RE: AE Land and AI Issues

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: AE Land and AI Issues

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AE Land and AI Issues

Page: << < prev 61 62 [63] 64 65 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 10/26/2009 6:30:13 AM

afspret

Posts: 851
Joined: 2/19/2004
From: Hanahan, SC
Status: offline

If this has been noted already, my apologies.

There seems to be a typo in the LCU name thats based at Hamilton, NZ. Its identified as the Nth Mounted Rifles Bn, and after doing some research I've found that it should probably be the Waikato Mounted Rifles Bn. It was renamed the 4th Mounted Rifles Bn sometime in 1942. According to Wiki, the unit was later posted overseas to Italy from 1943 to 1945.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1861

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 10/26/2009 3:29:56 PM

Iron Duke

Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

The Mounted Rifle Regiments
There were 9 mounted rifle regiments divided into the 3 militart districts

Northern Military District

3 Auckland East Coast Mounted Rifles (AECMR) in game = Auckland (Mtd) Rifl Rgt
4 Waikato Mounted Rifles (WMR) in game = Waikito (Mtd) Rifle Regt
11 North Auckland Mounted Rifles (NAMR) in game = Nth Auckland (Mtd) Regt

Central Military District

2 Queen Alexandra's Mounted Rifles (QAMR) in game = Q Alexandra's(Mtd) Rgt
6 Manawatu Mounted Rifles (MMR) in game = Manawatu's(Mtd) Rgt
9 Wellington East Coast Mounted Rifles (WECMR) in game = Well'n's East (Mtd) Rgt

Southern Military District

1 Canterbury Yeomanry Cavalry (CYC) in game = Canterbury Yeomanry Rgt
5 Otago Mounted Rifles (OMR) in game = Otago (Mtd) Rifles Rgt
10 Nelson Marlborough Mounted Rifles (NMMR) in game Nelson/Marlb. (Mtd) Rgt

In November 1941 they were redesignated as Light Armoured Fighting Vehicles (LAFV) Regiments ie 1 LAFV Rgt , 5 LAFV Rgt etc...

In November 1942? they were again reorganised into 5 armoured regiments and 4 Recce regiments and also regained there old names

In March 1944 they reorganised into 3 armoured regiments

AECMR, WMR and NAMR = 1st Armd
QAMR, MMR and WECMR = 2nd Armd
CYC, OMR and NMMR = 3rd Armd

< Message edited by Iron Duke -- 10/26/2009 3:30:33 PM >

_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to afspret)

Post #: 1862

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/2/2009 12:25:15 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Interesting Iron Duke.

I have them starting as Mounted Rifles and going straight to Armoured/Recce regts

And then 3 of them to Armoured Regts

So I miss out the LAFV Regt phase do you have any data of the TOE of that bit of their evolution

(in reply to Iron Duke)

Post #: 1863

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/2/2009 4:34:42 PM

Iron Duke

Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

My Info came from 'New Zealand Armour In The Pacific 1939-45'
by Jeffrey Plowman and Malcolm Thomas
Kiwi Armour vol.2

States that the LAFV regiments organisation was some what ad-hoc and tended to depend on the availability of vehicles
No actual TOE's just a mention here and there in the text, or captions to photo's
Appears to be a mix of Stuart Hybrid tanks (M3 Hull with M3a1 Turret),LP2 Carriers , Beaverette's , motorcycle combinations , 8cwt and 15cwt Lorries.

Sorry but not much help.

cheers

_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1864

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/2/2009 6:01:51 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

In that case I will probably leave it as is as they have a mix of mounted and vehicle borne in their TOE prior to the full mech conversion

(in reply to Iron Duke)

Post #: 1865

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/3/2009 3:28:01 AM

jcjordan

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

Not sure if it's been mentioned or not but the 3rd Marine Div when�formed is attached to West Coast but the individual rgts (the way it comes in) are attached to the Pacific Fleet. Shouldn't the div also be Pac Flt if formed? This is scen 1 so would probably be in most of the other scenarios as well

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1866

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/3/2009 6:44:33 PM

mariandavid

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline

Andy: My source shows a 'typical' New Zealand LAFV regiment (essentially through 1940-41) as having four squadrons: A had local armoured cars (think the British 'Beaverette'), B and C Squadrons had Bren-gun carriers, D had a mortar troop and a recon troop - the latter with motor-cycles and m/c combinations. Stuart light tanks started to appear late in 1942 and were assigned to all nine. Of the nine, five became armoured and 4 became reconnaissance regiments on December 29th, 1942. The 4 recon regiments now had one squadron with 15 Stuarts, a 'armoured car' squadron with 19 Beaverettes and a motor squadron with 15 carriers, 4 3" mortar carriers, 3 Daimler scout cars and 6 White scout cars (really wheeled APC's). Oh and there were 9 more useless Beaverettes in the communications troop.

Hope this helps.

Note that the other five 'armoured' regiments had a totally different and much stronger organisation with 40 Stuart, 16 Valentine and 2 Matilda tanks.

Of course this is all peak strength and is only applicable for 1943 - but it would be nice if needed for the Allied 'Ironman'!

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 1867

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/5/2009 3:20:40 PM

Roko

Posts: 36
Joined: 4/4/2008
Status: offline

there are two 10th Mortar Bn at same location ( units 3590 and 4195 )
typo or duplication ?

(in reply to afspret)

Post #: 1868

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/5/2009 7:11:42 PM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

IIRC I think one of them is part of a higher formation (brigade or division)

_____________________________

(in reply to Roko)

Post #: 1869

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/6/2009 1:40:34 PM

Fishbed

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

Small OOB typo: the famed Hyakutake is named Hyakatuke in my guad game. I guess his name got mistreated sometime in the middle of the development�

�

< Message edited by Fishbed -- 11/17/2009 4:36:07 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 1870

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/11/2009 11:09:07 PM

jcjordan

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

Not sure if it's been mentioned or not but land unit 2694 has the wrong eng device. It shows a device 321 (which isn't active in this game) so shouldn't it be either 939 or 1108 instead? This is scen 1 patch 1 but would asssume it'd cover most of the other long full campaign scenarios as well

(in reply to Fishbed)

Post #: 1871

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/17/2009 1:19:12 PM

P.Hausser

Posts: 416
Joined: 8/16/2009
Status: offline

Hi OOB staff.

Can somone explain why US Rifle Divisions has 273 Squads instead of 243 ?

as described in this thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2295030

_____________________________

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 1872

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/17/2009 1:35:16 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Joel would need to answer that one as its lost in the depths of OOB building for me - I suspect it was part of the comparative AV/Firepower/role discussion we had and we probably counted something as rilfes that are not counted in that way elsewhere

(in reply to P.Hausser)

Post #: 1873

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/17/2009 11:16:46 PM

jcjordan

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

Kinda a wish list thing for the future but would it be possible to add when a land unit upgrades a device to the end of turn report like when you see a ship or air unit upgrade?

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1874

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/26/2009 7:50:05 PM

Menser

Posts: 206
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Peabody, Massachusetts
Status: offline

Beta patch
Royal Mounted Canadian Police Terrace Base force starts 1 hex from its base in all scenarios.

Not sure if its was before beta or not
Some TOE's list 0 units in all scenarioes ..... i.e USA 21st infantry regiment 105mm M3 Howitzer x0 , IJA road Construction company Aviation support x0. Are these placeholders or does the unit actally get some of these units over time?

_____________________________

"Alea iacta est." Caius Julius
"If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing." Emo Philips
"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." Abbot Arnaud Amalric

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 1875

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/26/2009 10:03:27 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

RCMP is an errort I will fix for offical patch thanks

0 devices isnt really an error the 0 zv support is an AI thing - the AI gets to expand av support if it needs it in some units

Basically the AI is a moron and occasionally some enterprising human player finds and sinks the engineer unit with av support that was ordered to garrison base x

sometimes base x is a CRITICAL base in how the AI moves air groups - now the AI is a moron - did I mention that...

So if base X is critical but it has no av support because enterprising player has sunk the engineer unit destined for that base and the AI is a MORON and does not replace that unit because i havent told it to then that air group move fails...

So because I dont want the air group move to fail I give other units occasionally 0 av support it doesnt affect the player but the little moronic AI knows that if AV Support = 0 at base and base needs Av Support and unit with Av support = 0 is at base then add 1 Av Support to unit and voila the script is back in business because now th ebase has a point of Av Support.....

And that gents is why some units have av support = 0 in their TOE - because the Ai is a moron and I have to assume that sometimes you will - despite my best efforts - get that SAG in amongst the AI transports and cause a massacre

(in reply to Menser)

Post #: 1876

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/27/2009 4:34:40 AM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

RCMP is an errort I will fix for offical patch thanks

0 devices isnt really an error the 0 zv support is an AI thing - the AI gets to expand av support if it needs it in some units

Basically the AI is a moron and occasionally some enterprising human player finds and sinks the engineer unit with av support that was ordered to garrison base x

sometimes base x is a CRITICAL base in how the AI moves air groups - now the AI is a moron - did I mention that...

So if base X is critical but it has no av support because enterprising player has sunk the engineer unit destined for that base and the AI is a MORON and does not replace that unit because i havent told it to then that air group move fails...

So because I dont want the air group move to fail I give other units occasionally 0 av support it doesnt affect the player but the little moronic AI knows that if AV Support = 0 at base and base needs Av Support and unit with Av support = 0 is at base then add 1 Av Support to unit and voila the script is back in business because now th ebase has a point of Av Support.....

And that gents is why some units have av support = 0 in their TOE - because the Ai is a moron and I have to assume that sometimes you will - despite my best efforts - get that SAG in amongst the AI transports and cause a massacre

Yet again, thank you Andy for explaining things like this. It is interesting and helpful to know the " whys " relating to game design.

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1877

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/27/2009 4:47:24 AM

Menser

Posts: 206
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Peabody, Massachusetts
Status: offline

Kewl Andy,
But How does that explain the other "devices" like the Howitzers above?

_____________________________

"Alea iacta est." Caius Julius
"If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing." Emo Philips
"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." Abbot Arnaud Amalric

(in reply to stuman)

Post #: 1878

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/27/2009 5:15:29 AM

Gary D

Posts: 164
Joined: 6/6/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

The 3 Chinese divisions that comprise the 66th Corps (28th,38th,39th) do not individually have a withdrawl date. However if you combine them into a Corps size unit, the Corps has a withdrawl date 450 odd days down the road. Seems it should work consistently, either they withdraw or they stay regardless of combining into a Corps?

The divisions start in Chunking and historically fought in Burma, ending up stranded in India I believe.

All the best!

(in reply to Menser)

Post #: 1879

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/28/2009 6:06:31 PM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser

Hi OOB staff.

Can somone explain why US Rifle Divisions has 273 Squads instead of 243 ?

AndyMac is correct -- we 'normalized' squads (for the US Army, 13-men) and counted every man with a rifle in a combat role. So, in addition to the division Recon battalion there are riflemen at platoon, company and battalion level that have to be counted -- some directly at headquarters, others in 'heavy weapon' or similar support platoons and companies.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to P.Hausser)

Post #: 1880

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/28/2009 6:48:15 PM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

Posted from Base sticky forum.

Christmas Island (785) � all forces here on Dec. 7, 1941 should be back in PH or US and Navy base unit should probably be a USAAF base unit instead; the �civilian� construction unit should probably disappear outright. The island was unoccupied by any significant Allied forces at the start of the war. First units arrived on Feb. 10, 1942.

While I agree that the forces on Christmas Island could hardly be called 'significant' there were a few hundred engineers there on December 7th -- 150 men from the 804th EAB and between 70 and 200 (accounts differ) civilian contractors. In late November, two 75mm field guns arrived with 800 rounds and one artillery sergeant to train gun crews from the engineers. The island was commanded by Cpt J.T. Shields. The unit has low morale because the contractors and the military had a poor working relationship. After Pearl Harbor the contractors on Christmas Is. rioted and demanded to be sent home -- martial law was declared. [As opposed to Wake, where the contractors provided support for the Marines in combat, and manned a few of the crew-served weapons.] All this is reflected in-game.

As you say, on February 10th the permanent garrison force arrived -- about 2000 men in Birch Force, built around the 1/102nd Infantry Regiment, and two coast artillery (AA) battalions.

The main island is called Kirimati today. It is the largest coral atoll in the world.

_____________________________

(in reply to Pascal_slith)

Post #: 1881

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/28/2009 7:06:18 PM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I posted this below but thought I would move it to here so it would be noticed in time for the next patch if thought to be appropriate.

Realizing that any Internet information site may not be 100% accurate, in an about the following site, show that a Bn of the 201st Infantry Reg. and a company of Engineers were at the Sitka, Alaska base location in addition to the Base Force.

http://niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/_41_usarmy/alaska/__alaska.htm

That site also reflects elements of the Alaska Coastal and AA Defense Regiments, but those seem to have already been account for in the Naval Base Force. However, the base force does not include the Marine Guard Detachment which is reflected at the USN OOB of the above site. The game's bases of Dutch Harbor and Kodiak do reflect their Marines at 10 squads each (the site shows a Marine Barracks at Kodiak and Dutch Harbor NB & NAS have a guard Detachment each).

I sort of think the absence of the above are just oversights but if not, the overall impact (other that the additional ongoing supply requirement to continuously support them)is not that great but may more historically accurate. .

From my first glance at my sources, it looks like you are correct about the 201st. I'll make a note to try to insert a fix into an upcoming patch. WARNING: It may not happen, because adding 1 new unit means we need to adjust every scenario and every applicable AI script.

The base force is intended to include the engineer and AA companies -- and the marine garrison will naturally 'fill out' as the 10 marine squads are part of the TOE.

_____________________________

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 1882

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/28/2009 9:10:35 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

Question re auto withdrawing units.

I want to provide a regular supply line into Port Darwin and not force an ahistorical reliance on using shipping to supply the base. Might relate to other areas such as replicating ALCAN or similar.

If I create a LCU to arrive in Port Darwin with the required amount of supply and then withdraw it after a day or two will the supply with the unit go into the Port Darwin pool??

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 1883

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/29/2009 1:58:03 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Better to use the convoy LCU they automatically disband to pool.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 1884

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/29/2009 3:57:25 PM

Buck Beach

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I posted this below but thought I would move it to here so it would be noticed in time for the next patch if thought to be appropriate.

Realizing that any Internet information site may not be 100% accurate, in an about the following site, show that a Bn of the 201st Infantry Reg. and a company of Engineers were at the Sitka, Alaska base location in addition to the Base Force.

http://niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/_41_usarmy/alaska/__alaska.htm

That site also reflects elements of the Alaska Coastal and AA Defense Regiments, but those seem to have already been account for in the Naval Base Force. However, the base force does not include the Marine Guard Detachment which is reflected at the USN OOB of the above site. The game's bases of Dutch Harbor and Kodiak do reflect their Marines at 10 squads each (the site shows a Marine Barracks at Kodiak and Dutch Harbor NB & NAS have a guard Detachment each).

I sort of think the absence of the above are just oversights but if not, the overall impact (other that the additional ongoing supply requirement to continuously support them)is not that great but may more historically accurate. .

From my first glance at my sources, it looks like you are correct about the 201st. I'll make a note to try to insert a fix into an upcoming patch. WARNING: It may not happen, because adding 1 new unit means we need to adjust every scenario and every applicable AI script.

The base force is intended to include the engineer and AA companies -- and the marine garrison will naturally 'fill out' as the 10 marine squads are part of the TOE.

Thank you.

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 1885

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/30/2009 7:15:17 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

Thanks Andy, I assumed they were LCU's

PS Found them, after the Chinese & Filipinas & Russians.

Sent a convoy there and the 500,000 supply pts went into Port Darwins pool, excellent.
Now to work out a monthly requirement to keep approx 1 Div & Airpower happy.

< Message edited by JeffK -- 11/30/2009 9:44:32 AM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1886

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/30/2009 11:05:14 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

It can be in any slot Jeff there is a check box middle left on the loc screen that determines whether a unit is a convoy or not

Andy

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 1887

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/30/2009 11:06:34 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

In a new addon for modders you can now add aircraft to convoy units in the same way as LCU devices so if you need one off injections of aircraft you can have them arrive in convoys as well.

I have only used that functionality for the invasion reinforcement convoys but it does exist

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1888

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/30/2009 1:16:52 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

Andy,

With regard to what you stated above about the AI being a moron please consider the following feedbackwhen looking into tweaking the AI:

Since the AI will do incredibly stupid things that no human would ever do it is not very difficult to trounce it, even during the Pearl attack.

In my most recent game, the Hakko Ichiu scenario, the AI brought it's carriers to within 3 hexes of Pearl on day 2. The AI has a bad habit of leaving air combat TFs in the same hex turn after turn after turn. On turn 3 I sortied every available combat ship in Pearl (2 CAs 10 DDs and 3 groups of PTs). Both CAs limped back to Pearl heavily damaged, 2 DDs and numerous PTs were sunk, but 3 IJN Fleet Carriers limped home in flames.

The AI detached the heavily damaged Shokoku and some DD escorts and that TF limped due eastward while the rest took off to the NW to make the historical hit on Midway.

The Shokuko TF limped right into the waiting arms of my two carriers returning to Pearl after sinking the Wake Island invasion force. The result was the sinking of a Jap carrier in the first week of the war.

The key here is that the AI is so predictable in leaving it's ACTFs in the same hex turn after turn I was able to gamble with my remaining SC ships at Pearl with a good chance of success.

I am in late January now with the AI running carrier raids on Java while I sorty SCTFs out of Darwin to slaughter one transport TF after another in places like Kendari, Makkasar, Ternate and so on. Only once, after a run on Kendari did the AI react by bringing in a BB SCTF. It has made no effort to cover the area with either LBA or Carrier air to deter my runs. It also routinely runs both invasion and supply convoys to the "front lines" (meaning the edge of possible Allies retaliation) with little to no surface combat escort.

I can undersdand the AI running supply convoys to Batan Island with only TB, E or PB escorts, but doing so at Wake (the second attempt) or Kendari in Jan '42 is definitely a moronic move.

After beating up the AI in the first 3 months in the historical sceanrio I moved on to the Hakko Ichiu sceanrio and the AI is less aggressive and further behind in taking historical objectives.

I guess I'll try the Iron Man scenario next and try my best to play as "shocked and off balance" as the Allies were historically to give the AI a better chance to succeed in the early months.

Hope this AI performance feedback is useful.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1889

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 11/30/2009 2:27:29 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

A good player will always eventually pick up on AI patterns and exploit them nothing I can do about that Hans

Feedback is alway welcome and I will take a look but there is a limit to what an AI can achieve.

You are taking advantage4 of a pattern you have observed from your first few games fair enough not a lot I can do about it

The AI still uses dinky little TF's again not something I can do a lot about its actually benefifical in unloading speed but it puts a hell of a strain on japanese escorts int he early going with so much ground to achieve

In Scen 1 AI really doesnt have enough escorts to do what it needs so some TF's are vulnerable
Scen 2 less so as we added more ahistoric escorts
Scen 10 very much less so as I went crazy and made sure the Ai had enough escorts.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 1890