Help with moving the artillery

[Marching Thru Georgia]

GShock wrote:

As corps commander, I am ahead of the Div commander and I observe the battle from behind the lines. This is what I do and what the AI should do as well.

I disagree. You have a 21st century advantage. You instantly know where every unit is located. In the 19th century, all you had was a blank map. If a commander could not see what was happening directly, then he did not know what was really going on. That's how the AI plays. Try it and you will find that the AI is very challenging. When I first started playing that way, and using couriers, I barely won 10% of my games. I played a lot of games. At my best, I can now win ~50% of them. When you force yourself to play with the same restrictions that the AI has, you will find the AI a very good opponent. I have been amazed at times just how good it is. At the strategic level, there are instances where I could not distinguish the AI behavior from that of a human. This part of the game is far and away Norb's greatest achievement. The only weakness I repeatedly see is that the AI does not utilize his reserves very well. And it's the reason I can usually win half my games. I defeat the enemy forces in detail.

GShock wrote:

If a rgt is in open vs covered: fallback (if the rgt is facing overwhelming odds, instant retreat).
If a rgt is in open vs open and there's cover between rgt an enemy: advance to cover.
If a rgt is flanking an enemy rgt which is already engaged: advance.
If a rgt is shooting a gun: advance.

Here I agree with you completely. Relative to the strategic AI, the tactical AI is weak. Tactics require rules. Norb hates programming rules. That's why brigade don't have the cohesion to act as one unit. The regiments all act independently for the most part while trying to achieve a common goal. The other problem you've touched on is what I call the 'fear of doom'. The AI does not possess it. The regiments act more like ants than humans. They fearlessly advance no matter what the odds. This is also the reason for the large number of melees which never occured in 19th century warfare. I'm sure it is no easy task tto program a tactical AI so it mimics human behavior, but the payoff for the effort would be an enormous benefit to the game.

I already said the most important thing here to do is to modify the behavior of the DIV leader so that he will not see his guns as an assemblement of troops to be kept in a particular formation.

As I wrote in another thread, there is no divisional artillery AI. If you want artillery to work properly you must use an OOB that has the artillery batteries distributed to the infantry division commanders.

About the command map. Did you guys notice that if you open the command map (all in sight) you will see not where your DIV is (any DIV) but where it will be at the end of the previous "N" order?
Quite obvious isn't it...
but well there's something more.You will ALSO see where the enemy troops will be at the end of their order

Seeing the final location of the player's troops was a deliberate decision. That way the player could align his troop properly when moving them to a new location. Seeing the enemy's movement plans was an unintended consequence. I agree, that should be fixed.

[GShock]

GShock wrote:
I disagree. You have a 21st century advantage. You instantly know where every unit is located. In the 19th century, all you had was a blank map. If a commander could not see what was happening directly, then he did not know what was really going on. That's how the AI plays. Try it and you will find that the AI is very challenging.

I most definitely will try. I wish to reinstate the couriers as well but since they don't work... so what setting do you recommend, from all in sight to none?

When I first started playing that way, and using couriers, I barely won 10% of my games. I played a lot of games. At my best, I can now win ~50% of them. When you force yourself to play with the same restrictions that the AI has, you will find the AI a very good opponent. I have been amazed at times just how good it is. At the strategic level, there are instances where I could not distinguish the AI behavior from that of a human. This part of the game is far and away Norb's greatest achievement. The only weakness I repeatedly see is that the AI does not utilize his reserves very well. And it's the reason I can usually win half my games. I defeat the enemy forces in detail.

I agree with you, it's truly amazing with a game of such complexity to see an AI that even when losing it's actually standing the challenge vs a human mind. And when you think about the fact that Norb did it single-handedly and that this AI doesn't CHEAT (like All AIs do) that's truly an amazing achievement. However, the AI should really act the way I depicted so that regardless of the player level and his camera restrictions (you can't manually move units into cover if you can't see them because you are far away) the AI can be a better challenge against those who play in front line. The fact your own troops will be managed that way is balancing the things so that with or without your intervention the battle will evolve more realistically and last longer. This means there's more room for side insertion of fresh troops and opportunities to rally regiments that took punishment in the first phases because there is time to commit them again.

Here I agree with you completely. Relative to the strategic AI, the tactical AI is weak. Tactics require rules. Norb hates programming rules. That's why brigade don't have the cohesion to act as one unit. The regiments all act independently for the most part while trying to achieve a common goal.

That's as easy as 1-2-3, it's the AI leader that makes those 4 RGT become 1 BDE.

The other problem you've touched on is what I call the 'fear of doom'. The AI does not possess it. The regiments act more like ants than humans. They fearlessly advance no matter what the odds. This is also the reason for the large number of melees which never occured in 19th century warfare. I'm sure it is no easy task tto program a tactical AI so it mimics human behavior, but the payoff for the effort would be an enormous benefit to the game.

It's quite simple, those behaviors I mentioned above can very easily be made as rules. If things are done that way, it obviously will change the game for the better.
I believe a thing to touch is the kill rate of muskets. You can't believe how long it takes to rout a regiment and you see those 300 sprites shooting and when the counter of ammo moves up 1 notch (i.e. 300 people have shot), the total kills are very very few. With these figures, obviously it's easy to get into hand to hand combat. I am too n00by in this system to actually get to change things like these, not at this stage anyway, there are other priorities but yes that's another thing that should change imo. Do mind that if the rules are built the way I described, a RGT will be retreated, pushed forth or back bby the AI leaders according to the situation. This would contribute to making the battle last longer and more fresh troops be committed until ultimately the odds are evened. It's all connected. We'll have to see if Norb agrees and actually deems these efforts worthy.

As I wrote in another thread, there is no divisional artillery AI. If you want artillery to work properly you must use an OOB that has the artillery batteries distributed to the infantry division commanders.

It does work properly if left on NO ORDERS, however once you find the spot you must set them onto HOLD and that will prevent useless movements but it's a mess to be done this way when compared to the ease of movement of infantry divisions AND it's nearly impossible if not impossible at all if couriering is activated.

Seeing the final location of the player's troops was a deliberate decision. That way the player could align his troop properly when moving them to a new location. Seeing the enemy's movement plans was an unintended consequence. I agree, that should be fixed.

Something I'd also like to be changed is the messages you receive. I played as Lee in Army vs Army and believe me it's unplayable if each leader tells me he spots enemy and then engages enemy. I am not supposed to be notified of that by the sub leaders... they should notify their DIV leader and their DIV leader should notify their CORPS leader and only then with just ONE courier I should be notified of all their messages in just ONE message from my CORPS leader.

Easily done... Perhaps if there's a quick patch in the way I'd love to know what we're getting.

[RebBugler]

Excellent follow up MTG. Especially I concur with:

The other problem you've touched on is what I call the 'fear of doom'. The AI does not possess it. The regiments act more like ants than humans. They fearlessly advance no matter what the odds.

I think this is a problem with programming tactically in general. I know that this ruined the game 'Blitzkrieg' for me...you didn't dare order attack against odds, or, Suicideville to the Max.

Hopefully this will evolve with SOW, I have some feature requests submitted regarding these concerns. So, one step at a time, my report deals with canister reaction, charge or retreat or something...don't just take it until you rout.

[GShock]

Technically this is all assimilable to the DIV leader strat orders and they can be managed by a virtual assessment of kill/loss over time. With 10' increments shifting from def to off or from off to def.

What matters the most is that the AI is taught to use cover. This delays the results of combat, reduces losses and gives time for reserves to act, artillery to support, reinforcements to join.

[charlesonmission]

MarchingthroughGeorgia,

Are you saying that we need to use the courier mod for the courier system to work correctly, even with patch 1.2? I posted a comment in your AAR on couriers where I also can't get my artillery to do much moving at all with couriers.

Thanks,

Charles

[Drummerboy]

Charles, just wondering, is this during combat that you are trying to get your artillery to move? If it is, do you use the "No orders" message first? Using the "No oders" message first cancels out whatever they were odered to do before that. Try that along with whatever new orders you want them to follow.

[charlesonmission]

Yes, I do use "no orders" first. I didn't use "please execute the following orders though in there. Should that matter on McPhersen ridge?

[GShock]

The no orders button works to cancel and stop the leader from overriding your current order, however if there's an AI managed (untced) superior officer in the chain of command, he might overide your order as well (he most certainly will).

Needless to say, if you are playing via courier, it will take a while before you can even realize your orders have been overridden... as explained thoroughlly throughout this whole thread.