Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Do you remember HARM-ing Kirovs to death before Harpoon v1.32a when ARMs were doing impact damage regardless if the target was radiating or not? So much more satisfying having to carefully time the HARM launch with the Harpoon wave so they meet on the target. But before the ARM restriction I was just HARMing them even knowing it's not the real thing.

 

I think those who play Harpoon find pleasure in having to do what real commanders have to do, those who just want to outsmart any game are already playing something else.

See, to me, all those are choices you make yourself. Just because the game allows you to do it and doesn't restrict you...doesn't mean you're required to go that way. If you want realism, act that way, if the game isn't set up to enforce it.

 

As I posted before, I'd be fine with it if the game did enforce logistics, but I want all the pieces to work before it forces me into anything.

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

I would be perfectly glad to to do that...if you could guarantee it worked all the time, unlike H2/3's system, that only works for one aspect, and is very sensitive to how it's set up, and like so many things in that GE, works seemingly when it wants, and also depends on the DB author a lot. I would want AoE's and UNREP to work reliably, not just air weapon magazines. If I want to get into that, I want it all.

We could never offer guarantees, but certainly we wouldn't want to introduce any logistics model that was unreliable or harmful to game play.

Otoh, I can also limit myself to X number of Harpoons taking off from the airfield or carrier, w/o in-game restrictions, if I wish. And I've actually never HARMed a cruiser to death, even in the old days. If I want to 'cheat' I'm only hurting my own experience. I've never felt like I 'won' when I did that. I always hated that the sub hunting AI would drop a buoy right on top of the real location as soon as it lost contact. (No longer happens.)

This is how I play. It would be an improvement, however, in my opinion, if a logistics model were available to enforce it. If you chose that option. And I think I can safely say that Tony is on the side of permitting a wider range of play. ;)
Posted

See, to me, all those are choices you make yourself. Just because the game allows you to do it and doesn't restrict you...doesn't mean you're required to go that way. If you want realism, act that way, if the game isn't set up to enforce it.

 

I see. To me the best games are those which create their own "universe", the Game Universe. Harpoon is one of these. When I can immerse myself into the GU I'm Commander of the 5th fleet, if I need to restrict myself from something possible in the GU I'm taken out of it and I'm just playing with a computer.

A rule enforced by the Game Universe is more valuable to me than one from outside.

But we are down to the metaphysical :) this is just sharing my view of the game, I don't intend to convert you. :D

 

As I posted before, I'd be fine with it if the game did enforce logistics, but I want all the pieces to work before it forces me into anything.

 

Khm :Dthat all sounds great, till you realize we have *one* volunteer coder who has other obligations, including a new baby, not a team of well-paid coders working full-time.

Now that we have swapped arguments it's safe to say this is a good discussion :).

 

I could live with smaller steps, I feel that certain coherent "chunks" of logistics might be possible to introduce without unbalancing the rest of the game. For example a limited a/c logistics.

Posted

Now how are you going to modify the AI to understand logistics? Implementing it for the humans is one thing (far easier), introducing it to the AI is a whole additional ball-game.

Posted

Now how are you going to modify the AI to understand logistics? Implementing it for the humans is one thing (far easier), introducing it to the AI is a whole additional ball-game.

Yep, for sure. One of the reasons why I think a simple (or relatively so) logistics model is probably the low hanging fruit. Options might include: not saddling the AI with any logistics constraints, or making it a part of the SE process (more complex, but then 'hard wired' into the scenario).
Posted

 

 

Now how are you going to modify the AI to understand logistics? Implementing it for the humans is one thing (far easier), introducing it to the AI is a whole additional ball-game.

Yep, for sure. One of the reasons why I think a simple (or relatively so) logistics model is probably the low hanging fruit. Options might include: not saddling the AI with any logistics constraints, or making it a part of the SE process (more complex, but then 'hard wired' into the scenario).
Perhaps something that could be put in the scenario as options?

 

"Don't allow AI loadout changes"

"Only allow X missions with PGM"

(Oh, you did say 'as part of the SE process...missed that)

 

As Tony said, not sure the AI could handle logistics well, so you'd have to lean on the scenario writer if restrictions were wanted.

 

@Grumble: We really haven't switched positions. The coding situation is another reason why I'd be leery of any forced logistics situations. Tony's great, but there's only one of him, and I also know a few things about new babies.

Posted

Now how are you going to modify the AI to understand logistics? Implementing it for the humans is one thing (far easier), introducing it to the AI is a whole additional ball-game.

 

Well (stretching fingers) lets just open an AI pipe dream, shall we? :D

 

Ok, we must do that sometime but for the start I don't think you actually need smarter AI for logistics. It is mainly the human player stretching the game beyond the logistically possible.

If I think about logistics in an early form I have the following benefits, plus the effect on AI.

 

So logistics would

  • Restrict aircrafts to airbases that can realistically resupply them.
    • The AI does not relocate a/c-s. (I've not seen it at least.)
  • Enforce restrained use of smart weapons (e.g. for high value targets) and compel to use conventional ammunition.
    • If the AI is using weapons voraciously it can deplete it's stock early.
    • Basic level AI modification is to make it to use next best available weapon for missions, e.g. standoff > guided > ironbomb. So it does not just sit there after primary weapon type stock has been depleted.
    • Advanced level modification is to have it match the target's threat level, e.g. use guns only for a P-3 but use an Alamo for fighters. (Thus ration the smart weapons.)
  • Allow ships to operate beyond the capacity of their magazines with the help of UNREP.
    • Of course, this is assuming there is an UNREP.
    • Enable the AI to also benefit from UNREP. This could be a simple trigger for the AI to start UNREP when a ship in the group is low on her magazines. (Possibly even moving the ship to the main body for and then returning it to the patrol zone after UNREP.)
  • Limit offensive potential of a/c-s to realistic levels.
    • This is more or less the same as the smart weapons and the same AI routines could manage them.
    • Except if the scenario is fuel limited, well, then the AI better rolls on it's back and surrender, we can't have everything at once. :P

Long term, for a really smart AI, I'd look at a SWOT analysis point system decision engine combined with some predefined mission templates and a navigation routine capable of plotting routes around threat zones. But this is already for the AI pipe dream. :)

Posted

The AI does not relocate a/c-s. (I've not seen it at least.)

it's possible, you can have a forward base without planes, and later in the scenario the AI can opérate formation air patrols and long range air patrols from this base.

It's an issue of scenario editing:

1.- In the forward airbase, put the planes you want later in the scenario operating from that airbase.

2.- Edit as usual the formation air patrols and the long range air patrols.

3.- Delete the planes from the forward air base.

4.- Edit one (or many) rearguard air base with the planes do you want later in the scenario based in the forward airbase.

5.- Edit ferry flights (aleatorious in the time) from the rearguard airbase to the forward air base.

You can see the effect playing (from any of both sides, the forward airbases are Beira and Pieterburg) my Beira Patrol scenario, hehehe ;)

Posted

 

The AI does not relocate a/c-s. (I've not seen it at least.)

it's possible, you can have a forward base without planes, and later in the scenario the AI can opérate formation air patrols and long range air patrols from this base.

It's an issue of scenario editing:

1.- In the forward airbase, put the planes you want later in the scenario operating from that airbase.

2.- Edit as usual the formation air patrols and the long range air patrols.

3.- Delete the planes from the forward air base.

4.- Edit one (or many) rearguard air base with the planes do you want later in the scenario based in the forward airbase.

5.- Edit ferry flights (aleatorious in the time) from the rearguard airbase to the forward air base.

You can see the effect playing (from any of both sides, the forward airbases are Beira and Pieterburg) my Beira Patrol scenario, hehehe ;)

 

Ok, but in this case it is also not the AI's decision to relocate, it was preprogrammed by the scenario designer. You would need to modify the AI logic if the AI were relocating a/c-s on it's own to other airbases, which, with logistics introduced, might not be able to resupply them. This is not the case I think.

 

Sounds a like a fun scenario though, will have to check it. Pity that I'm now in the know. ^_^

 

I think the rest is too cumbersome for modifications in the Game Engine.

 

Cumbersome modifications, you mean the other effects? Hmm. The way I dream it these (smart weapon limit, a/c limit) are not big modifications of the GE rather spin-off effects of a (algorithmically) simple GE logistics modification combined with smartly selected initial airbase stocks.

 

The GE modification algorithmically is this:

  • GE reduces the "airbase stock" for each readied aircraft with the ordinances and fuel of the loadout.
  • Ordinances can be mounted only if available in the airbase stock.
  • Landing aircraft bring-back stock is added to the airbase stock.

Duh, I mean I don't expect the ground to shake.

But as soon as the GE can "do this" then with an appropriately selected initial stock the player can be forced to ration smart weapons, carefully choose aerial missions and targets and even limit sorties, patrols.

(I stress I wrote "algorithmically" simple, does not necessarily mean easy code.)

 

Now as Tony pointed out set up of stock can be a pain in the back for the scenario designer, not to mention backward compatibility of scenarios. To avoid a startup scenario famine when there is no (not enough) "stocked" scenarios available to use with the logistics GE a default stock initialization routine could be added to the GE which it will use for pre-logistics scenarios. That is to fill up airbase stocks abundantly but only for the aircrafts stationed at the airbase at the start.

This would give only limited logistics effects, but already it would have a realistic sidekick of limiting a/c-s to airbases operating equal technology. Also GE could check and list weapons consumed total in the status report. And this would be the start.

 

As for ships, these are already limited to their mounts and magazines with a few exceptions which can be reloaded.

So here a logistics would rather enhance battle groups capabilities, up to their true potential for long scenarios.

An algorithmically simple UNREP routine just allows ships to reload mounts when meeting UNREP requirements, like, UNREP ship and reload ship both in main body, proper speed and no course changes, sea state too, from the stocks of the UNREP ship, reload ship can take no offensive/defensive action. Here the initial stock of the UNREP ship is important to set of course.

Ground bases might just be possible to manage with the same UNREP routine with replenishment convoys.

 

A GE with these algorithmically simple modification would already be very interesting to test out.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...