:08:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jcax101 Hi, Stock game with current patch but no beta. Why do some naval searches show up on the combat events and not on the Ops report? And when you play the AI, does the AI follow the torpedo supply rules for its bombers? Thanks, Scott They are a separate sub set of combat operations which produce much less "contact friction". Decisions had to be made to streamline reporting priority otherwise turn resolution would become "sluggish". Alfred

Alfred -> RE: Combat Events vs Combat Reports (8/15/2017 5:12:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy Many "Combat Events" are total FOW phony, only there to give the atmosphere of the real life FOW. If you are following the text in the lower left window, the blue text is almost always pilot imagination. I think D/L of things plays a part in what gets into the Ops Report. No idea about the torps supply question, but as rustysi says some things were streamlined for the AI because of programming limitations. For example, I had a careful blockade and search cordon around a Japanese base and the AI produced a CA SCTF many hexes behind my lines, too far (36 hexes) to reach in a "cloaked" sprint! The CA had been attacked unsuccessfully in the blockaded port the turn before. A programmer of the game later confirmed that the AI can just "place" such a TF on the map without sailing a path there. I don't think that was "cricket" logically, but I guess the idea was to force players to escort their stuff back in rear areas. That would be a fair way to prevent the Allied player from forward-loading everything. I think it's just an artifact of the scripted AI, not any attempt to affect gameplay either way. When trigger points of various kinds are met, the script "fires" the next script or sub-script. If this requires TFs to be formed, particularly combat TFs, the AI "teleports" available ships to the formation port. I always suspected when I played the AI that there were limits to this, either in number or kind, but I don't have firm data. When you look at the programming it's easy to see why teleporting is needed. The "new" script isn't visible to the AI code until it fires. The need for the new TFs is a function of the new script(s). For the AI to "see" that, say, the three CAs and five DDs it will need at Truk in an unfired script are currently at Rangoon, and then form them, sail them, protect them from Rangoon to Truk, is a massive coding challenge, and moreover would require forward viewing unfired scripts in an environment where they may never BE fired. A human player knows he may need those ships at Truk in a month, so he begins to move them. The AI doesn't have that ability. So it teleports when it needs TFs to service the new script. A good summary of the practical challenge faced by the devs. Unfortunately it will be totally disregarded by all those posters who regularly excoriate the AI (and thus by association the devs) even though these complainers have never coded a game as complex as AE. Alfred

PaxMondo -> RE: Combat Events vs Combat Reports (8/15/2017 6:30:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred A good summary of the practical challenge faced by the devs. Unfortunately it will be totally disregarded by all those posters who regularly excoriate the AI (and thus by association the devs) even though these complainers have never coded a game as complex as AE. Alfred +1 Look at MWIF ... still no AI and only some rough ideas of how to do it ...

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Combat Events vs Combat Reports (8/15/2017 7:09:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred A good summary of the practical challenge faced by the devs. Unfortunately it will be totally disregarded by all those posters who regularly excoriate the AI (and thus by association the devs) even though these complainers have never coded a game as complex as AE. Alfred +1 Look at MWIF ... still no AI and only some rough ideas of how to do it ... I look in at that forum every couple of weeks just to read the wails. It's a really big boo-boo heap of a design and launch process. (Choose your own consonant there.) I have no doubt an AI for that game would be monumental, so I feel awe that I can fire up AE's AI whenever I like. I played three full GCs against the AI. I learned an immense amount about the game and had a lot of fun. I wouldn't play it again now (maybe Downfall), but it's a fine thing to play for a long time. With some of the AI mods even longer.

witpqs -> RE: Combat Events vs Combat Reports (8/15/2017 7:23:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred A good summary of the practical challenge faced by the devs. Unfortunately it will be totally disregarded by all those posters who regularly excoriate the AI (and thus by association the devs) even though these complainers have never coded a game as complex as AE. Alfred +1 Look at MWIF ... still no AI and only some rough ideas of how to do it ... I look in at that forum every couple of weeks just to read the wails. It's a really big boo-boo heap of a design and launch process. (Choose your own consonant there.) I have no doubt an AI for that game would be monumental, so I feel awe that I can fire up AE's AI whenever I like. I played three full GCs against the AI. I learned an immense amount about the game and had a lot of fun. I wouldn't play it again now (maybe Downfall), but it's a fine thing to play for a long time. With some of the AI mods even longer. +10 I got to the point where AI is not so much of a challenge as a human opponent, and the time that took plus the degree of challenge presented during that time speaks great praise for what the developers accomplished with the AI! [&o]

Numdydar -> RE: Combat Events vs Combat Reports (8/20/2017 8:17:22 PM)
As far as World in Flames goes, I am just amazed it plays as well as it does. Just like I am with AE [:)] So I really have no complaints with either of these games as it is not like I have the room anymore to play the board versions of either [:(] SPI's War in the Pacific board game is what I am referring to and AE has nothing to do with that game nor Victory in the Pacific just to be clear [:)]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.048828