New Build 222

[HercMighty]

Fixes:

This build contains an awful lot of new AI code, especially in the areas of facing and targeting, so please see if things seem to work better. That’s also the reason it took so long to get out - as complex as this is... the AI routines can sure be a real bear to write and test.


Added/Adjusted:



- Adjusted AI default facing for games without start lines (free set up).

- Added LOS fidelity to preferences. Saves about 15% of processing time by turning off elevation triangulation and LOS smoothing - reasonable option for large games.

- Updated AI to be better at selecting firing weapons & accounting for more target characteristics.

- Added a default symbol for IP’s, Mines, and obstacles if the symbol set doesn’t contain them (as specified in the TEC).

- Added option in CAS and Arty officers to toggle AI calling for support for a human-controlled force.

- Allow for victory locs for games with no start lines.

- Updated AI targeting routines to re-target guided missiles as possible when their original target is destroyed or can no longer be hit.

- Mouse-over test facing now shows all different firing group facings in the format: Hull Facings / Turret Facings.

- Updated AI auto-facing routines. Facing set separately for hull & turret, in this priority: towards targets, towards most effective incoming DF, towards

last-known position of most dangerous known enemy unit. Also works for free set-up scenarios.

- Updated the help documentation for some forms (more to come).





Things that didn't work right:



- Fixed form used to set altitude.

- Fixed problem in ATGM accuracy curve determination - incoming range was always 10% higher than actual.

- Fixed situation introduced in last build where missile “zig zagged” center of loc to center of loc - extending the range they had to fly (so they might not reach their target).

- AI wasn’t properly checking to switch targets before current one was destroyed(sometimes it switched when it shouldn’t have, and vice versa).

- Fixed problem when AI looking to change weapons - was ignoring potential rotation/re-facing, so units weren’t turning for better protection or to fire limited-arc weapons once a wide-arc weapon engaged.

[HercMighty]

Mike good news:

Firing Unit: *1st US Scout Platoon Loc: 4491
Wpn: TOW 2 ATGW Launcher Ammo: BGW-71D/E TOW2A (ATGW)
Target: Unknown Ground Unit (Loc: 2248)
BGW-71D/E TOW2A (ATGW)
Range: 3214m (Est.) 66 % of max

Round: 1
Direct Hit
Projections: Kill: 99 Damage: 99 Supn: 50
Target: Destroyed
10 Passengers Killed
Wreckage exists
No other effects

Target: Unknown Ground Unit (Loc: 2192)
BGW-71D/E TOW2A (ATGW)
Range: 3289m (Est.) 68 % of max

Target: Unknown Ground Unit (Loc: 2192)
BGW-71D/E TOW2A (ATGW)
Range: 3289m (Est.) 68 % of max

Round 2:
Firing Unit: *3rd US Scout Platoon Loc: 4491
Wpn: TOW 2 ATGW Launcher Ammo: BGW-71D/E TOW2A (ATGW)
Target: Unknown Ground Unit (Loc: 2247)
BGW-71D/E TOW2A (ATGW)
Range: 3224m (Est.) 67 % of max

Target: Unknown Ground Unit (Loc: 2135)
BGW-71D/E TOW2A (ATGW)
Range: 3383m (Est.) 70 % of max

Target: Unknown Ground Unit (Loc: 2135)
BGW-71D/E TOW2A (ATGW)
Range: 3383m (Est.) 70 % of max

Firing Unit: *1st US Scout Platoon Loc: 4491
Wpn: TOW 2 ATGW Launcher Ammo: BGW-71D/E TOW2A (ATGW)
Target: Unknown Ground Unit (Loc: 2194)
BGW-71D/E TOW2A (ATGW)
Range: 3280m (Est.) 68 % of max

Target: Unknown Ground Unit (Loc: 2195)
BGW-71D/E TOW2A (ATGW)
Range: 3280m (Est.) 68 % of max

Target: Unknown Ground Unit (Loc: 2139)
BGW-71D/E TOW2A (ATGW)
Range: 3360m (Est.) 70 % of max

So I got 1 confirmed hit. Because of FOW I do not know what has happened with the others. I went and looked and this scenario (4) it defaulted to Level 3. But at least we know they can hit.

Regards

[MikeSinn]

Mike good news:

Firing Unit: *1st US Scout Platoon Loc: 4491
Wpn: TOW 2 ATGW Launcher Ammo: BGW-71D/E TOW2A (ATGW)
Target: Unknown Ground Unit (Loc: 2248)
BGW-71D/E TOW2A (ATGW)
Range: 3214m (Est.) 66 % of max

Round: 1
Direct Hit
Projections: Kill: 99 Damage: 99 Supn: 50
Target: Destroyed
10 Passengers Killed
Wreckage exists
No other effects


Spectacular news! I will give the new build a try this weekend.

Thanks,
Mike

[thewood]

I actually ran my test scenario last night between some Merkavas and T-90's. The entire game was a great tank duel with hundreds of rounds being exchanged and getting what I would consider some reasonable results. I still has some concerns that some units wanted to fire anything but the main gun, but I am going to rerun it because I think firing angles on hills may have come into play.

Overall, this is the most positive I have felt since I openned the wrapper on the game over a year ago.

[cbelva]

I actually ran my test scenario last night between some Merkavas and T-90's. The entire game was a great tank duel with hundreds of rounds being exchanged and getting what I would consider some reasonable results. I still has some concerns that some units wanted to fire anything but the main gun, but I am going to rerun it because I think firing angles on hills may have come into play.

Overall, this is the most positive I have felt since I openned the wrapper on the game over a year ago.

When you run your test, keep an eye on unit and turret facings. That seems to have been the main cause of units not firing their main gun. Units were not rotating either themselves or their turrets and therefore not bringing their main gun into play.

I am out of town until next week and will not be able to download the new build until them. The results seem promising.

[HercMighty]

Spectacular news! I will give the new build a try this weekend.

Thanks,
Mike

Mike,

It seems the AI now shoots all of these right away are you noticing this to?

[thewood]

The weapons seem to rotate to the enemy now. No more 2000m mg duels. Thats why I ran the test. One oddity is that the Merkavas have an onboard mortar and seem to like firing it at tanks a lot if the main gun can't be brought to bear due high or low angle. But I am actually able to run a scenario and have plausible results. The interface is a lot better and I can actually run through a game without spending an hour looking for information.

[HercMighty]

I wondering if the scenarios that were originally shipped with the game need to be gone through. Playing scenario 4 I have been getting some c++ errors, 1 time it was a show stopper.

Also can people comment on whether on the targeting XO staff officer screen that Last Turn Fire Results and Next Turn Expected Fire entries are working? Even with FOW off I am not getting what I think I should.

thewood:

Can you post your test scenario?

[thewood]

I am still trying to figure out the XO screen and how to use it. I've never posted anything before, but I'll figure it out.

[HercMighty]

When you post scroll down a little ways there is a Manage Attachments button just a little ways down from the submit reply button.

[MikeSinn]

Mike,

It seems the AI now shoots all of these right away are you noticing this to?

Herc,

I had a chance to run a quick test with Build 222 this morning and came away with the following impressions:

To cbelva's question, units do seem to be rotating their facing/turrets on a much more regular basis. Primary weapon fire is now much more common.
LOS routines seem to be much improved and "believable". Defending units seem to be able to fire for 1 - 3 minutes without being spotted (dependent on terrain), but continuous fire will result in them becoming spotted and engaged.
ATGMs are now being fired with regularity. In one test, more than 15 enemy and friendly ATGMs were fired in a single pulse. The results, however, were less than expected. Of the 15 missiles, only one hit it's intended target and resulted in a kill. This fire occured between stationary IFVs with a range between 1.5 km - 2.5 km. Either the to-hit routines need additional "tweaking" or these are not the efficent weapon systems I had anticipated. More testing is necessary...
I have running my own scenarios and havn't encountered any game crashes or C++ errors.
My initial impression is that this is a very stable and solid build, but additional testing is needed. Thankfully, I'm snowbound this weekend and will have lots of time on my hands :laugh:

Thanks,
Mike

P.S. Herc, were you able to send Scott a note regarding establishing a structured beta program? (Disregard this question. I just saw your other postng regarding this...)

[HercMighty]

Herc,

I had a chance to run a quick test with Build 222 this morning and came away with the following impressions:

To cbelva's question, units do seem to be rotating their facing/turrets on a much more regular basis. Primary weapon fire is now much more common.
LOS routines seem to be much improved and "believable". Defending units seem to be able to fire for 1 - 3 minutes without being spotted (dependent on terrain), but continuous fire will result in them becoming spotted and engaged.
ATGMs are now being fired with regularity. In one test, more than 15 enemy and friendly ATGMs were fired in a single pulse. The results, however, were less than expected. Of the 15 missiles, only one hit it's intended target and resulted in a kill. This fire occured between stationary IFVs with a range between 1.5 km - 2.5 km. Either the to-hit routines need additional "tweaking" or these are not the efficent weapon systems I had anticipated. More testing is necessary...
I have running my own scenarios and havn't encountered any game crashes or C++ errors.
My initial impression is that this is a very stable and solid build, but additional testing is needed. Thankfully, I'm snowbound this weekend and will have lots of time on my hands :laugh:

Thanks,
Mike

P.S. Herc, were you able to send Scott a note regarding establishing a structured beta program? (Disregard this question. I just saw your other postng regarding this...)

Mike can you post your test scenario?

[thewood]

This is a very simple scenario I built because I didn't trust the pre-built ones.

[HercMighty]

This is a very simple scenario I built because I didn't trust the pre-built ones.

Thanks. As you guys make even simple ones like this would be great. I can usually play something when I know what I got, but to think of something a create a viable scenario at this point is somewhat beyond my preview.

But I will post, hopefully with screen shots things that I see and how I got there. We'll see, the wife wants me to clean now, I get dirty looks everytime I still a second to come here and post ;)

[MikeSinn]

Mike can you post your test scenario?

Here you go.

This is the basis for my next tutorial scenario and focuses on artillery usage within the game. It is by no means complete, but should be close enough for people to begin experimenting with. I hope to begin work on the associated documentation this weekend.

Thanks,
Mike

P.S. I forgot to mention that due to the scenario creation process, the game will start at the end of the Setup phase. Simply click "done" and instruct the AI to NOT reposition units.

[MikeSinn]

After experimenting with Build 222 for a few hours this weekend, I sent the following notes to Scott. Will let everyone know what I hear back from Scott.

Scott, Rich:

I spent some time this weekend experimenting with the new build (version 222). Currently, most of my focus has been on scenario creation and artillery usage. After a couple of hours of play, I came away with a few questions and a couple of suggestions.

Scenario Creation Thoughts & Questions:
1) Would it be possible to add an option that would prevent the AI from automatically deploying troops during the scenario creation process? When building a new scenario, the AI will automatically deploy all of it's troops, IPs, mines, and obstacles. I then must spend time moving, deleting or otherwise modifying each of these objects (based on the goals of the scenario I am creating). It would be much more efficient and easier for the player to simply deploy the AI forces and objects directly from the "force setup screen".

2) I can't seem to create a scenario so that it will start at the beginning of Turn 1. Every scenario I have made forces the player to begin at the end of the "setup phase". I have verified that the "Reset turn to start" checkbox is not selected. Is this a bug or by design? It would be nice to create a scenario for others and not force them to walk through the setup process.

3) There seems to be a bug in the Mine selection screen (see attached jpg). The drop-down list for filtering by Country has duplicate entries for each of the countries. It appears that the list is repeating at least three times.

Artillery Questions/Suggestions:
1) The rate of fire for US self propelled guns seems to be too low. According to the POA2 DB, a M109 can fire only 1 round per minute. This low rate of fire makes it very difficult to achieve any significant results with a players artillery.
According to info on FAS's website (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m109.htm), the maximum rate of fire for a M109 is closer to 4 rounds per minute, for short periods of time. Could this be a player selectable option (i.e. short but intense fire versus long duration but limited fire)?

2) Even without checking the "Auto Assign Artillery Mission", the AI still seems to be creating fire missions for unassigned artillery. In the attached saved game file, only 1 arty unit has an assigned mission and I have verified that the Auto Assign checkbox in the Art Staff officer screen is not checked. Advancing the game to the next turn and opening the Arty Staff officer screen you will see 2 - 3 new missions assigned by the AI. I must then remove those missions manually before moving on to the next turn.

3) Can you add a button on the Arty Staff Officer screen to remove a fire mission from that screen. This would save a couple of mouse clicks for the player.

Thanks,
Mike

[HercMighty]

Mike,

Good email. I have been looking at your two scenarios and the one that thewood posted but have not had a lot of time to really mess with them. Though comapared to the "Stock" these seem to run better. I tried looking at "Re-Building" them but there doesn't seem anything that needs re-building. So am I wondering why I seem to get more C++ errors when I am running these.

Regards

[RobAPol]

I'm in the middle of playing Scenario 1 with this build and have to say I have a very warm feeling about it. I think we are now approaching some decent playability now. I'm even running this scenario on my old 1Ghz laptop and it just runs fine. I think a milestone has been reached with this one. :)

[MikeSinn]

Mike,

I tried looking at "Re-Building" them but there doesn't seem anything that needs re-building. So am I wondering why I seem to get more C++ errors when I am running these.

Regards

Herc,

What do you mean by "re-building"? Are you encountering these C++ errors playing the stock scenarios or just the user created ones?

Thanks,
Mike

[HercMighty]

During the stock scenarios. I have looked at the OOB's and gone through the setup using the "Free-Setup" variants looking for something but haven't seen anything out of the ordinary. I was hoping that re-selecting the game options (toggling to something and then back to the original setting), and re-selecting the OOB would reset what was maybe causing the problem.

So the errors still seem to be code related. I wish we would get more detail other than just the generic C++ error pop-up. I can run the smaller scenarios that you guys have made with no problems, so it seems to be the more complicated the scenario and the more user interaction with the simulation is causing the errors.

Regards

[MikeSinn]

Below is Scott's response to a recent email I sent (posted eariler in this thread). I'm looking forward to trying the scenario creations suggestions he provided tonight...


Hi Mike,

Thanks for your comments and questions. I'll just take them in order:

Set up:
1) To manually place the forces for a player that you want to be AI
controlled by default, create and set up the game as a 2 human player
one. Then, after you get the forces set up the way you want, along with
initial movement or support orders, save it as a scenario. Saving as a
scenario allows you to change the default control of either (or both) players to AI.

2) In order to save a game "after" the set up phase, so players don't
have to go through it again, make sure at least one of the forces is
commanded by a human player. Set up the game, and place the two forces normally. Then, after both forces have been placed on the map advance the turn. "Turn 1" should appear at the bottom right hand corner. You can then save the game either as a normal saved game or as a scenario. If saving as a
scenario, make sure that the "Reset game to start" check box is not checked on the save information form (you can change the other values as desired,
including AI control).

3) We'll check into the mine selection box. It looks like we're off by
1 in the type check.

Arty:
1) The standard operational ROF for the M109 is 1 rpm. However, you
are correct; in short bursts 3-4 rounds can be fired in a minute. However,
after these bursts, the gun has to be rested and reset.. which makes
the effective ROF still about 1 rpm over several minutes. So the value in
the database is accurate over those time scales (more than a minute or
two), and is what operational planners would assume. However, the down side in POA is the lower "normal" ROF does not allow for burst firing, which is a real and tangible capability of the weapon. To model it, though, will require a
new field or two in the database. Just raising the ROF by itself won't
really work since with the existing code it would allow the weapon to
constantly fire at the burst rate. That's going to be quite a project - so for
now, I've added it to the wish list.

2) I haven't seen the AI adding support missions when the box to allow
for it was unchecked, but we'll run you game and see if we get it.

3) I'll check into streamlining the delete process from the arty staff
officer, but I don't want to promise anything. ;-)

BTW - if you find the scenario/save methods don't work, please let me
know. Like any child, I've found this thing likes to find ways to make its
parents
look stupid. ;-)

Thanks again!

-Scott