View Full Version : PO isnt stoopid, we are!
Bdr.Mallette
08 Mar 04, 12:57
I am responding to general PO stupidity comments.
Its basically a program right!?
Run on a computer, right?!
Well, as we all know,
COMPUTERS ARE VERY DUMB! THEY WILL DO NOTHING EXCEPT WHAT YOU TELL IT TO DO!
A.I. AS WE KNOW IT TODAY IS LAUGHABLE.
A.I. IS STILL SOMEONE TELLING IT HOW TO REACT UNDER CERTAIN SITUATIONS!
There is no learning in a computer(yet) and I think it may be best that way because if ya think about it, they would become very powerful. Why would we be needed anymore? really?
(Caps, just so you noticed)
We must plan as many events or anticipate possible probs as best we can.
Thats why it takes so much time, lots of little things, but without them, wuttayagot??????
I was searching for sumthin for scenario development and came across alot of comments about PO.
just thought i'd type it up!
L8R
Skhooter
Our scenarios are only as smart as we are! :cool: :rolleyes:
Secadegas
08 Mar 04, 13:17
You maybe right... I'll wait for a scenario designed by you...
I am responding to general PO stupidity comments.
Its basically a program right!?
Run on a computer, right?!
Well, as we all know,
COMPUTERS ARE VERY DUMB! THEY WILL DO NOTHING EXCEPT WHAT YOU TELL IT TO DO!
A.I. AS WE KNOW IT TODAY IS LAUGHABLE.
A.I. IS STILL SOMEONE TELLING IT HOW TO REACT UNDER CERTAIN SITUATIONS!
There is no learning in a computer(yet) and I think it may be best that way because if ya think about it, they would become very powerful. Why would we be needed anymore? really?
(Caps, just so you noticed)
We must plan as many events or anticipate possible probs as best we can.
Thats why it takes so much time, lots of little things, but without them, wuttayagot??????
I was searching for sumthin for scenario development and came across alot of comments about PO.
just thought i'd type it up!
L8R
Skhooter
Our scenarios are only as smart as we are! :cool: :rolleyes:
Yeah, sure. You may have been right if TOAW had 70 possible alternate objective paths. As it is, with just 3, the PO is too predictable. You may make a tough PO if his side outnumbers you 10-1, otherwise you just have to hold on one side, let it advance somewhere else, and practice endless pocket battles.
Bdr.Mallette
12 Mar 04, 18:35
You maybe right... I'll wait for a scenario designed by you...
Sorry man!
wasn't trying to be a smarty pants! lol
I am designing one and have some respect for scenario designers and how hard it is to sumthin so LOGICALLY easy, in Evil_ED.
I can't tell you how many times I've been sitting there writing some procedure in the editor and getting massive 'deja vu' that I have most certainly tried to do this before, the same way!! lol :cry:
I've learned to make compromises and do it a different way but come to have the same general effect in the whole scenario itself.
My scenario is almost complete.
Should be VERY playable against the P.O. from
Either side(to which I have yet to find a .SCE).
I may be biased with the work i've been doing on it but, hey, throw me a freakin bone here!
My pc vs PC testing is going well.
Some minor tweaks and some medium level events to add and she is done.
I pray! :nuts:
ANY hoo....
I meant nuthin.
L8R
:cool:
Yeah, sure. You may have been right if TOAW had 70 possible alternate objective paths. As it is, with just 3, the PO is too predictable. You may make a tough PO if his side outnumbers you 10-1, otherwise you just have to hold on one side, let it advance somewhere else, and practice endless pocket battles.
Yup. But hardly noone uses the 3-way path, and I've never seen anyone trying to break down formations in order to achieve better PO play. I would like to see the play where a formation for every unit is used in a minor scenario (of course also with a 3-way path for every formation implemented), but that's not made even six years after the game release!. Few seems to experiment at all. Daniel McBride is the only one I come to think of.
Yeah, sure. You may have been right if TOAW had 70 possible alternate objective paths. As it is, with just 3, the PO is too predictable. You may make a tough PO if his side outnumbers you 10-1, otherwise you just have to hold on one side, let it advance somewhere else, and practice endless pocket battles.
Yup. But hardly noone uses the 3-way path, and I've never seen anyone trying to break down formations in order to achieve better PO play. I would like to see the play where a formation for every unit is used in a minor scenario (of course also with a 3-way path for every formation implemented), but that's not made even six years after the game release!. Few seems to experiment at all. Daniel McBride is the only one I come to think of.
Yup. But hardly noone uses the 3-way path, and I've never seen anyone trying to break down formations in order to achieve better PO play. I would like to see the play where a formation for every unit is used in a minor scenario (of course also with a 3-way path for every formation implemented), but that's not made even six years after the game release!. Few seems to experiment at all. Daniel McBride is the only one I come to think of.
Actually I have been triying for some time to have intelligent PO play, but to no avail. I tried with WW1, which the PO should love, with lots of units to cover gaps, but the PO just bunches up units to be slaughtered wether on the attack or the defence. Went to 1914; PO advances, flank opens, PO bunches up, PO surrounded and slaughtered.
Then I tried WW2. No good either, formations advance, opens gaps with flanking formations and ends up surrounded.
Modern? tried a NATO-WP, no good either, WP formations need bersek orders to get moving, but when they find resistance, they just attack until evaporation. The best that can be done is optimise PO play for one side in an scenario like Korea, narrow front, little maneuver alternatives.
Bdr.Mallette
15 Mar 04, 21:57
Okay, okay.
I know this is sorta bad luck to do but.....
I am pretty well finished my Scenario.
Change 2-3 very small things and it's done.
I am play testing it right now and it is going VERY WELL.
So, is anybody interested in knowing what it's about.
Well.......
here it is.
A campaign scenario for SOUTH VIETNAM!
Yes, a totally complete scenario.
540 full-week turns.
Theatre options for U.S. involvement and all.
Fight alone as ARVN or succomb to the fact that you need help, fast and a lot of it and order the U.S. forces into battle.
It really is a good one.
435 events.
weather events, VP events, variable monitoring, escalation of forces on both sides. Some political aspects, supply, air mobility, trail activation, bombing, air strengths, Freeworld Forces and good AI for both sides so far.
I have been testing it and tweaking for the last 3 weeks.
I have been letting the computer play itself and it seems to be doing well.
All events are working properly and the strengths of the forces seem to be represented properly.
I was so happy last night after playing for like 4 turns(1.5 hours), everything was so smooth and well, I was ****ing so excited man.
I had been working on it from scratch for like 6 months. Going around in circles from the Ev_ed and **** like that. I went loonie for a bit....lol
Anyways, I will be posting it in a few days.
If you have tried others and didn't like them, I promise you will like this one.
It is more than playable from both sides with events triggering AI actions and effects, etc.
It is very appealing to the eyes, good colour combos and strengths aren't overpowering.
The only thing is, it is not a total re-enactment of the Vietnam war.
You will have the choice(U.S.) in how escalated it gets or just try and save your copuntry as the ARVN and see what happens. It is do-able, you have to do well tho to win as ARVN alone.
It is modeled after Victory Games' "Vietnam:1965-1975" and is a very close representation.
I really hope I am not jinxing myself but I know the Ev_ed like the back of my hand now, so I should be able to clear anything up before posting.
Here is the Scenario Briefing:
"The Vietnam War
A campaign scenario encompassing South Vietnam, parts of North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The South Vietnamese Forces, major US forces and some limited Free World Allies attempt to prevent a communist take-over of Vietnam and beyond.
Best Played as: Either
Date: May 1965
Location: South Vietnam
Map scale: 10km per hex
Time scale: Full Week turns
Unit Scale: Battalion/Regimental
Length: 540 turns, estimated End time is September 1975
UNIT COLORS:
NORTH VIETNAM
NVA --> Dark Red on Red
NLF/Viet Cong --> White on Grey
NVA/VC--> Grey on Red (heavy NVA support)
US ARMY/ARVN
US Army --> Brown on Olive Drab
Army of the Republic of Vietnam --> Lt. Green on Yellow
Free World Allies --> Blue, Lgt. Green, White on Olive Drab.
Significant Events:
1.All VP's are permanent so if objectives are taken and lost, the effect that it was accomplished and affected the battle, war or simply some formations isn't lost.
2. The US/ARVN player may choose whether or not he/she wishes to deploy any US forces to the theatre, other than the 3rd Marine Expeditionary force. The player will have to move certain markers to certain locations to activate troop deployment and availability.
3. There are four Victory Point locations that must be taken and held for NVA/NLF to win a decisive victory.
4. The capture of Saigon means a total victory for the NVA/NLF.
5. The US/ARVN forces are penalized heavily for entering into LAOS, CAMBODIA OR NORTH VIETNAM.
6. If the U.S. doesn’t commit its’ forces (the main body and why it became an American war), there is a penalty if the 3rd Marines get into big trouble. They will be withdrawn and leave the ARVN alone to fend off the communist hordes if battalions or HQ’s of the 3rd Marines get destroyed, possibly. Knowing that America is out of the war, the NVA/NLF will proceed to reinforce its’ forces for the final push to the sea and eventually Saigon.
7. Monsoon season generally starts in spring and lasts for several weeks, sometimes months. This will affect Air Mobility as well as supply.
8. Each side is well supplied in the beginning of the war and will either diminish or increase depending upon effects in the scenario, such as bombing of the Ho Chi Minh Trail or the North and also the attacking of cities.
9. If U.S. forces are selected to enter the war, there is a VP penalty for political and economical reasons. Coming with those penalties is an automatic increase in Supply available, air mobility points as well as sea transport. Air power and sea power also increase. ARVN forces will fight with more confidence and there is a chance to stave off the enemy. From the NVA/NLF point of view, you are confident this war is already won and it is just a matter of time before the U.S. forces leave again. The fact that the U.S. has entered the conflict makes it more of a political fight than a conventional one, at least for a time. Finish the job before U.S. forces are adequately supported or prolong till you feel the Americans have lost the political aspect of the war.
US/ARVN Forces:
Objectives:
1. To maintain control of the cities and supply routes.
2. Control the mountain peaks whenever possible.
3. Search and Destroy any and all enemy forces.
4. Do not allow Hue, Saigon, DaNang or major port cities to fall into enemy hands, this will cause major penalties and possibly losing the war.
5. Maintain Order within your Formations, such as don't let your formations wander too far from HQ units.
6. Hue is a major key to victory. The communist government was looking to set up a temporary government in a southern city and Hue was a perfect choice. The ancient and great capitol city of Vietnam. Do not forget to protect other cities as well.
Air Power should be adequate enough. Use it wisely.
Possibly create fire bases with your overwhelming Artillery power on peaks or near key cities and objectives.
Progress checks will be made to see how the war is going, so you better hope you pass them or suffer consequences.
NVA/NLF Forces:
Objectives:
1. Primary objectives for the NLF is to attack cities or forces with weaker defenses than their own. Attacking cities gives valuable VP's, even if the city is not taken.
2. Capturing and holding mountain peaks is a valuable tool for scouting, VP's are rewarded for mountain peaks.
3. Try to cause as much trouble with enemy supply lines and tie down valuable enemy forces by small attacks so the NVA can come in and clean up.
4. Primary objectives for the NVA is to attack US/ARVN forces and cities.
VP's will be awarded for each attack on a city.
5. Capturing Saigon results in instant victory.
6. A decisive victory can be accomplished by capturing certain objectives and cities.
Holding them is a must or retaking them should result in a victory.
7. Capturing Hue will not bring victory but it will enhance your skill on the battlefield and hamper or weaken the US/ARVN forces. Your temporary communist government in Hue will have lasting effects on the war.
Moving your NVA forces along the Ho Chi Minh trail is possibly detrimental due to heavy bombers but your NVA can move quickly and attain decisive victories before US forces are fully deployed with proper support.
Your NVA forces are much stronger than the ARVN but the ARVN have air support and air mobility.
Use your NLF forces as best as possible, remember, they are generally a guerrilla force. Strike fast and retreat fast.
This Scenario was based on the Victory Games Board game "Vietnam:1965-1975".
There are some new formations added, the force deployments are different and events in the game will greatly influence formations and strengths but it is as close as I can get to re-creating the game, not including the South Vietnamese political and presidential aspects.
This was a very difficult scenario to develop.
There are so many variables and the event editor was lacking sometimes or possibly my imagination and experience with it was poor.
I tried to introduce a little of everything into the scenario.
The ORDER OF BATTLE is somewhat accurate. Smaller units were encompassed into the battalions by giving extra artillery power or ground strengths.
I am sure there are many things that I could have done but just didn't get around to it or….. forgot to do it..lol!!!
It was rather hard to do sometimes.
Takes a long time too!
I would just like to say that I created this scenario from SCRATCH!!!!
I swear to god almighty! I copied nothing from previous scenarios.
I looked at the Tet offensive one to judge the contents of each Battalion/regiment to see if it warrants changes or are the numbers okay.
I bought this game after playing the Korea demo for TOAW.
I thought it would be a great tool for re-creating “Vietnam:1965-75”, a game I never really got to play with anybody because of the size and scope.
I have to say this because there is a lot of data out there that I didn’t know about… like maps and oobs and such….ahhhhhh. I was upset when I found all this stuff out. Oh well, smarter for doing myself at first!!!!! LOL
Anyways…..
Good luck and hopefully it will be okay!
Jason Mallette
skhooter@excite.com
Take off eh! You hoser!
Ubique Quofas et Gloria Ducunt."
Check back later for the Scenario!!!!
How do you upload a scenario anyways???
L8r
Skhooter :cool: :nuts:
Actually I have been triying for some time to have intelligent PO play, but to no avail. I tried with WW1, which the PO should love, with lots of units to cover gaps, but the PO just bunches up units to be slaughtered wether on the attack or the defence. Went to 1914; PO advances, flank opens, PO bunches up, PO surrounded and slaughtered.
Then I tried WW2. No good either, formations advance, opens gaps with flanking formations and ends up surrounded.
Modern? tried a NATO-WP, no good either, WP formations need bersek orders to get moving, but when they find resistance, they just attack until evaporation. The best that can be done is optimise PO play for one side in an scenario like Korea, narrow front, little maneuver alternatives.
And why do you think you got stacks, and hole in lines? Could it be because you had too large formations instead of - in line with my suggestion - small ones forming up a 'logical' one with same unit colors having their objectives more spread out? Also did you try to implement reinforcements or different start locations in order to get a more balanced flow up front?
I'm certain a real good PO play scenario could be made with some creativity put in...
And why do you think you got stacks, and hole in lines? Could it be because you had too large formations instead of - in line with my suggestion - small ones forming up a 'logical' one with same unit colors having their objectives more spread out? Also did you try to implement reinforcements or different start locations in order to get a more balanced flow up front?
I'm certain a real good PO play scenario could be made with some creativity put in...
Formation size matters only in the first turn. Smaller formations activated one after the other will allow smaller attacks, but once all are activated they are going to start stacking up. This only works in the first few turns. Also, the PO is unable to undertake "soaking" attacks, as minimize losses means it doesn't attack at all, leaving the PO open to attrition by the human player.
Formation size matters only in the first turn. Smaller formations activated one after the other will allow smaller attacks, but once all are activated they are going to start stacking up. This only works in the first few turns. Also, the PO is unable to undertake "soaking" attacks, as minimize losses means it doesn't attack at all, leaving the PO open to attrition by the human player.
Is that so? You mean that different formations with different objective paths end up at the same hex, ones that's not in their path at all? I'm not talking about formation size alone, but size and different PATHS, preferably the use of several as well. See? Have you tried this?
Is that so? You mean that different formations with different objective paths end up at the same hex, ones that's not in their path at all? I'm not talking about formation size alone, but size and different PATHS, preferably the use of several as well. See? Have you tried this?
Yes. To keep up a front in TOAW the paths have to be parallel or the objective has to form a continuous line, but the PO will take the shortest, easiest route. Add that if you want the PO to advance, it must go at ignore losses/bersek settings leading to disproportionate casualties. I haven't tried to make paths were every hex in the map has an objective, but that is only going to give you a rigid PO. I haven't tried the Korea scenarios, but those are likely to be the easiest to have a decent PO, given the restricted nature of the terrain.
And I haven't touched on PO defending...
Yes. To keep up a front in TOAW the paths have to be parallel or the objective has to form a continuous line, but the PO will take the shortest, easiest route. Add that if you want the PO to advance, it must go at ignore losses/bersek settings leading to disproportionate casualties. I haven't tried to make paths were every hex in the map has an objective, but that is only going to give you a rigid PO. I haven't tried the Korea scenarios, but those are likely to be the easiest to have a decent PO, given the restricted nature of the terrain.
And I haven't touched on PO defending...
Ok. Then, do you know how many hexes the PO spreads out from an objective hex? Is there any difference having the PO defending or attacking? This seems strange becase I noticed so many times that the PO stacks up all units (given the time) in the same hex as the objective. I must be wrong then. Anyone else got any experiences on the subject?
Ok. Then, do you know how many hexes the PO spreads out from an objective hex? Is there any difference having the PO defending or attacking? This seems strange becase I noticed so many times that the PO stacks up all units (given the time) in the same hex as the objective. I must be wrong then. Anyone else got any experiences on the subject?
I haven't found any rule on this. Truth be told I haven't experimented that much on PO beyond triying to get it to perform as expected, but I think we are talking apples and oranges: what I meant was that on the way to the objective (i.e. between objectives) the PO tend to let his forces disperse all over the place.
On the defence, the PO loves to bunch up forces in the first line while leaving a substantial force uncommited no matter what.
Would someone please be so kind as to explain HOW the PO works with unit sizes, color and the best way to use the different tracks (incl how best to use the EE with these tracks)?
This has always been one of those grey areas for me.
Thanks in advance.
Would someone please be so kind as to explain HOW the PO works with unit sizes, color and the best way to use the different tracks (incl how best to use the EE with these tracks)?
This has always been one of those grey areas for me.
Thanks in advance.
PO basically ignores unit size and doesn't care if it redlights a stack. OTOH it appears to be very careful with co-op levels. Objective track use is dependent on what the designers thinks the human player is going to do.
Would someone please be so kind as to explain HOW the PO works with unit sizes, color and the best way to use the different tracks (incl how best to use the EE with these tracks)?
This has always been one of those grey areas for me.
Thanks in advance.
Can't help you much. But in general I think:
1. The PO is quite stupid in the tactical descisions
- uses every unit in a formation at the latest contested objective
(leading to...)
- letting up holes in the line
- gets surronded
2. It doesn't care about overstacking at all
3. It hardly does anything if not in 'ignore losses' setting
My advice solving the first two on the list is that you try experimenting with small formations, i e two-three units a piece. Let several such small ones build up the real historical formations. Also keep try to keep the more powerful units spread out amongst these. Set the objective paths carefully (occationally completely overlapping, most times not), and also implement the 3-way paths. Some work will be needed with the Ed to get the PO to switch accordingly as well. The third one I don't know how to solve, but I think It's a matter of figuring out how close to action a unit will have to be to react on lower aggression settings, you'll have to experiment on that one. As JMS stated above: the PO is very stupid, so the designer will have to forsee every possible action on the human part. Given there will only be so many VP's in a scenario I think that cannot be impossible. I will happily provide time for tests trying that 'small formation' stuff out. Just mail me or throw me a mess here.
Thanks all for the help.
I can get the PO to give a good showing when playing Allied and a fair showing when playing Axis.
To improve both sides though, I would like to take advantage of the different path options and am looking for any advice on how to do this. I've got about 100 free events now and with over 1000 units in the game, I've got the feeling I'll need them all...if I understand the EE and diff tracks correctly.
Bdr.Mallette
21 Mar 04, 19:55
Using different tracks is a good idea.
Force tracks under certain conditions to less aggressive objectives and then change again to other track for some other reason then revert back or leave it at the the first track setting. it takes a few turns for the formations to assume those new tracks fully.
Using strategic Bias, shock values and deployment settings together will give good P.O. action.
i.e.- Regiment at aggressive, shock 100, screen, will be aggressive and will move to clear out enemy by splitting up and forming attacks.
regiment at cautious, shock 101, screen will still be aggressive due to shock level but will take more turns to do same job.(3-4 turns more)
etc.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.