fighters fighting without ammo

fighters fighting without ammo

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

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

Re: fighters fighting without ammo

[Lincoln Peters]

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>

Re: fighters fighting without ammo

[Jim Kingdon]

> 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.

Re: fighters fighting without ammo

[Skeezics Boondoggle]

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

Re: fighters fighting without ammo

[Bruno Boettcher]

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
===============================================================

Re: fighters fighting without ammo

[Eric McDonald]

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

Re: fighters fighting without ammo

[Bruno Boettcher]

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
===============================================================

Re: fighters fighting without ammo

[Hans Ronne]

>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

Re: fighters fighting without ammo

[Eric McDonald]

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

Re: fighters fighting without ammo

[Jim Kingdon]

> 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).

Re: fighters fighting without ammo

[Hans Ronne]

>> 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

Re: fighters fighting without ammo

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

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

Re: fighters fighting without ammo

[Eric McDonald]

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