New Arty Routine

[thatguy96]

BigJim said:
Ok Thatguy96 I will take you up on your idea. I will give you 10 bucks everytime you roll back to back ones in a 10 roll series you give me 5 bucks each time you don't.

I will take 5 out of 6 odds every day and so will the boys at Vagas.

The facts are that everyone of you "if honest" can recount many times when a 95 percent chance to hit has been missed several times in a row in this game (this is tandamount to rolling the 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 you speak of.

My complaint about the arty routime is that Andy has programed in a situation where the arty can target what "a human would see" but has not programmed (as near as I can tell) the human player's arty propensity to "miss" the called target on the first shot by 1 or more hexes but rather it lands Borg like ON target. If this is what was intended fine let him say so.

Hey, I'm just saying. This is exactly the reason why Vegas odds aren't based solely on odds, but on a little bookie intuition too. Also remember that a computer has to be programmed to be random, so it will never be 100% random in reality.

[narwan]

I've played this game a lot. And I mean a lot. From that perspective I have to say that,
Bigjim, your claims are completely bogus. And your inference that you don't have to give proof 'cause all can see it when playing is the biggest bogus of all. You are one of the very, very few who think they see this borg arty thing happening. And I'd like to stress think.
So no, it's not just a programmers respons. It's also a players respons. Which makes me wonder how much you've actually played the game if at all?

Narwan

[BigJim]

Well Andy I have never been band from a board before but I guess if you consider that mild statement and attack on DRG so be it. I will be happy to refrain from further posting since your warning aptly proves my point. So good day to you sir and farewell.

[Mobhack]

You were warned about breaking board rule number 3 by your referring to DRG's "lame claims". You were not banned, that is a formal process which further behaviour of that sort may require.

Please read and digest the Shrapnel message board rules, especially No. 3, and if you are prepared to abide by them in future then we have no problem. You can find these by clicking on the link marked "board rules" at the top of the page.

Andy

[Pyros]

Hi BigJim,

In order to prove you that there isn't anything wrong with the artillery I have initiated a series of tests concerning the artillery routines.

I think that by presenting you the data of one of those tests you will be convinced that the game code works the same way for both the human and the AI.

I am waiting for your comments concerning the following test scenario:


TEST TWO

Second set of test (use of HQ for calling arty missions without LOS)
i) number of tests for AI is 4 samples
ii) number of test for human is 4 samples


The second set of tests is also based on the simple method of mirrored settings with two testings modes:

A. AI vs AI
B. Human vs Human


For the second test (without LOS) I preplanned several arty missions by the use of a group of mortars (stacked in a single hex). As a consequence of this action the rest of the available enemy AI artillery (a second group of mortars) took the opportunity to design several arty missions directly on top of the previous point of interest (mortar concentration with preplanned arty mission).

The results from the AI vs AI mode are extracted by interrupting the game sequence by hitting the "ENTER" and going into human control (thus investigating the assigned by AI artillery missions and the scattering of the mean point of impacts).

For the second series of tests (without direct LOS) the results proved that the Artillery performs equally for both the human and the AI modes (in other words the AI is using the same code for determining the artillery accuracy over the mean point of impact).

Here are the screenshots of the test:

1. General view of the setting
2. Results of AI arty missions
3. Results of Human arty missions


1. General view of the setting

The "pre-planned Arty group" (first group of mortars) will start a sequence of pre-designed artillery missions aiming on a fixed on-map hex (somewhere to the middle of the map) in order to create the appropriate conditions (smoke and activity) and this way to attract (trigger) the other side AI group of "Active mortars" to design several arty missions directly on top of the "pre-planned Arty group".




2. Results of AI arty missions




3. Results of Human arty missions

[Uncle_Joe]

Amusingly, I've often found myself scratching my head as the AI randomly shells areas that are nowhere NEAR my troops.

And that seems to happen far, far more often than the AI pinpointing one of my troop concentrations that are clearly out of LOS. Like narwan, I have played this game a LOT too, and I have never seen the problem that BigJim is stating. Has the AI gotten lucky from time to time and blasted my men out of LOS? Sure, but more often than not, I see the opposite as well.

[BigJim]

Ok pyros I may have found my problem?? I have cut the map down to 60 by 60 and with all the equipment I have now it is almost impossible to position my stuff within the area alotted me at setup (therefore the AI CANNOT miss no matter where it fires). In your test you have only setup opposing arty so I can see what you mean about it being random based on that setup.

Andy as for my remarks regarding Don, I felt his remarks were to say the least abit caustic and responded in kind.

I have played these games since day 1 when SSI first released them as Gary Grigsby programmed them and I recall a large hugh and cry back then about atry effectiveness.

First off this game is primarily a surpression game, ie if your troops are surpressed they cannot see, move, or fire with any accuracy. To me the 81mm motar is just waaay to effective vs armour in this representation. I think I would have to look very hard to find any real life events where tanks were disabled by motar fire (I am sure there must be some but I feel it must be rare, since I am a baby boomer and so grew up with tons of WWII Vets around me my own father having fought at Iwo Jima).

Now the root of my problems to a large degree are that I play for ONLY a decisive victory (this maybe a flaw in my chracter) so when odds like 95% to hit are given and the result is 6 misses or no effect in a row it tends to raise my ire.

That said I still enjoy and play the game daily as I am retired so have some time to mess around and I don't wish to minimize the effort you guys have put in to bring back this old classic.

Jim

[Charles22]

It's a real shame that he over-reacts to when the AI does hit his unseen troops or that he thinks things were as the old SP was, because this game is much better than either.

One of the things I like to do is get an ammunition truck and park a couple of 75IG's and 150IG's beside it and fire away. I pick IG guns because I don't have to get them transport because they can move away if needed. It's none too infrequent that I've had the shelling go for 10 straight turns before getting any return bombardment. I guess the AI just thinks there's more important things to bombard, particularly the seen things, because there's certainly an unavoidable amount of smoke in a close area this way.

[Marek_Tucan]

Haven't played this game as much as some other members here but still I do consider myself experienced, though lacking a bit in the infantry department
The AI back in old SP2 times WAS Borg-ish a bit, but it was compensated by being not-so-bright. It had to be Borgish to be able to compete atleast with inexperienced PI (Player Intelligence).
Andy and Don made a great effort to bring the AI as close to PI as possible. While doing so they've removed Borginess as it's not needed anymore now the AI can react with its arty fire plan very close to PI.
And the AI dispersion is working right the same way as PI dispersion. Enjoyed myself in one game how AI was lobbing salvo after salvo into thin air where my tanks have once been, Loathed the AI when it started shelling hill behind which my TD's were lurking. But never saw Borgish behavior in SPMBT/SPWW2. Just an intelligent, some times almost human behavior.