Re: Question about possible changes to campaign system
 

If I don't replace the losses and fix the damage the AI gets two decisive victories..... when I spend points to fix my damaged units then keep them safe the next battle the AI gets one DV and one draw and that is not a better result for the AI

TOO much time in this chair staring at a computer screen. Andy and I will look at this tomorrow

Re: Question about possible changes to campaign system
 

Maybe this got missed. It shows what the problem is.

Re: Question about possible changes to campaign system
 

Like everything else about this issue the "proof" comes late or is hastily thrown together at the last minute and is unusable



This "issue" has existed for at least a decade as we have made NO changes to campaign code in that long so finally getting "proof" of this in mid-April just as we were about to start final assembly to get both updates released is piss poor timing and what I posted above .....If I do not replace the losses and fix the damage the AI gets two decisive victories..... when I spend points to fix my damaged units and then keep them safe the next battle the AI gets one DV and one draw and that is not a better result for the AI

I will admit this does seem to point to a problem but not in the way it was originally presented

So fix this so we can at least look at this video but this SHOULD HAVE BEEN brought to our attention months ago not a week after the date we normally release updates

Re: Question about possible changes to campaign system
 

Sorry, the video settings were wrong. I set it to "not listed" now, it should work.

Re: Question about possible changes to campaign system
 

That is precisely the result I saw four times with variations in the number of casualties and you showed exactly the same results I reported... if the units are not fixed the AI gets two decisive victories but if the units are fixed it only gets one decisive and one draw .

That proved something is not quite right but it does not prove the AI is getting extra points and the draw result with the causalities replaced proves that.

Save some time if you do this again and turn fast arty on..

As I said, something seems to be wrong but what exactly that is is for now a mystery

Re: Question about possible changes to campaign system
 

We will continue to investigate....that's all I can say at this time. I think......maybe.... I see the full issue a bit clearer now

Re: Question about possible changes to campaign system
 

I think the question is: Should the AI, in the second round, where no casualties are dealt, receive any points? I would say no. This scenario only happens if the core force is completely repaired and up to strength. In that case, the points for the scenario are 0 for both armies, as nothing happened. Nothing got captured, nobody died.
The only reason why the AI gets points in the second scenario is because some of the player forces are understrength. Thus, the mistake must be there somewhere.

Re: Question about possible changes to campaign system
 

The light finally came on and it was that the AI only got a draw when the units were rebuilt that did it.

No excuse. Should have figured it out as soon as I saw the draw the first time I tried it with the units rebuilt but for whatever reason it didn't........for now I am going to blame chronic lack of sleep but even that isn't good enough. I was thinking it was proving the opposite of what it was proving

Thanks for your example and your patience. We will endeavour to correct the problem. I have some ideas on WHY it may be happening when units are not fully rebuilt but they are conflicting ideas.... one will be correct it's unclear ATM which one.

EDIT

I won't be able to contact Andy for a few hours yet but ONE possibility ( just a theory ATM....it has been a LONG time since this was coded ) that there **May** be a chance that way back when this was coded that when a player allowed his units to be beaten up so badly they could all not be replenished, that those points from those units that could not be repaired were deliberately carried over as an added penalty to be an incentive to reckless players to keep their units from being beaten up too much......... maybe. This is something I need to run by Andy.

I know this sounds like an " It's not a bug it's a feature!" excuse but it's a possibility. RL commanders who let their forces be decimated don't ( normally..) stay commanders for long as recent events have shown

Re: Question about possible changes to campaign system
 

FWIW I have tested a similar mini-campaign with MBT and the exact same thing happens when units are not rebuilt.

But.... that code for a repair was not something we touched according to Andy

I am trying to test a small generated campaign to see if the same thing happens and if it does it's been like this since the original code was created


........and yeah that does sound like an "excuse" but it's why I am testing this deeper

EDIT....... spent a fair amount of time on this. The second battle showed no casualties and I didn't fix anything after the first but the points generated for the 21 v hexes throw everything out the window


So YES this *MAY* have been coded in from the start but the start did not start with Andy. He just used what the campaign code used but expanded it with the user campaign addition but the way campaigns were handled was the same as a normal generated campaign uses.

The problem is it's impossible to see this under normal circumstances where a few carry-over points are lost in the background "noise"

Re: Question about possible changes to campaign system
 

This has basically been there in campaigns since the very beginning in SP1 and MSDOS days.

If you leave things damaged, then you will get penalised for that. So "Pyrric" victories where your core gets smashed up and is having to wait for the next battles build/repair points will cost you.

It is not just a simple "check all core units pre-battle, tot up the points of damage, then deduct from the total at the battle end" sort of thing either to "fix" it since damaged units can appear on the map - and then be subsequently destroyed or re-damaged. What do we charge for a unit with 3 existing damage points, if killed?. Oh, and it would need a new variable for all units for "damage points carried forwards" in save games. What happens if the user leaves units damaged for a second, and then a third battle then?. Oh, and there is the minor point of the "kills totaliser" screen at the battle ending since that simply tots up men killed, units killed - and has no way to know "oh, unit X was actually killed 3 battles back, but not repaired, disregard it".

So - a "can of worms" to fix, if you think the damage should be simply ignored - as it cannot be easily so. the entire code is based on stuff damaged or killed being counted with no bookkeeping for any "carry forwards" damages.

Therefore - it stays the same, and the player will be penalised for "Pyrric" victories where the core is so badly beaten up that the granted repair points cannot fix them.

The player may want then to delete a very badly shot-up formation perhaps, if he cannot find the repair points. That may release some repair points to him for use. And that is the sort of thing a commander might well have to do in warfare.