|
Post by jeff on Mar 10, 2021 20:20:26 GMT
I thought this might be a good place to just discuss stuff, and leave the update thread to Update news ? What do you think Sirs ?
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Mar 10, 2021 20:59:20 GMT
Ha Ha...the Massive bunches of Artillery. Yes, they tend to cluster up too much. I am working on that. You hit upon a key problem with the AI. Once upon a time I tried to build little divisions. Art, AD, Inf, Tank, Tank, etc. varied a bit for different types of division, and countries. These single division groups worked pretty well, but they had a tough time keeping the Art unit defended. Unless they just sat, and never tried to move. I had noticed a tendency 'shall we say' of my own keeping two artillery together to give mutual support. I also was using the rail lines to move them...which I really need to address that a bit. Moving by rail, and being able to fire. Works a heck of a lot better than trucks. Maybe a little too much better ? Maybe I should not get them out of the trains at the end of their move ? Let them sit in the trains to get strafed...like being in trucks.
If I do not spend the AI's money on little Garrison units all over the map. (Russia, and England Especially.) I as a human alway flew troops in to land at the undefended airfields. So, now I made the ai try to garrison all those little airfields. At least the ones in flying range. (Which might vary depending on the e-file.)
Plus he has to garrison conquered cities...partisans, or air landing threat again.
Buying tanks, and planes eats a lot of the production. Leaving a wee small budget for Divisions !
The planes. Fighters in particular. The AI is terribly afraid of getting out numbered. It likes to have a 3:1 ration of fighters. (Mainly because humans are such cunning creatures.) It also totals up the Experience of fighters on the map. (At least the ones it knows about.) If the other side has a +2 bonus. Like one side is average 3.5 Exp, and the AI is only 1.5. It gets really worried again. And then kicks into the Kamikaze mode. Buying a bunch of 5 pointers to wear you down. it will look for your air units who are low on ammo, and then try to swarm it. It has caught some of my favorite fighters sometimes.
TAC bombers are so fragile. It's hard to keep them alive without fighter escort. (Well not the FW-190 types. Or some of the better Fighter Bomber turned to TAC's.) So ya need a bunch of fighters to escort TAC's around.
The last night or so, I have experimented with having the AI build more forts ! This is sort of interesting, and certainly changed my game play a bit. There were 4 of those monster forts in Strassbourg (?) (big French Western City nearest Germany.) My 150's were pretty much useless, and I had no Level Bombers, so I just went around them. Or, am in the process of going around them now. Poles built quite a few too. I went around them. Starve them out seems to be the best way.
The AI had one good chance to slow me up pretty good, but did not have enough money to put a full division down. Just the Art, and maybe an inf. Perhaps I should build the maneuver regiments first ? Inf, tank, etc. Then plant the artillery. Hmmm....maybe a good idea.
Anyway...sorry about the herds of Artillery, AD. I promise I will work on that.
The Factories are rubbish...don't bother with them yet. I should disable that button. Factories will take quite a few changes in the game system. Probably best to dump 'production/prestige' concept, and move to coal, iron, and other resources. But, that is pretty much a whole game in itself. The current system may not be as historically accurate, but it ain't too horrible. Bit more fun I think.
Hey, I thought I fixed the cost bug. Did I not put that version up yet ? Yikes, I'll check.
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Mar 10, 2021 21:19:00 GMT
I worked on the Unit names a bit. Trying to get that all sorted out. Like the Mk-32 part. E-file still has a 20 character limit. Could be bigger, but might have to re-work the screen to accommodate them.
|
|
|
Post by teophrastusbombastus on Mar 10, 2021 23:38:02 GMT
The Factories are rubbish...don't bother with them yet. I should disable that button. Factories will take quite a few changes in the game system. Probably best to dump 'production/prestige' concept, and move to coal, iron, and other resources. But, that is pretty much a whole game in itself. The current system may not be as historically accurate, but it ain't too horrible. Bit more fun I think. As it is known from the past I'm a Factory fancier but I understand it is a different game. Maybe something to think about seriously one day this current PGX form is stabilized to the point there's not really much more to fiddle with. The concept, to me, implies dumping "production" as a completely abstract figure (number) coming from (just) cities and used for purchases / upgrades. As I think of it, it's the purchases part of the game that I see go away first, substituted by equipment producing Factories. Of course, that brings the question, if equipment is now produced by Factories what for do we use / need production. Either we do without or find other ways of keeping it relevant. The old idea for the latter were the infamous "production" logistic chains to carry production "made" in Factories to the front. So, some Factories would produce equipment and others "production" that had to reach the front, or in other words, "production" would become "supply". Obviously, in current game conditions that would be a player's unit moving nightmare, unless the thing was made AI controlled to the most possible. In which case it would be a nightmare just to the programmer. This logistic chain thing is actually yet another one I've seen working in incipient stage in a game - Strategic Command. Just merchant ships loaded with a number of points, randomly generated and traversing the Atlantic from West to East, from old memory. Xlightwavex sometimes mentions he will some day make his game. Unfortunately I never got to copy his JP's scattered posts on the subject. From memory I do remember he also mentioned frequently... mineral resources. Not just the two or three more obvious but a variety of'em. Things like tungsten and manganese. Of point systems I don't remember mention. It was to be playable by various players online, each one with a country. Was it up to 8 players at once? Probably around that...
|
|
|
Post by valorius on Mar 11, 2021 0:01:59 GMT
If I had played full equipment exchange again I would have some 3 ranger Artilleries in many of the Axis countries. With limited equipment exchange it's just Germany; eventually Italy will join in. The new R/D, theoretically, may solve that, provided the smaller countries find some to invest and Range is the ball coming down the chute. More: negatory on IT 47mmATG name including the Mk-1 add-on but being out of limit. Seen ST 45mmATG Mk-1; same length as but it shows. Upgrade board allows pressing the button a second time next turn on the already upgraded unit for an announced cost of 1. Although it does not give a second dose of the bonus. The second production point I actually didn't catch if it is collected or not. I always convert and/or eliminate 75mm guns in my custom eqp files, upgrading them all to 105mm guns instead. Not historically accurate, but it makes the AI far more challenging when they can ONLY buy 3 range or better artillery. The AI just doesnt know it should be favoring bigger guns in almost all situations. I also upgraded 105mm damage to 15sa 11ha, since some 105mm guns already had that damage, i just made it universal. It makes the 105mm guns and therefore the lesser countries much more capable of defending themselves. Artillery is called King of the battlefield for a reason. On the naming issue, if you remove the country identifier at the beginning it will certainly have a big impact on editing the eqp file because everything is sorted, more or less, by nation. The days of typing "IT" (for instance) into the eqp editor and cycling through all that nations units would be over. If you're not a person who is into modding the eqp file you'd never even know that though, of course. I also added German 12.8cm, US 120mm, UK 3.7" and Soviet 122mm AD units with 14 Air attack at the appropriate availability dates, to help defend against level bombers. These units have 0 mobility.
|
|
|
Post by valorius on Mar 11, 2021 0:34:33 GMT
JEFF: I agree AI has to defend airfields, and is generally competent at it, tending to use it's most elite infantry units to do so, but never using the elite infantry offensively for some reason.
I would suggest if possible coding the AI to use AA (preferably) or AD (alternative) units to defend airfields.
German 8.8mm AT units are absolutely perfect for this duty cause they also have a high air attack rating. And since airfields are clear terrain, their 0 close defense rating doesnt come into play. Thus they are devastatingly effective for guarding airfields. Whenever i play as germany i use either 8.8 AT guns or the quad 20mm AD guns, but in my equip file ive converted them to AA units with 0 movement and 1 range. Attacking airfields protected by quad AA guns...no fun. (under my system a quad 20 or 23mm gun is 12sa, 8ha, 12aa but can only attack low level aircraft or adjacent ground units)
Unfortunately not every nation has AT guns with high air attack nor 0 movement AA units for air base defense. A 0 movement bofors 40mm AA unit (converted from AD) is also competent in this role (5sa, 5ha, 10aa, 1 range in my eqp file). For units like germany that have tons of cheap units, i convert a lot of them into already existing weapons, but in a different class.
One frustrating thing, the AI will still move 0 movement units you placed for them (to add challenge) via railway.
I've personally always thought that AD units should be able to initiate offensive attacks, but SSI felt otherwise. Not sure why.
|
|
|
Post by valorius on Mar 11, 2021 0:57:04 GMT
TAC bombers are so fragile. It's hard to keep them alive without fighter escort. (Well not the FW-190 types. Or some of the better Fighter Bomber turned to TAC's.) So ya need a bunch of fighters to escort TAC's around. In my efiles i convert a LOT of fighter units that suck as fighters into tactical bombers. P47B's and D's for instance- tremendous as self escorting fighter bombers, but generally cheap as fighters. (I have my own universal grading system for offense and defense and apply them to all units of all nations uniformly). A single .50 cal MG, for instance, counts as 3 air attack, .5 soft attack, .25 hard/naval attack. So a 8x .50 cal P47 has a gun rating of 24AA, 4SA, 2 HA/NA. If the plane is rocket capable, it gets another +1sa/+2ha. If it is bomb capable, again, another +1sa/+SA across the board. So a P47 tactical fighter unit has a ground attack rating of 6sa, 6ha, 6na. Radial engine single engine fighters start at a 10 ground defense rating and 12 air defense rating in my system. Another +1 for an aircraft with armor, and +1 more for a plane over 400mph. Another +1 for each level of initiative over 6. Thus, the P47 has a 24/6/6/6 offensive rating and a 12 ground defense rating with a 5 initiative. The Fw190f/G are even better because they have a 6 initiative and 30mm guns. I also increase fuel by +30% over base for fighter and fighter bomber units once drop tanks are introduced, which varies by nation. These are very effective self escorting tactical bomber units, without being overpowered. For fighter versions of the same aircraft- for instance if you want to also maintain a P47 in your eqp file as a fighter unit, the fighter version doesn't get the bonuses for carrying bombs and rockets, since a plane flying fighter missions only had guns in WWII. So you're back to 24aa/4sa/2ha. I apply the same universal system for ground units as well. In ground unit config, a single .50 cal is 2sa, 1 ha, 2aa. Thus, an M16 AA unit is 8sa, 4ha, 8aa. Once i'm done finishing my eqp file for this version ill post it in the eqp file section for others to use if they want. It works with the koznev icon file.
|
|
|
Post by valorius on Mar 11, 2021 1:00:56 GMT
I LOVE the idea Jeff posted about giving Allied HQ units supply capability.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 11, 2021 16:17:06 GMT
I thought this might be a good place to just discuss stuff, and leave the update thread to Update news ? What do you think Sirs ? Maybe I could try swapping the thread names leaving this almost blank one for the news updates and keep going at the other one? Edit: I ended up moving all posts from the old thread to the new one. (Only options being "all posts" or "entire thread", strange). Unfortunately, the old thread became empty and the forum just ate the remaining title. So, now it'll be necessary to start PGX news and upgrades anew. The initial post is now number 1 in this new General Discussion. Edit: Damn, now I seem to have find a way of moving a single post. Edit: Right! I re established "PGX News and Updates" with first "new version" post. Only difference is now Admin gets the credit for having started the thread. Since I've got the menu path to moving single posts I can also move posts on v767 and v768. Only thinking if I should because at least one of them was quoted. Does it really make any significant difference? Edit: Moved v767 announcement. TB quoted it but/so all the text actually remains via quote. V768 announcement at page 2 is more complicated. You addressed General Discussion themes in same post and no one quoted which means if I move it some text will be lost here. (If only there was an option to just copy posts...) I'd guess opening a new post at "News" and copy v768 announcement would be best course.
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Mar 11, 2021 18:25:14 GMT
Valorius: Ah, that reminds me ! I gotta fix forts not to move on rails. Ha Ha...I forgot about that. I did fix it buying transports for Forts. (Not sure if that's in the newest update on the web site.) But, I am getting ready to post a new one tomorrow. I will get the Fort/rail move removed too. (If I did'nt already.)
|
|
|
Post by valorius on Mar 11, 2021 18:49:23 GMT
Great!
About these nations that use masses of AT guns in the offensive, perhaps they could be coded to use tanks instead of AT units if the nation is on offense, and still use AT guns if on defense?
I dont really know what you can do or not with the AI, that's outside my scope of knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by teophrastusbombastus on Mar 11, 2021 20:43:35 GMT
I LOVE the idea Jeff posted about giving Allied HQ units supply capability. In the current form of PGX, HQ units with supply capability are actually needed mainly as stop gap solutions in those situations in which we find those pesky no supply zones in maps. With capability to "pick" the supply lines - roads - from a given radius in hexes (probably around 5?) they could allow extending supply range a bit beyond. Unless maps are "fixed" (against that issue) or we just accept there are no supply zones like in real life there are zones to which it's much more difficult to reach. Now, in my imaginary the figure of a HQ unit with supply capability comes directly from the Vulcan game I posted about at Section G. In Vulcan, supply was also linked with roads. Coming from the "friendly edge of the map", it "traveled" through roads up to units. The presence of an HQ automatically improved the nearby unit's supply status. (Supply status was one of the factors in combat formulas.) Unless there were enemy units "cutting" the supply line - road, in which case you'd be at the very least incapable of effective attack in a very short time. And in serious predicament after longer periods. So, in my imagined Factory - Logistic Column - Front Line Units production/supply flow circuit, the supply capable HQ has the key role of "end of the line picker/distributor" - picks supply points from Logistic Column/distributes them by Front Line Units. Not saying other units should have 0 supply pick capability. HQs should be (much) more efficient at it. When I say supply points, it should be read as generic. In Vulcan it was just supply and wasn't even expressed in points (numbers), in PG / AG there's not a complete equivalent as supply was magically infinite provided there weren't ZoC impediments. In PGX supply is Fuel + Ammo. If we go fishing in the Archive, those two may be joined by food, spare parts, minerals, manpower and probably more I can't remember. Edit: Water, how could I forget water? Not to forget though, each time we add another differentiated element we get a new kind of "Factory" and a new "Logistic Column" element. I'd probably keep Fuel and Ammo distinction only. Those would already be a big pair of pieces of work.
|
|
|
Post by valorius on Mar 11, 2021 22:11:13 GMT
In my eqp file ive created truck ground transport units called "LOGTRAIN", cost 8, which have 1 gd, 8 move, wheeled, 8 ammo, 80 fuel. This will get your units past those pesky no supply zones, and allows for much greater operational mobility, however it cannot help with the strength losses units get from being red.
You also get much higher speed on roads, which is my approximation of tank truck flat bed carriers, which are typically used to move tanks to combat zones after they're offloaded from rail cars.
This of course adds a great deal of cost to a unit, so it's no free ride either- and they are extremely vulnerable to air and artillery attack when the unit is embarked as well.
JEFF: Those divisions you created, Russia and Italy do seem to be using them, and they are a good idea....but i think their real best use would be for naval units. The AI's tendency to sail around with completely unescorted carriers or battleships is maddening.
A good template for a "Naval division" would be 5 destroyers ringing it, a big hangar carrier in the middle, with 1 good air defense ship in the back.
If you want to stick with 10 point hangars, 4 destroyers and 3 carriers would be the best option, IMO.
Such task forces would make AI naval units far more useful and impactful in game.
|
|
|
Post by valorius on Mar 12, 2021 9:21:13 GMT
The Russian AI is awesome.
You've got it nailed JEFF. 85mm air defense, ZSU-37 AA and AD, SP ISU-152 artillery and IS-3's in absolutely massive waves. They're not bothering with an airforce as that would just give me free XP for my fighters....instead they are countering my strength with the best possible units in their arsenal.
Absolutely nailed it. (Keeping in mind ive removed all their cheap units so they cannot sabotage themselves with trash).
|
|
|
Post by teophrastusbombastus on Mar 12, 2021 9:23:15 GMT
In my eqp file ive created truck ground transport units called "LOGTRAIN", cost 8, which have 1 gd, 8 move, wheeled, 8 ammo, 80 fuel. This will get your units past those pesky no supply zones, and allows for much greater operational mobility, however it cannot help with the strength losses units get from being red. You also get much higher speed on roads, which is my approximation of tank truck flat bed carriers, which are typically used to move tanks to combat zones after they're offloaded from rail cars. This of course adds a great deal of cost to a unit, so it's no free ride either- and they are extremely vulnerable to air and artillery attack when the unit is embarked as well. JEFF: Those divisions you created, Russia and Italy do seem to be using them, and they are a good idea....but i think their real best use would be for naval units. The AI's tendency to sail around with completely unescorted carriers or battleships is maddening. A good template for a "Naval division" would be 5 destroyers ringing it, a big hangar carrier in the middle, with 1 good air defense ship in the back. If you want to stick with 10 point hangars, 4 destroyers and 3 carriers would be the best option, IMO. Such task forces would make AI naval units far more useful and impactful in game. What do you mean by cost 8? Your input in the cost field was 8 and the effective price is 8X12? Or? Your input in the cost field was 8 and the effective price is 8? In other words, is it really 8 what the purchaser sees in the purchasing board? Because if it's the second one the base 12 costs from PG / AG are really gone from PGX... That would make some "funny strange" things a bit more plausible. Like torpedo units with "kamikaze" "destroy on impact" attribute for the minimal price of 1... Or in land things along the lines of the German Goliath or the Soviet AT dogs. In general, cheap consumed on attack units, with the potential to score a devastating blow... or nothing. The only problem I foresee with this concept is that some of those things were used sparingly in historical terms. In a game, with the cheapest cost possible... Although, in theory, that effect could be scaled down by making them less strong, in the extreme, 1 pointers. Well, you also say they're costly so you should be meaning 8X12=96 Come to think of it, these new R/D bonus upgrades do come at cost 1. And much older are the cost 6 5 pointer versions of those 10 pointers that cost 12. So, I'm ever more confused about if the 12 base costs are still being enforced or are still here by force of habit.
|
|