* fighters fighting without ammo @ 2003-12-07 16:07 Kenneth Gonsalves 2003-12-07 16:54 ` Lincoln Peters 2003-12-07 17:36 ` Jim Kingdon 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Kenneth Gonsalves @ 2003-12-07 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Xconq list hi, i play the modern game regularly. using fighters is becoming a pia. If a fighter with ammo 2 attacks a cell with about 15 occupants, it fires 15 times even though the ammo is exhausted after the first two shots. can you do something about this? -- regards kg http://www.ootygolfclub.org ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: fighters fighting without ammo 2003-12-07 16:07 fighters fighting without ammo Kenneth Gonsalves @ 2003-12-07 16:54 ` Lincoln Peters 2003-12-07 17:36 ` Jim Kingdon 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Lincoln Peters @ 2003-12-07 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kenneth Gonsalves; +Cc: Xconq list On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 00:55, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > hi, > i play the modern game regularly. using fighters is becoming a pia. If a > fighter with ammo 2 attacks a cell with about 15 occupants, it fires 15 times > even though the ammo is exhausted after the first two shots. can you do > something about this? It sounds like modern.g defines consumption-per-attack (which causes units to consume ammo when they attack) but not material-to-attack (which prevents units from no ammo from attacking at all). It shouldn't be difficult to fix (both tables will probably have the exact same entries). I seem to recall that there has been discussion about modifying that part of the Xconq code so that material-to-attack is not required in this case (it was originally meant to implement materials needed but not consumed during attacks, such as guns), but I don't think that anything came out of it. Lincoln Peters <sampln@sbcglobal.net> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: fighters fighting without ammo 2003-12-07 16:07 fighters fighting without ammo Kenneth Gonsalves 2003-12-07 16:54 ` Lincoln Peters @ 2003-12-07 17:36 ` Jim Kingdon 2003-12-07 18:13 ` Skeezics Boondoggle 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Jim Kingdon @ 2003-12-07 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xconq7 > i play the modern game regularly. using fighters is becoming a > pia. If a fighter with ammo 2 attacks a cell with about 15 > occupants, it fires 15 times even though the ammo is exhausted after > the first two shots. The workaround is to use the "a" (attack) command which also lets you pick which of the 15 occupants you want to attack. But yeah, getting the default (overrun) behavior to work better would make sense. I suppose going through the library and setting material-to-attack along with consumption-per-attack might be one choice. The standard game is another game which sets consumption-per-attack and not material-to-attack. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: fighters fighting without ammo 2003-12-07 17:36 ` Jim Kingdon @ 2003-12-07 18:13 ` Skeezics Boondoggle 2003-12-07 23:54 ` Bruno Boettcher ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Skeezics Boondoggle @ 2003-12-07 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xconq7 On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Jim Kingdon wrote: > > i play the modern game regularly. using fighters is becoming a > > pia. If a fighter with ammo 2 attacks a cell with about 15 > > occupants, it fires 15 times even though the ammo is exhausted after > > the first two shots. > > The workaround is to use the "a" (attack) command which also lets you > pick which of the 15 occupants you want to attack. Geez, I never knew that. That would come in handy if you have fighters attempting to pick out a bomber mixed in with a series of ground troops... > But yeah, getting the default (overrun) behavior to work better would > make sense. I suppose going through the library and setting > material-to-attack along with consumption-per-attack might be one > choice. The standard game is another game which sets > consumption-per-attack and not material-to-attack. Well, consider that bombers have the same behavior too - bomb a city full of units and it does hit/miss calculations for everything in the hex. In that case, it might make more sense, since bombs could damage more than one unit, but for consistency you'd probably want the "three bombs, three hits max" behavior to apply there as well. In fact, what is the "ammo" supposed to represent for fighters? Certainly not bullets. :-) Three passes or strafing runs? Three 100-round bursts? Three volleys of rockets? It could be argued that a fighter attacking a heavily occupied hex would have just as much likelihood at inflicting at least partial damage on more than n units per attack in that case... Perhaps the calculations for both bomber and fighter attacks could reflect a proportional damage assessment based on how many defenders are present? Choose one target with the "a" command and you inflict full damage on that one target; click on a full hex otherwise and you potentially inflict minor damage on multiple units. (But the HP granularity probably wouldn't allow for that level of precision, and could reduce the effectiveness of air attacks too much. Hmmm.) The AIs don't use air power very effectively, which I must admit is one easy way to defeat them. In some games I've mounted such intense air and naval bombardment campaigns that the AIs have resigned with 4 or 5 cities left (whatever I hadn't flattened entirely) before my convoy of transports has even reached shore. Park a couple of destroyers off a coastal town and lazily lob a few shells in there and you can eventually draw off defenders to open up easy landing areas, and if you throw enough naval units off the coast the AI will shift to building massive numbers of bombers to try to eliminate them - which, at 16 turns to build, means you have plenty of time to roll in an armored column and start picking off towns and take away big chunks of manufacturing capability. It's pretty rare that I have to follow up with even a second transport load of armor if the navy has peppered the coast, the fighters have cleared away the enemy bombers, and paratroopers have taken at least one outlying town to sow confusion in the poor AI's little brain. :-) Very few games (with 3-5 AI opponents) go beyond 100 rounds... I'm looking forward to some of the AI improvements, but y'know, most times I like to just take a break and "go conquer the world" so it's kind of relaxing to just swarm over the map and blast everything to bits. :-) But improving the AI's ability to use a more balanced approach to air, sea and land power would probably improve its chances quite a bit. It tends to go nuts and build lots of one thing, then build lots of the next thing, rarely seems to put up air patrols, never has destroyer screens to defend coastal cities, and too often sends out waves of transports completely undefended, where they're almost always picked up (first by fighters, then by destroyers, as bombers are brought in to blow them away) way before they reach landfall. And losing full transports is expensive, obviously. I guess if the AIs start to get smarter I'll have to work a little harder. :-) -- Chris ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: fighters fighting without ammo 2003-12-07 18:13 ` Skeezics Boondoggle @ 2003-12-07 23:54 ` Bruno Boettcher 2003-12-13 5:11 ` Eric McDonald 2003-12-08 8:19 ` Kenneth Gonsalves 2003-12-13 4:59 ` Eric McDonald 2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Bruno Boettcher @ 2003-12-07 23:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xconq7 On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 08:54:16AM -0800, Skeezics Boondoggle wrote: > > > i play the modern game regularly. using fighters is becoming a > > > pia. If a fighter with ammo 2 attacks a cell with about 15 > > > occupants, it fires 15 times even though the ammo is exhausted after > > > the first two shots. what bothers me more is the fact that all the 15 units respond to the attack :D clearly this is a long discussed and recurrent thread on the mass combat vs one to one combat.... me too i often would like to see the usual military mass combat approximation going into account should have some papers on those formulas somewhere, will try to dig them up again if it interests anyone... cause i see way more often than i want to see it how 1-2 armors are able to defeat 10-15 armors just by pure luck.... but overwhelmed that way they should be simply shoot down..... > Well, consider that bombers have the same behavior too - bomb a city full > of units and it does hit/miss calculations for everything in the hex. In yep, but normally when a bomber comes everyone gets in hide and prays besides the flak :D thus non-aeral defenders should shut up when the bomber fires into a place..... > that case, it might make more sense, since bombs could damage more than > one unit, but for consistency you'd probably want the "three bombs, three > hits max" behavior to apply there as well. hmm as sayd, recurrent wish :D i second this one :D having the difference of surface weapons and point weapons would be nice... cause seeing some bombers hitting a place full of infantry leaving nearly all untouched isn't very satisfactory when comparing to the damages recorded in WW2... :O > In fact, what is the "ammo" supposed to represent for fighters? Certainly > not bullets. :-) Three passes or strafing runs? Three 100-round bursts? > Three volleys of rockets? It could be argued that a fighter attacking a heh... fighters nowadays a multi-system weapon platforms :D in this case i suppose they are only areal defense mechanisms, thus i vote for the bursts :) > Perhaps the calculations for both bomber and fighter attacks could reflect > a proportional damage assessment based on how many defenders are present? generally what about a max attacks/round? once again i am wondering about the armor combats, where does all this ammo comes from? usually when you shoot the x rounds against an attacker/defender that was it... once a one to one combat was made shouldn't the unit have a malus against other attacks? you can't really defend against multiple attackers (or at least make the number of attackers a unit may dodge experience dependend) > Choose one target with the "a" command and you inflict full damage on that > one target; click on a full hex otherwise and you potentially inflict > minor damage on multiple units. (But the HP granularity probably wouldn't yup second that one > The AIs don't use air power very effectively, which I must admit is one that's the least you might say :D > easy way to defeat them. In some games I've mounted such intense air and > naval bombardment campaigns that the AIs have resigned with 4 or 5 cities yup > enemy bombers, and paratroopers have taken at least one outlying town to > sow confusion in the poor AI's little brain. :-) Very few games (with 3-5 heh the AI is quite poor against multipoint attacks.... thus all attacks that come from at least 2 way completely throw the AI off-balance > I'm looking forward to some of the AI improvements, but y'know, most times > I like to just take a break and "go conquer the world" so it's kind of > relaxing to just swarm over the map and blast everything to bits. :-) same here :D if only the making up of the standing orders where easier, and this trasnport task was introduced it would be even better! > > But improving the AI's ability to use a more balanced approach to air, sea > and land power would probably improve its chances quite a bit. It tends > to go nuts and build lots of one thing, then build lots of the next thing, > rarely seems to put up air patrols, never has destroyer screens to defend > coastal cities, and too often sends out waves of transports completely > undefended, where they're almost always picked up (first by fighters, then > by destroyers, as bombers are brought in to blow them away) way before > they reach landfall. And losing full transports is expensive, obviously. true, BTW i am wondering too about the naval combats.... how comes that in standard game bombers are way more effective against troop transports than subs and destroyers? > I guess if the AIs start to get smarter I'll have to work a little harder. heh if the ai gets somewhat stronger we will need skill levels to be setted at some time ;) -- ciao bboett ============================================================== bboett@adlp.org http://inforezo.u-strasbg.fr/~bboett =============================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: fighters fighting without ammo 2003-12-07 23:54 ` Bruno Boettcher @ 2003-12-13 5:11 ` Eric McDonald 2003-12-13 10:57 ` Bruno Boettcher 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Eric McDonald @ 2003-12-13 5:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bboett; +Cc: xconq7 Hi Bruno, On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Bruno Boettcher wrote: > > In fact, what is the "ammo" supposed to represent for fighters? Certainly > > not bullets. :-) Three passes or strafing runs? Three 100-round bursts? > > Three volleys of rockets? It could be argued that a fighter attacking a > heh... fighters nowadays a multi-system weapon platforms :D > in this case i suppose they are only areal defense mechanisms, thus i > vote for the bursts :) Ammo can represent different things to different targets, and Xconq can actually deal with this via the 'hit-by' table. In fact, you can have one weapons platform use different types of ammo for different types of targets with the 'hit-by' table. > > I guess if the AIs start to get smarter I'll have to work a little harder. > heh if the ai gets somewhat stronger we will need skill levels to be > setted at some time ;) I think we still have quite a ways to go before we reach that stage, but I certainly look forward to that day. The AI is certainly my highest priority in the post-7.5 landscape. Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: fighters fighting without ammo 2003-12-13 5:11 ` Eric McDonald @ 2003-12-13 10:57 ` Bruno Boettcher 2003-12-13 12:02 ` Hans Ronne 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Bruno Boettcher @ 2003-12-13 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xconq7 On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:40:12PM -0500, Eric McDonald wrote: Hi Eric > Ammo can represent different things to different targets, and > Xconq can actually deal with this via the 'hit-by' table. In fact, ah true true, forgot that one indeed! > I think we still have quite a ways to go before we reach that > stage, but I certainly look forward to that day. The AI is > certainly my highest priority in the post-7.5 landscape. that would be way cool :D -- ciao bboett ============================================================== bboett@adlp.org http://inforezo.u-strasbg.fr/~bboett =============================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: fighters fighting without ammo 2003-12-13 10:57 ` Bruno Boettcher @ 2003-12-13 12:02 ` Hans Ronne 2003-12-13 19:55 ` Eric McDonald 2003-12-13 20:02 ` Jim Kingdon 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Hans Ronne @ 2003-12-13 12:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bboett; +Cc: xconq7 >On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:40:12PM -0500, Eric McDonald wrote: >Hi Eric >> Ammo can represent different things to different targets, and >> Xconq can actually deal with this via the 'hit-by' table. In fact, > ah true true, forgot that one indeed! > >> I think we still have quite a ways to go before we reach that >> stage, but I certainly look forward to that day. The AI is >> certainly my highest priority in the post-7.5 landscape. >that would be way cool :D The main problem with the mplayer is that it focuses on territory (theaters) rather than on enemy units. I think an AI that goes for the jugular, i.e. attacks all enemy units within sight would be much meaner. One easy way to achieve this is to extend the default unit tactical-range, which is where the action-reaction code takes over. Right now it is set to 4 cells, which means that the AI will attack anything that comes within 4 cells of one of its units. This could easily be changed to 20 cells, for example. I think there would be a negative effect on performance, but I haven't tested this rigourously. Hans ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: fighters fighting without ammo 2003-12-13 12:02 ` Hans Ronne @ 2003-12-13 19:55 ` Eric McDonald 2003-12-13 20:02 ` Jim Kingdon 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Eric McDonald @ 2003-12-13 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hans Ronne; +Cc: bboett, xconq7 Hi Hans, Bruno, others, On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Hans Ronne wrote: > One easy way to achieve this is to extend the default unit tactical-range, > which is where the action-reaction code takes over. Right now it is set to > 4 cells, which means that the AI will attack anything that comes within 4 > cells of one of its units. This could easily be changed to 20 cells, for > example. I think there would be a negative effect on performance, but I > haven't tested this rigourously. I have set this value higher for units in Bellum Aeternum. In the case of aircraft, it is significantly higher. I think it has adversely affected performance some, especially once the game reaches a point where there are lots of units clogged up on the tips of peninsulae (a problem which is alleviated by the new path-finding). But the AI is better at coming after targets than in the standard game, IMO. Regards, Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: fighters fighting without ammo 2003-12-13 12:02 ` Hans Ronne 2003-12-13 19:55 ` Eric McDonald @ 2003-12-13 20:02 ` Jim Kingdon 2003-12-14 4:33 ` Hans Ronne 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Jim Kingdon @ 2003-12-13 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xconq7 > I think an AI that goes for the jugular, i.e. attacks all enemy units > within sight would be much meaner. Probably so. Although I usually succeed by a flanking attack on the AI (generally on the very edge of the world), and an aggressive AI might just tend to throw its units even more away from where I'm attacking. > I think there would be a negative effect on performance, but I haven't > tested this rigourously. I wonder if it would be a good idea to put in some instrumentation for performance (like reporting times for "AI action-reaction code", "UI", and other such categories). Of course the tricky part is that the hot spots might vary by game, by whether one is early or late in the game, and any number of other variables. But subjectively it seems like I'm waiting more and more for xconq while the AI's move (I use sequential mode, because the game is easier if the AI's move first and use up their ACP's before I move). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: fighters fighting without ammo 2003-12-13 20:02 ` Jim Kingdon @ 2003-12-14 4:33 ` Hans Ronne 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Hans Ronne @ 2003-12-14 4:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jim Kingdon; +Cc: xconq7 >> I think there would be a negative effect on performance, but I haven't >> tested this rigourously. > >I wonder if it would be a good idea to put in some instrumentation for >performance (like reporting times for "AI action-reaction code", "UI", >and other such categories). Of course the tricky part is that the hot >spots might vary by game, by whether one is early or late in the game, >and any number of other variables. But subjectively it seems like I'm >waiting more and more for xconq while the AI's move (I use sequential >mode, because the game is easier if the AI's move first and use up >their ACP's before I move). I usually do profiling when I want to look at performance. I improved the xconq profiling support on the Mac a long time ago, but perhaps something should be done to facilitate profiling on other platforms as well? I haven't looked into this since I mostly use the Mac. As for the recent slowdowns in the AI code, they are caused by the new path code. Since I disabled the path cache in order to stop the network sync errors, it has to recalculate the paths every time, which takes a lot of time. Hopefully, when Peter has fixed the code, it will be faster again. Hans ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: fighters fighting without ammo 2003-12-07 18:13 ` Skeezics Boondoggle 2003-12-07 23:54 ` Bruno Boettcher @ 2003-12-08 8:19 ` Kenneth Gonsalves 2003-12-13 4:59 ` Eric McDonald 2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Kenneth Gonsalves @ 2003-12-08 8:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Skeezics Boondoggle, xconq7 On Sunday 07 December 2003 22:24, Skeezics Boondoggle wrote: > I'm looking forward to some of the AI improvements, but y'know, most times > I like to just take a break and "go conquer the world" so it's kind of > relaxing to just swarm over the map and blast everything to bits. :-) > > But improving the AI's ability to use a more balanced approach to air, sea > and land power would probably improve its chances quite a bit. It tends > to go nuts and build lots of one thing, then build lots of the next thing, > rarely seems to put up air patrols, never has destroyer screens to defend > coastal cities, and too often sends out waves of transports completely > undefended, where they're almost always picked up (first by fighters, then > by destroyers, as bombers are brought in to blow them away) way before > they reach landfall. And losing full transports is expensive, obviously. > > I guess if the AIs start to get smarter I'll have to work a little harder. try the modern game - more evenly matched -- regards kg http://www.ootygolfclub.org ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: fighters fighting without ammo 2003-12-07 18:13 ` Skeezics Boondoggle 2003-12-07 23:54 ` Bruno Boettcher 2003-12-08 8:19 ` Kenneth Gonsalves @ 2003-12-13 4:59 ` Eric McDonald 2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Eric McDonald @ 2003-12-13 4:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Skeezics Boondoggle; +Cc: xconq7 Hi Chris, On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Skeezics Boondoggle wrote: > Perhaps the calculations for both bomber and fighter attacks could reflect > a proportional damage assessment based on how many defenders are present? If we do something with Bruno's idea of distinguishing between point weapons (bullets, etc...) and spread weapons (bombs, etc...), then this might be definitely be something to think about. Another idea I have had for a while is "critical hits". Have separate 'critical-hit-chance' and 'critical-hit-damage' tables which would represent the chance to do extraordinary damage and how much damage that would be. This could reflect things like a bomb hitting a ship's ammo magazine or an assassin severing someone's spinal cord. > Choose one target with the "a" command and you inflict full damage on that > one target; click on a full hex otherwise and you potentially inflict > minor damage on multiple units. (But the HP granularity probably wouldn't > allow for that level of precision, and could reduce the effectiveness of > air attacks too much. Hmmm.) Of course, HP and damage could be rescaled to reflect a new granularity. > I'm looking forward to some of the AI improvements, but y'know, most times > I like to just take a break and "go conquer the world" so it's kind of > relaxing to just swarm over the map and blast everything to bits. :-) Personally, I think that clubbing baby seals gets boring after a while.... Maybe if the AI's were more like young walruses that tried to gore you occasionally, things would be a bit more gratifying.... > I guess if the AIs start to get smarter I'll have to work a little harder. > :-) You poor devil. :-) Regards, Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-12-13 19:55 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2003-12-07 16:07 fighters fighting without ammo Kenneth Gonsalves 2003-12-07 16:54 ` Lincoln Peters 2003-12-07 17:36 ` Jim Kingdon 2003-12-07 18:13 ` Skeezics Boondoggle 2003-12-07 23:54 ` Bruno Boettcher 2003-12-13 5:11 ` Eric McDonald 2003-12-13 10:57 ` Bruno Boettcher 2003-12-13 12:02 ` Hans Ronne 2003-12-13 19:55 ` Eric McDonald 2003-12-13 20:02 ` Jim Kingdon 2003-12-14 4:33 ` Hans Ronne 2003-12-08 8:19 ` Kenneth Gonsalves 2003-12-13 4:59 ` Eric McDonald
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).