New Arty Routine

[thatguy96]

BigJim said:
Ok guys get out ur six sided die roll it 10 times and tell me how many times in a row you get a one

Except that if I remember my basic probability getting a 1 ten times in a row is no more unlikely than getting any other number 10 times in a row. In fact, since the probability of rolling any specific number on a 6-sided die is 1/6, rolling any number combination should have the same probability, with 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 being no more statistically unlikely than any random combination of ten numbers from 1-6.

[BigJim]

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.

As far as Don's lame claims about proof, his is the usual programmer/developers comment. If you can't rave about us get off our boards.

While the AI is not very good I admit, it does have already many "features" to keep it competitive. It only has to keep the player from achieving a "decisive" to have accomplished its (read the programmer) goals.

I view computer vs human as programmer vs human and so the programmers else why the rub

[Mobhack]

The AI may target hex X,Y where something was determined to be of interest, or it may decide to pound objective 17's hex X,Y.

However - unfortunately for your "borg" premise, the AI, just like you, is subject to the normal rules for scatter of the target hex, and then for the scatter of shells around the new target point. (And whether or not it has an observer with LOS to the target hex etc).

But then as DRG has already pointed out to you - we already seem to have had this discussion with you back on the old Yahoo group, over a year or so back.

As for your "ad hominem" attack on DRG - I will refer you to the Shrapnel board rules, where this sort of behaviour is specifically ruled against. Consider this your first warning.

Andy

[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

[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.