Don't Feel Sorry For The AI

[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.

[Lt. Ketch]

Originally Posted by 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.

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by Lt. Ketch

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.

[Lt. Ketch]

I’m sorry if it was unclear on a couple of things.
Number 1.

Originally Posted by Charles22

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.

Originally Posted by Lt. Ketch

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.

Originally Posted by Lt. Ketch

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.

Originally Posted by Charles22

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by Lt. Ketch

I’m sorry if it was unclear on a couple of things.
Number 1.

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.

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

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.

[Lt. Ketch]

Originally Posted by Charles22

...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,

Originally Posted by Ramm

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.