Don't Feel Sorry For The AI

[Charles22]

I now know better. My 3rd battle in 9/39 Poland was so bad I thought I stood a chance to lose, though I came in with a fairly substabtial draw (which I consider a defeat). I was stupid enough to play with a visibility of only 7. I doubt I will ever let that happen again. The AI Poles were advancing on me, and the following is the reason you should not feel sorry for the AI at all.

For artillery, I had 4 core 100mm offboard guns (which didn't counterfire a single gun, but then I figured later it was better being used for regular bombardment, as the AI couldn't possibly counterfire it if fired on the field, and probably wouldn't reserve anything for counterfiring anyway) and 2 150IG's and 2 75IG's. Wow, 8 whole guns. What did the AI pick? 60 75mm guns, only four of which were onboard. There was some other artillery but I didn't bother counting them.

The guns are what mostly gets me here, as having that many guns going off gets to be a real nuisance irrespective of what damage it may cause, but this battle also rather epitomized how lopsided things can often get in favor of the AI. In most situations at this close range (7 max) my AFV's would very often not hit on the first shot (probably 80% misses), while the Polish ones did, often destroying, with something close to a 50% ratio. For a couple of times I noticed the percentage on one of my tanks, it would state 95% and miss, then fire 75% and miss. Then of course the AI fires one time in response and kaboom! Naturally I didn't see the AI percentages but that's pretty close to how the whole battle went, where the AI was hitting and often killing 50% of the time, whereas my shots were almost always over 50% and were hitting more like 25%, especially if it was the first shot. It seemed like a ripoff. So yeah, guys, don't feel any mercy for those bastards. It's hard to believe I destroyed 93 tanks to my 21 lost (I have between 33-38 core AFV's).

Next battle you ask? Why, the 4th battle is again in 9/39 Poland (the mass grave of the Wehrmacht). I can only wonder how many lovely polish battles 10/39 will generate (60 battle campaign) if I ever get there.

[Ramm]

What forces did you buy exactly and how big the map? Your description of a massive Polish/Nazi tank battle sounds like the start of a fun campaign:) After I get done my homework tonight I was thinking about starting a SPWW2 campaign:D

Cheers,

Andrew

[Charles22]

What forces did you buy exactly and how big the map? Your description of a massive Polish/Nazi tank battle sounds like the start of a fun campaign:) After I get done my homework tonight I was thinking about starting a SPWW2 campaign:D

Cheers,

AndrewI play on a 200X130. This makes something of a more mobile defense very necessary. When visibility is worse it's more crucial. I may had destroyed all of his tanks and despite him losing some 1247 men he still had a minimum of 15 of those large infantry squads that hadn't even been touched. I give the AI always the tank heavy option.

Basically I start out the long campaign as germany with 60 battles, with the most disadvantageous repair option (-20%) using like 3300pts starting out. Roughly speaking, this is the force composition:
1 infantry company, including changing 1 into engineers and 1 into SS inf.
2 tank companies, composing of 30-33 AFV's total
1 engineer and 1 Brandenburger platoons
1 HMG section
8 SPAA's
1 AA section
3 37mm ATG's
1 scout section
1 HT platoon
1 88ATG section
4 100mm offboard guns
2 onboard 150IG's
2 onboard 75IG's
1 highest rated sniper

I have on any given campaign a variance between 110-130 units (USSR usually having more units). It's meant to simulate the mobile defense tactics employed on the late eastern front by germany. With that much height and not a lot of depth, it is a very fascinating game of trying to predict when you vacate, or near vacate areas in order to help where the enemy may be concentrating an attack. Unlike in the battles measuering only 100 hexes high, you have to be a much more proficient predictor of just what is needed where, as help takes often much longer to come. I have tanks which in some cases are going a full 6 or 7 turns before they can help in the area needed. This also helps teach the value of any amount of delaying that one can employ that often wouldn't matter on smaller maps.

On the flip side, it makes defense that much harder, in theory, for the AI, but if you attack pretty much across a broad front, this will weaken your attack a bit. I tend to have hard thrusts with my two tank companies, aided with some infantry, and then cover all the other territory to fight in either adequate to what I can expect, or inadequate. The idea is to have every attack where there is a bit of danger, but also parts where there's lots of success, so that you can see, if the weak areas face a lot of opposition, or even a determined counter-attack, then you have to start bleeding off the main thrusts. I also always play with clustered objectives, which is what the AI is geared for defending, which in theory should also help make the AI's defense easier, because the flanks won't need to be defended as much as with grapeshot objectives, and be less piecemeal. The AI may place the defense the exact same way for grapeshot, which of course means there's some objectives which would be easy takes. For the human, I guess it can make defense more difficult playing grapeshot, but since the Ai isn't geared for grapeshot defense, it probably isn't geared for grapeshot attack, though if you're like me you're determined not to lose a single one of them, even temporarily (unfortunately I lost about 60% of them in this clustered objectives battle, and the battle went the full 49 turns).

I played one battle of SPWAW, and this game doesn't show it would have a problem duplicating that stunt, but I had faced like 150 of the French S-35's. Talk about trembling! I destroyed maybe 30 of them, and damaged quite a few more, before the French surrendered (I was being assaulted). If I wanted to fight it out, he could had possibly had destroyed every one of my units with such a force, but I plugged away enough that he gave up. France may be the only nation that will be that well off and still surrender. SPWAW wouldn't let me have the sort of maps I use in this game though. Oh man, facing 150 S-35's would be much worse with this map.

[gila]

I now know better. My 3rd battle in 9/39 Poland was so bad I thought I stood a chance to lose, though I came in with a fairly substabtial draw (which I consider a defeat). I was stupid enough to play with a visibility of only 7. I doubt I will ever let that happen again. The AI Poles were advancing on me, and the following is the reason you should not feel sorry for the AI at all.

For artillery, I had 4 core 100mm offboard guns (which didn't counterfire a single gun, but then I figured later it was better being used for regular bombardment, as the AI couldn't possibly counterfire it if fired on the field, and probably wouldn't reserve anything for counterfiring anyway) and 2 150IG's and 2 75IG's. Wow, 8 whole guns. What did the AI pick? 60 75mm guns, only four of which were onboard. There was some other artillery but I didn't bother counting them.

The guns are what mostly gets me here, as having that many guns going off gets to be a real nuisance irrespective of what damage it may cause, but this battle also rather epitomized how lopsided things can often get in favor of the AI. In most situations at this close range (7 max) my AFV's would very often not hit on the first shot (probably 80% misses), while the Polish ones did, often destroying, with something close to a 50% ratio. For a couple of times I noticed the percentage on one of my tanks, it would state 95% and miss, then fire 75% and miss. Then of course the AI fires one time in response and kaboom! Naturally I didn't see the AI percentages but that's pretty close to how the whole battle went, where the AI was hitting and often killing 50% of the time, whereas my shots were almost always over 50% and were hitting more like 25%, especially if it was the first shot. It seemed like a ripoff. So yeah, guys, don't feel any mercy for those bastards. It's hard to believe I destroyed 93 tanks to my 21 lost (I have between 33-38 core AFV's).

Next battle you ask? Why, the 4th battle is again in 9/39 Poland (the mass grave of the Wehrmacht). I can only wonder how many lovely polish battles 10/39 will generate (60 battle campaign) if I ever get there.

Sounds like you got some rough handling by AI Arty.
I am assuming you went in with a core value of 2000 or more?
And did polish ATR teams and infrt. deal alot of grief? been there and done before:D
Try keeping your core low until you get to france .
High force in poland means alot of infrt.,Arty. and thier spotters:eek:

[Charles22]

I started out with 3300pts.

Oh I know the more points the more likely to see artillery, especially if it's the most expensive unit amid countless ranks that are very cheap, I just had never seen so much of it at one time. They were very annoying, and though I think their kill/damage ratio might had been fine, they did seem to find my troops in circumstances which appeared to not be entirely a matter of them not having some homing device. If it had not been for my other games I would believe they did have one. Their true annoyance was just seeing so many guns going off every blasted turn, not 60 every turn needless to say, such that so much time was consumed seeing them fall so much. I was so annoyed by it I removed the blast radius option, which delays things further. Fast artillery is a bit of a joke, so I surely wouldn't consdier that.

This is probably the first battle against the Poles, in so many versions of winSPWW2 against the Poles, and the vast majority of my battles have been germany vs poland, that I have seen probably more than 30 enemy guns.

I'm not interested in keeping my core smaller until France. I'm basically trying to start off with a core, in terms of number of units, which I will keep throughout the entire war, so that way I get more units experienced quicker. My point total is pretty high (but the map height very large) is due also to my picking a good deal of my AFV's as medium tanks starting out. There is no way I could cover 200 hexes with only 2000 german points, as the 3300 spent as I spent it, is difficult enough at times (the USSR might manage fine with 2000 though). This battle, due mostly to very poor visibility, proves that the map and the amount of units I use with it can turn pretty sharply to my disadvantage, at least enough to make me worry that I might lose (score me: 5400 AI:3507), so at least the way I have things set up, it isn't instant decisive victory all the time.

[gila]

What forces did you buy exactly and how big the map? Your description of a massive Polish/Nazi tank battle sounds like the start of a fun campaign:) After I get done my homework tonight I was thinking about starting a SPWW2 campaign:D

Cheers,

Andrew

Basically I start out the long campaign as germany with 60 battles, with the most disadvantageous repair option (-20%) using like 3300pts starting out. Roughly speaking, this is the force composition:
1 infantry company, including changing 1 into engineers and 1 into SS inf.

2 tank companies, composing of 30-33 AFV's total
Why so many tanks?

1 engineer and
1 Brandenburger platoons
Brandenburgers cost more i'd go for regs
1 HMG section

8 SPAA's
worthless in poland as the poland AF is done already by sept '39.

1 AA section
Unnecessary in poland

3 37mm ATG's
just a waste

1 scout section
1 HT platoon

1 88ATG section
What targets to shoot at?

4 100mm offboard guns
2 onboard 150IG's
2 onboard 75IG's
1 highest rated sniper


How many airstrikes also?

Your wasting alot of pts, giving the poles extra pts. and whining that it's unfair.

[Lt. Ketch]

I'm basically trying to start off with a core, in terms of number of units, which I will keep throughout the entire war, so that way I get more units experienced quicker.

My experience has been that the more units you have the slower they get experience.

Now I openly acknowledge that I do not know all the ways that units can get experience and so could be completely off. An example. There are three enemy units and the potential expereinced that can be gained by defeating them is 100 points. If I attack each unit with three of my own, then that 100 points gets spilt between 9 units, where as if I use the same three units to defeat all three of them, it will boost them up higher quicker. I realize that if you face an enemy that outnumbers yours, this logic doesn't apply nearly as much because ALL of you units will be wading through troops and gaining experience.

I also realize that if you put all your eggs in one basket, or exp into one platoon, a well placed artillary barrage will destory all your work. So I believe I can understand what you're looking to accomplish. A experienced but not intirely unexpendable force. You mentioned cutting back in France, do you indent to delete your losest experienced units?

Back on topic - I never feel sorry for the AI. Don and Andy have created a very good warmind that I only have the upmost respect for. As I get better I may end up beating it more often and easier, but I hope I never underestimate it.

[Charles22]

I'm basically trying to start off with a core, in terms of number of units, which I will keep throughout the entire war, so that way I get more units experienced quicker.

My experience has been that the more units you have the slower they get experience.

Now I openly acknowledge that I do not know all the ways that units can get experience and so could be completely off. An example. There are three enemy units and the potential expereinced that can be gained by defeating them is 100 points. If I attack each unit with three of my own, then that 100 points gets spilt between 9 units, where as if I use the same three units to defeat all three of them, it will boost them up higher quicker. I realize that if you face an enemy that outnumbers yours, this logic doesn't apply nearly as much because ALL of you units will be wading through troops and gaining experience.

I also realize that if you put all your eggs in one basket, or exp into one platoon, a well placed artillary barrage will destory all your work. So I believe I can understand what you're looking to accomplish. A experienced but not intirely unexpendable force. You mentioned cutting back in France, do you indent to delete your losest experienced units?

Back on topic - I never feel sorry for the AI. Don and Andy have created a very good warmind that I only have the upmost respect for. As I get better I may end up beating it more often and easier, but I hope I never underestimate it.I can't make heads or tails of your observation. I can't see how 3 units attacking in any form would split 9 ways experience gain. It either goes to the unit delivering the final blow, as kills do, or they split up equally between the three. If what you are saying is that with a army of 9 units, ALL experience gains always goes to all of them, and that therefore an entire army of only three units would be bigger experience gains, that is correct math, but you forgot a huge part of the equation.

If I understand you correctly, I do not think you are correct, but let me continue as though you are. In this last game, we know I had 93 AFV kills, so obviously 93 experience gains (that is if every kill is an experience gain of some sort) were the minimum possible expereince gained. If you had 3 units, well look at all the experience you would gain compared to a greater number of units, right? Problem is, you will never get 93 kills with either 3 or 9 units. As well, if you get 9 kills with 9 units, and I get 93 kills with 92 units, then I come off better than you per unit experience gain.

Now, perhaps there has been a detailed explanation of how experience gains, be that in the manual or not, and for my part, I just get as many kills as possible and hope that helps. However, there are plenty of units that don't even have a kill that gain more than the ones with numerous kills. Also, there are units who seem to have not fired a single round, whom advance as well (if so, that would destroy the notion that guns fired, even with no kills, would gain experience alone - not that anyone has that theory).

You mentioned cutting back in France, do you indent to delete your losest experienced units?
Hmmm, you do give me interesting food for thought. I had never considered that. But I don't think it ever pays off. for example: a PZIVB gets destroyed last battle in Poland and I replace it with another. Suppose the new unit comes in with 60 exp. I could gamble points away after that first battle in France, assuming this unit survives, and then buy another tank in the hopes of maybe getting a 75exp crew.

Otherwise, I don't see any point in deleting any. As well, I have not a lot of idea about how exp is gained, but I can tell you that number of kills can matter, and that units gain them without even firing a round. Inevitably, even if you are and I are totally blind to how they gain exp, they will, because if what I just said is true, they will all be flagged for gain before long. If you have a unit in that army for say 4 battles, the chances of him being of higher exp than the highest rated new unit of the same type is very high. In truth, ALL surviving units may gain exp, but inbetween battles we only are aware (onscreen at the top left) of the ones who gained in experience type, like experienced to elite. If one keeps a log of each units ranking one would find out quick enough if all survivors gain exp of some amount.

[Charles22]

What forces did you buy exactly and how big the map? Your description of a massive Polish/Nazi tank battle sounds like the start of a fun campaign:) After I get done my homework tonight I was thinking about starting a SPWW2 campaign:D

Cheers,

Andrew

Basically I start out the long campaign as germany with 60 battles, with the most disadvantageous repair option (-20%) using like 3300pts starting out. Roughly speaking, this is the force composition:
1 infantry company, including changing 1 into engineers and 1 into SS inf.

2 tank companies, composing of 30-33 AFV's total
Why so many tanks?

1 engineer and
1 Brandenburger platoons
Brandenburgers cost more i'd go for regs
1 HMG section

8 SPAA's
worthless in poland as the poland AF is done already by sept '39.

1 AA section
Unnecessary in poland

3 37mm ATG's
just a waste

1 scout section
1 HT platoon

1 88ATG section
What targets to shoot at?

4 100mm offboard guns
2 onboard 150IG's
2 onboard 75IG's
1 highest rated sniper


How many airstrikes also?

Your wasting alot of pts, giving the poles extra pts. and whining that it's unfair.

There are so many tanks for a number of reasons. Foremost because I find playing with a minimal amount of tanks VERY boring (the enemy is given the tank heavy option as well). Also, as I explained earlier, I am trying to create something of the feel of a force similar to a late east front german force, one which will often need mobility on the defensive to have much hope of holding, as my maps are very high (200) and somewhat narrow (130) such that the enemy is the quicker upon me, and I have more territory to cover up and down. The side benefit to this, is that you have a map so tall, that you end up a lot of times with almost 2 or 3 separate armies, instead of just 1 or 2, because even the longest ranging AFV guns in great visibility can't pretty much dominate the board by taking up basically one or two central positions.

I do have some regular infantry but I think having a dominant infantry unit is worth their extra price. How many infantry units have both "2" LMG's and a satchel charge? Or 2 LMG's and a sniper rifle? And these guys are very experienced, so you can get them to elite in no time.

8 SPAA's worthless? Truly you do not appreciate the advanatges of long standing units. It's a build for the future it is, because 100+ rated SPAA when germany is the one being air attacked, is far better than 60exp SPAA bought on the fly. Besides, even on the matter of Poland itself in a mere 7 rated visibility, these guys proved invaluable. Now that isn't the normal case, but I let my emotion get the better of me, and put them in range so close (as 7 is close) that some of them were engaged, by infantry. I usually pretty much hide them for the first battles, but will use them for distanced infantry support when enemy planes cannot be found. Though they have no armor, and that's why I am very cautious with them, they must had destroyed at least 6 tanks, and I lost only one of them. I don't think I lost a single man on the others. This was partly sue to the enemy tansk preferring to engage my AFV's though the SPAA was about. I was getting far more reliable kills with them, but it was very close range. Every unit in my army has a purpose, though it may not show up in every battle (most notably my ATG's).

37mm ATG's a waste? Well, in this battle you couldn't had been wronger. They had the most outstanding effort of the entire army this time around, and if I had towed them with the HT's they would had been more outstanding still. I placed them on my southern flank with virtually no support. They destroyed approximately 10 AFV's without losing a single man (IIRC they may not had been even fired upon)! That was the entirity of the polish southern flank attack destroyed. Somewhere along the way, I decided to throw some of the slightly more northern AFV possible support into the objective areas I was losing, because it became apparent that enough time passed they were no longer needed, but also because these aces were just begging for more. Way to go team! Defending against advances, you may not find a more valuable platoon than ATG's in cover on a flank. Perhaps half your battles in an LC is defensive, so why not have some units which excel at that? The results I posted aren't typical of these guns, but it does show what they are capable of.

88's not having targets? Surely you jest. These were the ATG type, not the AA type. Nonetheless, the AA version is very formidable anyway. Yes, you are somewhat correct, because those guns are so valuable, I could not dare risk them against a target when visibility was a mere 7, for this battle anyway. If, when campaiging, you are interested in getting units to elite status, there is no gun better for the german cause. You do recall the disadvantages germany has against the heavier French, British, and USSR tanks don't you? That's where these babies come in. I would venture to guess they're still relavent until at least 1943 for knocking out heavier armor, after that the crew can be switched to the 88pak ATG's or something. If one feels like using them for long-range anti-personnel use at times, they can work real well there too.

Airstrikes? I wasn't allowed any IIRC, but if they were available I didnt' buy any. They would had been all but useless in this battle anyway, as the visibility was very low.

I didn't whine that giving the poles extra points was unfair. The gist of any whining was directed at excessive artillery picking by the AI and how the direct fire between AFV's was workign heavily to my disadvantage this time. I have had many battles with this size of a force against the poles, and it's the first time anything this nightmarish regarding artillery came off.

Ah, but I have discovered something. This is the first very low visibility game I have played in winSPWW2 as well. I don't think it is a coincidence that my counter-battery sat so long and didn't counter a thing (and with so much to counter). I also don't think it's a coincidence that the AI would go quite out of character of pick that much artillery, though I would still consider half of 60 guns pretty heavy, but I have seen that a few times and aren't amazed by it. I think the AI figures I CANNOT counter-battery him, because the low visibility would prevent that (which I didn't realize, if true) and thereby picks artillery in droves. I don't think I will go along with any battles having visibility that low again, and that may cure this excessive amount of artillery entirely.

BTW, I think you took my experienced gained through units being in core, incorrectly. What I was saying was that the longer a unti is in core, and is not destroyed, the more experience it gains. Even if exp is gained through kills alone, it can't gain exp if it isn't in the core, and the longer in the core the longer it can get kills.

[Ramm]

Basically I start out the long campaign as germany with 60 battles, with the most disadvantageous repair option (-20%) using like 3300pts starting out. Roughly speaking, this is the force composition:
1 infantry company, including changing 1 into engineers and 1 into SS inf.

2 tank companies, composing of 30-33 AFV's total
Why so many tanks?

1 engineer and
1 Brandenburger platoons
Brandenburgers cost more i'd go for regs
1 HMG section

8 SPAA's
worthless in poland as the poland AF is done already by sept '39.

1 AA section
Unnecessary in poland

3 37mm ATG's
just a waste

1 scout section
1 HT platoon

1 88ATG section
What targets to shoot at?

4 100mm offboard guns
2 onboard 150IG's
2 onboard 75IG's
1 highest rated sniper


How many airstrikes also?

Your wasting alot of pts, giving the poles extra pts. and whining that it's unfair.

There are so many tanks for a number of reasons. Foremost because I find playing with a minimal amount of tanks VERY boring (the enemy is given the tank heavy option as well). Also, as I explained earlier, I am trying to create something of the feel of a force similar to a late east front german force, one which will often need mobility on the defensive to have much hope of holding, as my maps are very high (200) and somewhat narrow (130) such that the enemy is the quicker upon me, and I have more territory to cover up and down. The side benefit to this, is that you have a map so tall, that you end up a lot of times with almost 2 or 3 separate armies, instead of just 1 or 2, because even the longest ranging AFV guns in great visibility can't pretty much dominate the board by taking up basically one or two central positions.

I do have some regular infantry but I think having a dominant infantry unit is worth their extra price. How many infantry units have both "2" LMG's and a satchel charge? Or 2 LMG's and a sniper rifle? And these guys are very experienced, so you can get them to elite in no time.

8 SPAA's worthless? Truly you do not appreciate the advanatges of long standing units. It's a build for the future it is, because 100+ rated SPAA when germany is the one being air attacked, is far better than 60exp SPAA bought on the fly. Besides, even on the matter of Poland itself in a mere 7 rated visibility, these guys proved invaluable. Now that isn't the normal case, but I let my emotion get the better of me, and put them in range so close (as 7 is close) that some of them were engaged, by infantry. I usually pretty much hide them for the first battles, but will use them for distanced infantry support when enemy planes cannot be found. Though they have no armor, and that's why I am very cautious with them, they must had destroyed at least 6 tanks, and I lost only one of them. I don't think I lost a single man on the others. This was partly sue to the enemy tansk preferring to engage my AFV's though the SPAA was about. I was getting far more reliable kills with them, but it was very close range. Every unit in my army has a purpose, though it may not show up in every battle (most notably my ATG's).

37mm ATG's a waste? Well, in this battle you couldn't had been wronger. They had the most outstanding effort of the entire army this time around, and if I had towed them with the HT's they would had been more outstanding still. I placed them on my southern flank with virtually no support. They destroyed approximately 10 AFV's without losing a single man (IIRC they may not had been even fired upon)! That was the entirity of the polish southern flank attack destroyed. Somewhere along the way, I decided to throw some of the slightly more northern AFV possible support into the objective areas I was losing, because it became apparent that enough time passed they were no longer needed, but also because these aces were just begging for more. Way to go team! Defending against advances, you may not find a more valuable platoon than ATG's in cover on a flank. Perhaps half your battles in an LC is defensive, so why not have some units which excel at that? The results I posted aren't typical of these guns, but it does show what they are capable of.

88's not having targets? Surely you jest. These were the ATG type, not the AA type. Nonetheless, the AA version is very formidable anyway. Yes, you are somewhat correct, because those guns are so valuable, I could not dare risk them against a target when visibility was a mere 7, for this battle anyway. If, when campaiging, you are interested in getting units to elite status, there is no gun better for the german cause. You do recall the disadvantages germany has against the heavier French, British, and USSR tanks don't you? That's where these babies come in. I would venture to guess they're still relavent until at least 1943 for knocking out heavier armor, after that the crew can be switched to the 88pak ATG's or something. If one feels like using them for long-range anti-personnel use at times, they can work real well there too.

Airstrikes? I wasn't allowed any IIRC, but if they were available I didnt' buy any. They would had been all but useless in this battle anyway, as the visibility was very low.

I didn't whine that giving the poles extra points was unfair. The gist of any whining was directed at excessive artillery picking by the AI and how the direct fire between AFV's was workign heavily to my disadvantage this time. I have had many battles with this size of a force against the poles, and it's the first time anything this nightmarish regarding artillery came off.

Ah, but I have discovered something. This is the first very low visibility game I have played in winSPWW2 as well. I don't think it is a coincidence that my counter-battery sat so long and didn't counter a thing (and with so much to counter). I also don't think it's a coincidence that the AI would go quite out of character of pick that much artillery, though I would still consider half of 60 guns pretty heavy, but I have seen that a few times and aren't amazed by it. I think the AI figures I CANNOT counter-battery him, because the low visibility would prevent that (which I didn't realize, if true) and thereby picks artillery in droves. I don't think I will go along with any battles having visibility that low again, and that may cure this excessive amount of artillery entirely.

I can't really comment on whether or not you wasted your points because I'm not really experienced with that. I can tell you that visibility has absolutely nothing to do with off-map counter-battery fire. You CB effectiveness is determined by three things: A) exp, B) range of guns, C) a throw of the dice:D
Hope this helps:)

Andrew

[Mobhack]

1) experience is gained by participating in battles. Simply being in the core will allow some exp gain provided nothing nasty happens to a unit.

2) Night has zip-zero to do with counter battery.

3) The Poles do not have large amounts of armour to soak up points, even with the too-heavy allocation of armour the AI gets even before tank heavy. So if you have a large points value against them then they will have a larger remaining point value each time through the purchase loop. So the artillery buy in the loop has more chance of buying a battalion and not a battery on each pass, if (or even if) the other large ticket item (A tank coy, rarer for Poles in 39) is not bought. My guess is the AI purchase loop decided on an arty bn buy several times in your game - which is rare but not impossible.

Easy peasy way to check the Polish buy
a) figure out how many points you actually spent
b) set that in preferences
c) set Ge vs PO in the correct date
d) generate the appropriate battle (and visibility) with computer purchase for BOTH sides and human deploy for the AI side about 50 times. Examine the AI buy each time. Fleet buying of artillery bns will be rare, but not impossible.

Andy

[PanzerBob]

...............or buy a Steel Umbrella!!!:D:D

Sorry could not resist!!:p

Bob out:D

[DRG]

What did the AI pick? 60 75mm guns, only four of which were onboard. There was some other artillery but I didn't bother counting them.

The guns are what mostly gets me here, as having that many guns going off gets to be a real nuisance irrespective of what damage it may cause, but this battle also rather epitomized how lopsided things can often get in favor of the AI. In most situations at this close range (7 max) my AFV's would very often not hit on the first shot (probably 80% misses), while the Polish ones did, often destroying, with something close to a 50% ratio. For a couple of times I noticed the percentage on one of my tanks,


EVERY year the AI hands a player a hard time it's "suggested" the AI has an advantage. It's a regular event right along with us saying it doesn't get one so I won't bother saying it again

So, the AI picked 60 guns. Is there a save game ?? We always ask so is there one ? Without a save game so we can see what the AI picked and where on the pick list it was chosen we couldn't possibly guess what may or may not have gone on or if perhaps there is a problem with the way the pick is coded. The picklist for the AI is set up so there are always random variables otherwise it would be the same thing over and over and over and over and sometimes, as "luck" would have it, there may be the computer equivalent of rolling snake-eyes three or four times in a row and the little bits of code in the picklist that says...... "Buy this or that or in 10 chances out of 99 buy this AND that just to keep people on their toes" kicks in and then seemingly odd things happen


A save game of that 60 gun game would be nice to see


Don

[Lt. Ketch]

I’m sorry if it was unclear on a couple of things.
Number 1. I can't make heads or tails of your observation. I can't see how 3 units attacking in any form would split 9 ways experience gain.

If I attack each unit with three of my own meaning that I have three units for every one unit of the enemy. 3 enemies X 3 units of mine = 9 total of mine units.

Number 2. You mentioned cutting back in France, do you indent to delete your lowest experienced units?(spelling fixed)

I made this comment based on the your comment, quoted below.

I'm not interested in keeping my core smaller until France.

I was curious about how you decide to make your core smaller. I appeared to me that you might start with a large core, see who gets the most experience over the course of several battles and then delete the formations that did not progress. This would leave you with a selection of the most experienced units to take into France. If you have no desire to subtract units from your core, the misunderstanding is all mine.

Thank you for your comments. As I mentioned before, I don’t know all the ways that units get experience. What I do know is that units receive experience for moving, shooting and killing, and thanks to Andy, being in the core. My thought was this – if you have a large number of units in your core, some of them may not do as much moving, shooting and killing as others and consequently gain little experience. If those units didn’t exist (i.e. do to a smaller core), the experience they WOULD HAVE gained by moving, shooting and killing might end up going to other units, increasing their experience further then it might have been otherwise. I believe that my biggest mistake in understanding experience is that I subconsciously thought that there was a finite amount of experience in any given battle. If that were the case, then the more units you have, the less experience they could get. Since this is not the case, I stand corrected.

[Imp]

Its all making it very gamey why not just buy what you want & be done with it this has all been discused to death previously & as Germans you do not need to worry about gaining exp much till mid late war when your exp starts to drop.

[Ramm]

Its all making it very gamey why not just buy what you want & be done with it this has all been discused to death previously & as Germans you do not need to worry about gaining exp much till mid late war when your exp starts to drop.

Not everyone plays this game for historical accuracy/battle simulation and that is perfectly OK in my opinion. Some people play to win with no holds barred including being gamey. Imp, you have progressed to the point you are not interested solely in winning but rather in having a good time while by being historical, give others a chance to reach your level and you will be amazed how their viewpoint changes.

Andrew

[Mobryan]

"Buy this or that or in 10 chances out of 99 buy this AND that just to keep people on their toes" kicks in and then seemingly odd things happen


Which is one of the really neat things about this game, it's nearly as unpredictable as real life is, and I'm glad for it.



Matt

[Imp]

Ramm
Not everyone plays this game for historical accuracy/battle simulation and that is perfectly OK in my opinion. Some people play to win with no holds barred including being gamey. Imp, you have progressed to the point you are not interested solely in winning but rather in having a good time while by being historical, give others a chance to reach your level and you will be amazed how their viewpoint changes.



What I was trying to say is you guys are getting bogged down in the fine details probably spending ages trying to pick the best force you can. Why not pick what you fancy playing with historical or not & yes I do normally go roughly historical because its an all threats force though just been playing with SAS & dune buggies for a laugh.
Yes a totaly duff force purchase will cause problems but so long as your armour can destroy his you should be okay. Improving your tactics by playing the game will pay far more dividends than spending time deciding whether to buy regular troops or marines etc & not buying the same force all the time will help further.

[Charles22]

RAMM: Thanks. I have often thought along the same lines regarding counter-battery artillery, but I have had these 100mm guns in games a long time, and at least in 39-40, out-range all guns, or at least equal them. They certainly out-range the polish 75mm, and as I have seen them go off before against far fewer guns, with far less turns having passed, I find it very surprising, whether there's truly a random factor there or not (and I can't imagine why there wouldn't be) that they would have such an enormous amount of opportunities here amd not go off in this case, so I have to resort to the lack of visibility theory.

[Charles22]

1) experience is gained by participating in battles. Simply being in the core will allow some exp gain provided nothing nasty happens to a unit.

2) Night has zip-zero to do with counter battery.

3) The Poles do not have large amounts of armour to soak up points, even with the too-heavy allocation of armour the AI gets even before tank heavy. So if you have a large points value against them then they will have a larger remaining point value each time through the purchase loop. So the artillery buy in the loop has more chance of buying a battalion and not a battery on each pass, if (or even if) the other large ticket item (A tank coy, rarer for Poles in 39) is not bought. My guess is the AI purchase loop decided on an arty bn buy several times in your game - which is rare but not impossible.

Easy peasy way to check the Polish buy
a) figure out how many points you actually spent
b) set that in preferences
c) set Ge vs PO in the correct date
d) generate the appropriate battle (and visibility) with computer purchase for BOTH sides and human deploy for the AI side about 50 times. Examine the AI buy each time. Fleet buying of artillery bns will be rare, but not impossible.

Andy
2. Interesting, as the screen looks the same compared to day battles, it did not occur to me that it might be a night mission, but rather a heavy storm with fog perhaps.

3. Yes, that has been my observation too, that guns of this magnitude are rare, but then polish advances are probably pretty rare as well. They have been rare for me anyway.

Yes, polish advances are fairly rare, but either that or polish assaults, which I don't think I have ever seen, would be the ones most likely to bring the hail of excess artillery. The majority of missions in poland are either german offensive ones or meeting engagements, any of which would make polish heavy artillery such as in this battle virtually impossible with the points my force had (can't be more than 3600-3800 by now, including minimal support).

[Charles22]

What did the AI pick? 60 75mm guns, only four of which were onboard. There was some other artillery but I didn't bother counting them.

The guns are what mostly gets me here, as having that many guns going off gets to be a real nuisance irrespective of what damage it may cause, but this battle also rather epitomized how lopsided things can often get in favor of the AI. In most situations at this close range (7 max) my AFV's would very often not hit on the first shot (probably 80% misses), while the Polish ones did, often destroying, with something close to a 50% ratio. For a couple of times I noticed the percentage on one of my tanks,


EVERY year the AI hands a player a hard time it's "suggested" the AI has an advantage. It's a regular event right along with us saying it doesn't get one so I won't bother saying it again

So, the AI picked 60 guns. Is there a save game ?? We always ask so is there one ? Without a save game so we can see what the AI picked and where on the pick list it was chosen we couldn't possibly guess what may or may not have gone on or if perhaps there is a problem with the way the pick is coded. The picklist for the AI is set up so there are always random variables otherwise it would be the same thing over and over and over and over and sometimes, as "luck" would have it, there may be the computer equivalent of rolling snake-eyes three or four times in a row and the little bits of code in the picklist that says...... "Buy this or that or in 10 chances out of 99 buy this AND that just to keep people on their toes" kicks in and then seemingly odd things happen


A save game of that 60 gun game would be nice to see


DonDespite what it may had sounded like, as I suppose I didn't express myself as clearly as I ought to had done, I wasn't saying the game was defective, so why would I save the game and post it? It was more an observation than anything and an attempt to convince people that the AI can indeed seemingly rip you off. IOW, don't have mercy on it, because it 'can' rip you off, even if it's just a matter of getting boatloads of random odds against you; which is perhaps unlike most battles.

Despite how much time has passed since when I posted the thread, well yes, I do still have a save towards the end of the game. Only problem is I can't find it on my computer (but can in the game). If you really want to see it, telling me how to translate what I see on the 'load game list' screen would be helpful so I can find the file on the computer. I have looked for every single bit of data on my entire computer that shows on that screen, and nothing comes of these searches.

[Charles22]

I’m sorry if it was unclear on a couple of things.
Number 1. I can't make heads or tails of your observation. I can't see how 3 units attacking in any form would split 9 ways experience gain.

If I attack each unit with three of my own meaning that I have three units for every one unit of the enemy. 3 enemies X 3 units of mine = 9 total of mine units.

Number 2. You mentioned cutting back in France, do you indent to delete your lowest experienced units?(spelling fixed)

I made this comment based on the your comment, quoted below.

I'm not interested in keeping my core smaller until France.

I was curious about how you decide to make your core smaller. I appeared to me that you might start with a large core, see who gets the most experience over the course of several battles and then delete the formations that did not progress. This would leave you with a selection of the most experienced units to take into France. If you have no desire to subtract units from your core, the misunderstanding is all mine.

Thank you for your comments. As I mentioned before, I don’t know all the ways that units get experience. What I do know is that units receive experience for moving, shooting and killing, and thanks to Andy, being in the core. My thought was this – if you have a large number of units in your core, some of them may not do as much moving, shooting and killing as others and consequently gain little experience. If those units didn’t exist (i.e. do to a smaller core), the experience they WOULD HAVE gained by moving, shooting and killing might end up going to other units, increasing their experience further then it might have been otherwise. I believe that my biggest mistake in understanding experience is that I subconsciously thought that there was a finite amount of experience in any given battle. If that were the case, then the more units you have, the less experience they could get. Since this is not the case, I stand corrected.

There may be a finite maximum each core can attain, regardless of size, but I had not thought of that, as I don't observe it that closely. Nonetheless, what I was saying about a larger force, drawing more enemies, therefore more possible kills, assuming some experience can be gained through kills, is that
the size of the force doesn't really matter, as the size of your force will always limit the size of the enemy, even if you decide to override the regular LC code and give the AI much larger advantages, or, conversely, less with giving your forces a substantial advantage by doing the same.

I just have always thought that one of two things gave you the most 'possible' experience 1) kills and 2)just being in core or firing guns. I had never thought a unit moving would make any difference, but you may be right. I am pretty sure I have seen units gain despite not firing (so certainly no kills as well) or moving though. Just being in the core alone seems to give some experience, and may be the entire basis of the experience formula, but I heavily doubt it.

[Charles22]

Its all making it very gamey why not just buy what you want & be done with it this has all been discused to death previously & as Germans you do not need to worry about gaining exp much till mid late war when your exp starts to drop.I don't know, I think an elite PZIVB had a better chance of a kill in France or the USSR, than a veteran PZIVB, but maybe that's just me?

[gila]

Truth be known...
I didn't know 88ATG's were available in poland.
Flak 88's yes and they had some AP value but in 1939 the germans did not realize this and doubt the rounds they did have were as considered the "super weapon",as they were in africa after some improvments.

[DRG]

If you really want to see it, telling me how to translate what I see on the 'load game list' screen would be helpful so I can find the file on the computer. I have looked for every single bit of data on my entire computer that shows on that screen, and nothing comes of these searches.


OK, Let's assume it shows you have this save game in save slot 11

Go to the

WinsSPWW2\Saved Games

folder and look for ..........

SpSv011.cmt
SpSv011.dat

Zip them up and post them

Don

[Ramm]

2. Interesting, as the screen looks the same compared to day battles, it did not occur to me that it might be a night mission, but rather a heavy storm with fog perhaps.


This game lacks even the most basic representation of meteorology and the day/night cycle which is a travesty. It is a travesty because this is a war strategy game. Since the time before Christ and even to this day nocturnal/diurnal values and meteorological conditions have played decisive roles in the outcome of a battle, nay even a war. WWII comes to mind.

All the end user sees is a cryptic number value (visibility) which doesn't even differentiate between meteorological conditions and simple nocturnal/diurnal values.

Bottom line weather and day/night is so importent it must be added to the game. By a picture on the tool bar or accessed by a button so as to not take up space or just a hotkey.

Even a simple text description would be sufficient, such as a brief weather report (a sentence or two) and time of day. I think a text description is not too much to ask.

The argument that this change would not actually effect gameplay and is therefore unnecessary is specious.

Game icons do not actually effect gameplay (symbols could be used instead) and yet they are a necessary component of SP.

Andrew

[Double_Deuce]

As far as weather, when I am designing I use the following charts to go about setting the visibility and preferences to simulate those conditions. For the Searching, Hitting and Rout/Rally settings you need to add this information to the scenario briefing as players need to manually set them to get the full effects;

WEATHER AND VISIBILITY (http://www.combat-campaigns.com/ai_user_cc/)

[EJ]

Don or Andy,
How hard would it be to input day/night cycles and variable weather conditions into the game? This is just a question NOT A DEMAND OR COMPLAINT. That would make the game even more interesting than it already is....;)

[Lt. Ketch]

...the size of the force doesn't really matter, as the size of your force will always limit the size of the enemy...

Hadn't thought of this. Very valid point.

...I had never thought a unit moving would make any difference, but you may be right.

I just tried searching for the thread that I read about moving units and experiences, but couldn't find it. Could be wrong, could be bad search.

Andrew,

This game lacks even the most basic representation of meteorology and the day/night cycle which is a travesty. It is a travesty because this is a war strategy game. Since the time before Christ and even to this day nocturnal/diurnal values and meteorological conditions have played decisive roles in the outcome of a battle, nay even a war. WWII comes to mind.

All the end user sees is a cryptic number value (visibility) which doesn't even differentiate between meteorological conditions and simple nocturnal/diurnal values.

Bottom line weather and day/night is so importent it must be added to the game. By a picture on the tool bar or accessed by a button so as to not take up space or just a hotkey.

Even a simple text description would be sufficient, such as a brief weather report (a sentence or two) and time of day. I think a text description is not too much to ask.

The argument that this change would not actually effect gameplay and is therefore unnecessary is specious.

Game icons do not actually effect gameplay (symbols could be used instead) and yet they are a necessary component of SP.

Andrew

This is not meant as a rebuke, but an observation. (Curse the lack of non-verbal communication!) While your arguments are valid in that weather and night/day were and are important in combat, I don't know what you're looking to accomplish with this post. For one, Don and Andy have expressed many times the game is not a simulation, i.e. that it does not take everything into consideration. The coding for weather conditions alone would take more hours than any non-programer (myself included) would ever care to imagine. Then, coding for what kind of weather takes place when, where and how often would be another nightmare. For all intents and purposes, limiting visability and making the ground muddy or swampy, or snowy is perfectly adiquate for imagining poor weather conditions in this game. Don and Andy do not need the headache of coding spontanious random heavy artillary bombardment to simulate lightning, or a condition when all of a troops moral suddenly dropping 20 points to show that they are sick and tired of fighting in the rain. Please remember that any changes to the game require time on their part and just because we want it, doesn't mean it's easy for them, or even good for us. I would get really discouraged if the Russian Winter had the EXACT same effect on my troops as it did on the Germans. Yes, it would make the game realistic, but there is a reason that nobody likes to fight a real war.

Second, while I can see your desire to have some kind of indication as to what the weather is, I personally can live with making up my own explianation for why visability is 12. I sometimes change the visability to a low number saying to myself that I want to assault the enemy's position at twilight as apposed to noon. Again, every change takes Don and Andy's vaulable time.

My recommendation to getting over this unfortunate lack of weather and night and day? Use your imagination. Also, Double_Deuce has done some great work.

[Imp]

On the weather it does not realy mater what type it is as game cant model gunflashes starshells etc tend to regard anything under 30 hexes as inclement weather or night dusk dawn & like DD adjust settings though rally had not occured to me. With TI units adjusting becomes a bit of a problem usually just restrict search slightly.
The premise for the above & assume DDs is the same if visibility is set to say 10 hexes thats the max distance you can see for whatever reason. But poor weather or night means you can only see well to less than that vehicles will be visible at max range infantry perhaps half.
While it would be nice to have weather probably beyond the engine you would need wind to. Seeing firing into a rainstorm upwind would be a lot harder than downwind.

[Ramm]

You guys are missing my point. All I'm saying is we should have a picture or text description telling us: A) time of day (night or day or dusk or dawn), B) What the weather is like. Thats it, not simulating its effects, even the DoD doesn't have computers powerful enough for that, just a meaningful message about what the weather/time of day is. Let the player go with that how he pleases.

TY DD for your help:)

Andrew

[DRG]

This game lacks even the most basic representation of meteorology and the day/night cycle which is a travesty. It is a travesty because this is a war strategy game. Since the time before Christ and even to this day nocturnal/diurnal values and meteorological conditions have played decisive roles in the outcome of a battle, nay even a war. WWII comes to mind.

All the end user sees is a cryptic number value (visibility) which doesn't even differentiate between meteorological conditions and simple nocturnal/diurnal values.

Bottom line weather and day/night is so importent it must be added to the game. By a picture on the tool bar or accessed by a button so as to not take up space or just a hotkey.

Even a simple text description would be sufficient, such as a brief weather report (a sentence or two) and time of day. I think a text description is not too much to ask.

The argument that this change would not actually effect gameplay and is therefore unnecessary is specious.

Game icons do not actually effect gameplay (symbols could be used instead) and yet they are a necessary component of SP.

Andrew


This post taken at face values suggests it's a "travesty" that this game does not include a little eyecandy on the tool bar or some little text line explaining what " visibility 8 " is supposed to represent when indeed what "visibility 8" represents is you can only see 8 hexes or 400 yards and it's is totally irrelevant to game play if that 8 hex /400 yard visibility restriction is because...

A/ it's a full moon on a slightly overcast night or

B/ it's early morning in fall and there is a mist in the air or

C/ it's mid-afternoon in spring with a light rain falling or

D/ it's a really smoggy, humid day in August or

E/ It's a very light snow fall in Winter

It matters not a bit WHY you are restricted to 8 hex /400 yard visibility just that you ARE and until today I never considered that we had players who needed some fictitious explanation as to "why" the visibility is the way it is to make it "real" for them.

Hardly a "travesty" if we leave that to the players imagination and not "specious" that we argue it's merely eyecandy . This is, as I recall , the one and only "complaint" that weather reports are missing to get the player in the proper "mood" for the game.

Don

[Imp]

You guys are missing my point. All I'm saying is we should have a picture or text description telling us: A) time of day (night or day or dusk or dawn), B) What the weather is like. Thats it, not simulating its effects, even the DoD doesn't have computers powerful enough for that, just a meaningful message about what the weather/time of day is. Let the player go with that how he pleases.

TY DD for your help:)

Andrew

I see what you are getting at but at the moment its up to the players imagination is it night or perhaps you are in the Pacific so imagine a heavy rainstorm its your call as they both play the same.
If you like take the chart DD has given you & each time you play look at it to decide possible weathers or roll a die to decide for you.
The only thing I would say moonless night with no civilisation nearby (as in city lights) is pitch black even in the open range should be very low.

[gila]

You guys are missing my point. All I'm saying is we should have a picture or text description telling us: A) time of day (night or day or dusk or dawn), B) What the weather is like. Thats it, not simulating its effects, even the DoD doesn't have computers powerful enough for that, just a meaningful message about what the weather/time of day is. Let the player go with that how he pleases.

TY DD for your help:)

Andrew

I'm thinking you recalling SPWaW and the little window showing the weather and time of day, and even had sounds like T-storms and wind in low visabilty {dust storms) in the desert.
Wish this game had that:)

[Charles22]

Truth be known...
I didn't know 88ATG's were available in poland.
Flak 88's yes and they had some AP value but in 1939 the germans did not realize this and doubt the rounds they did have were as considered the "super weapon",as they were in africa after some improvments.I refer to 88ATG's because there is a 88flak version you might commonly call an ATG version, as at least it's ammunition allocation is the more clearly of the two guns, for that role, and it also will not fire at aircraft as I understand.

[Charles22]

If you really want to see it, telling me how to translate what I see on the 'load game list' screen would be helpful so I can find the file on the computer. I have looked for every single bit of data on my entire computer that shows on that screen, and nothing comes of these searches.


OK, Let's assume it shows you have this save game in save slot 11

Go to the

WinsSPWW2\Saved Games

folder and look for ..........

SpSv011.cmt
SpSv011.dat

Zip them up and post them

Don
Still not there. For some reason I cannot manage a screenshot either. I thought it was alt-Pr Sc (Vista) but I have nothing to paste into anything should it had gone to the clipboard. I can, however, tell you the path the saved games folder took and what is in it:

OS (C: )/program files/shrapnel games/the camo workshop/winsppw2/saved games

It has only two files, one called 1-info and another called spsv000.cmt. I did a search on spsv* from the shrapnel folder after I found that out and the one I just listed is the only one:doh:, yet all the saves are still in the game and work.

[Double_Deuce]

Still not there. For some reason I cannot manage a screenshot either. I thought it was alt-Pr Sc (Vista) but I have nothing to paste into anything should it had gone to the clipboard. I can, however, tell you the path the saved games folder took and what is in it:

OS (C: )/program files/shrapnel games/the camo workshop/winsppw2/saved games

It has only two files, one called 1-info and another called spsv000.cmt. I did a search on spsv* from the shrapnel folder after I found that out and the one I just listed is the only one:doh:, yet all the saves are still in the game and work.
Try looking for them in the following directory (it may not be exactly accurate as I do not know how your computer is set up):

C:\Users\yourcomputername\AppData\Local\VirtualSto re\program files\shrapnel games\the camo workshop\winsppw2\saved games

You may have to search the VirtualStore Folder and then drill down in there.

[Charles22]

Still not there. For some reason I cannot manage a screenshot either. I thought it was alt-Pr Sc (Vista) but I have nothing to paste into anything should it had gone to the clipboard. I can, however, tell you the path the saved games folder took and what is in it:

OS (C: )/program files/shrapnel games/the camo workshop/winsppw2/saved games

It has only two files, one called 1-info and another called spsv000.cmt. I did a search on spsv* from the shrapnel folder after I found that out and the one I just listed is the only one:doh:, yet all the saves are still in the game and work.
Try looking for them in the following directory (it may not be exactly accurate as I do not know how your computer is set up):

C:\Users\yourcomputername\AppData\Local\VirtualSto re\program files\shrapnel games\the camo workshop\winsppw2\saved games

You may have to search the VirtualStore Folder and then drill down in there.Phew. Thanks, that did it.

[Charles22]

Here's the file.8025

8026

[Ziploc]

Whilst I don't feel sorry for the AI as it will, in cold blood, slaughter your best units if given half a chance (bye bye Jagdpanzer IV and 105mm Howitzer Stug to US 57mm ATG and Bazooka respectively), however I do feel sorry for it's digital soldiers and wish the AI would encourage them to spread out a bit more!

[Charles22]

Whilst I don't feel sorry for the AI as it will, in cold blood, slaughter your best units if given half a chance (bye bye Jagdpanzer IV and 105mm Howitzer Stug to US 57mm ATG and Bazooka respectively), however I do feel sorry for it's digital soldiers and wish the AI would encourage them to spread out a bit more!There may be some validity to what you say, but I have the gut feeling there isn't. Nonetheless, we usually don't take a platoon of units and protect the most experienced anymore than the others, this partly has to do with the platoon having better results if the best unit is in there fighting, and usually the lesser units aren't too far away in experience anyway, unless we're in the habit of losing untis left and right.

So the only way you could be correct about the AI gunning for the most experienced units, could be a simple matter of observation. I can't tell you for sure this is the case, with anything that follows. Firstly, I think you can always check, like with your own units, just what each unit costs the enemy. If you can (instead of the cost being based on 70exp as in the encyclopedia) see the costs updated to it's current experience for enemy units, then that is the way the AI would know which is the best you have in value. I doubt, however, that even if the AI can see such a thing, that they would program it to do that.

[Ziploc]

I was talking in terms of purchase cost rather than experience compared to other units in a primarily infantry force.

[Ziploc]

The AI was firing the appropriate weapons at appropriate (expensive!) targets rather than shooting up the units with the most experience.

[Lt. Ketch]

Murphy's law dictates that if you lose a unit, it's going to be a "best" unit, whether it's your most experienced, the most expensive or simply the one unit you needed to break the line and route your enemy nineteen different direction. :doh::hurt:

Regardless of how the AI targets, any damage it inflicts is liable to make you want to smash your computer in revenage. :pc::banghead:smash:

[Ziploc]

Regardless of how the AI targets, any damage it inflicts is liable to make you want to smash your computer in revenage.

Especially now it's pesky airforce have blown up my best Opel truck!

[Ramm]

Regardless of how the AI targets, any damage it inflicts is liable to make you want to smash your computer in revenage.

Especially now it's pesky airforce have blown up my best Opel truck!

LOL best truck :re: :D

Experience 0 trucks are the best because you get "unbeatable prices" at the dealership (buyscreen), lol :D, but you have to cheat to get them.

Andrew

[Charles22]

I was talking in terms of purchase cost rather than experience compared to other units in a primarily infantry force.It doesn't matter. More experienced units cost more. They do tend to go after the most expensive units, or largest threats, such as tanks, but if you were isolating a platoon of the same tanks, and one had 130 exp., while another had 60, the one that is 130 will cost roughly 50% more, and so IF the AI can see that, they will know which one to gun for, that is, if they are programmed in that rather gamey way, which I doubt.

[Ramm]

I was talking in terms of purchase cost rather than experience compared to other units in a primarily infantry force.It doesn't matter. More experienced units cost more. They do tend to go after the most expensive units, or largest threats, such as tanks, but if you were isolating a platoon of the same tanks, and one had 130 exp., while another had 60, the one that is 130 will cost roughly 50% more, and so IF the AI can see that, they will know which one to gun for, that is, if they are programmed in that rather gamey way, which I doubt.

Charles, no offense but you couldn't be more wrong; the AI simply goes after the most immediate threat, which is not necessarily the most expensive or most experienced but may be both, either or neither.

Andrew

[Ziploc]

I agree Charles that the AI does not 'know' which of your units has the greatest experience. Whilst playing it has never seemed to pick out such units for priority targeting.

[Charles22]

I was talking in terms of purchase cost rather than experience compared to other units in a primarily infantry force.It doesn't matter. More experienced units cost more. They do tend to go after the most expensive units, or largest threats, such as tanks, but if you were isolating a platoon of the same tanks, and one had 130 exp., while another had 60, the one that is 130 will cost roughly 50% more, and so IF the AI can see that, they will know which one to gun for, that is, if they are programmed in that rather gamey way, which I doubt.

Charles, no offense but you couldn't be more wrong; the AI simply goes after the most immediate threat, which is not necessarily the most expensive or most experienced but may be both, either or neither.

AndrewI was using more of a theory to back the notion somebody had earlier about the AI going after the best units. I think I made it clear I didn't necessarily believe that, but if it were so what I described could be what happens.

[Ramm]

It doesn't matter. More experienced units cost more. They do tend to go after the most expensive units, or largest threats, such as tanks, but if you were isolating a platoon of the same tanks, and one had 130 exp., while another had 60, the one that is 130 will cost roughly 50% more, and so IF the AI can see that, they will know which one to gun for, that is, if they are programmed in that rather gamey way, which I doubt.

Charles, no offense but you couldn't be more wrong; the AI simply goes after the most immediate threat, which is not necessarily the most expensive or most experienced but may be both, either or neither.

AndrewI was using more of a theory to back the notion somebody had earlier about the AI going after the best units. I think I made it clear I didn't necessarily believe that, but if it were so what I described could be what happens.

OK my bad.

Andrew

[Charles22]

Charles, no offense but you couldn't be more wrong; the AI simply goes after the most immediate threat, which is not necessarily the most expensive or most experienced but may be both, either or neither.

AndrewI was using more of a theory to back the notion somebody had earlier about the AI going after the best units. I think I made it clear I didn't necessarily believe that, but if it were so what I described could be what happens.

OK my bad.

AndrewNo prob