Jump to content

thetwo

Members
  • Posts

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

thetwo's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

10

Reputation

  1. Perhaps the flag is set, but the build queue options are not being updated to permit the building of the facilities.
  2. Brit, It appears the population flag to enable building nuclear power plants is not being set when a city's population reaches 10.
  3. Kelly's Heroes, My previos experience with Battlefront has been with the SC line and those games have been pretty solid upon release. I did not intend my comments to be be in any way harsh, simply observational and necessarily direct. I have a high regard for the Battlefront brand. I concur that that there is nothing to be gained from recriminations or vitriol. We pays our money and we takes our chances. I was wondering if, once Brit gets some of the basics of the AI combat actions and responses worked out, if a set of personality models might be possible for the AI players. Consider three basic personality types, conservative, moderate, agressive. Within each of those, there could be a range of variation (say from responsive to hostile) that could change over time depending on situation. It would provide exploration, build queue, diplomatic, negotiation, and response to attack option modeling and wouldn't have to be anything fancy. If these were randomized, there would be no need for the player to know what he was facing, unless he selected an aggressive AI. Just a thought.
  4. I'm going to report this as a bug as I've encountered it in two consecutive games. Both were 2000x2000 maps with 3xelite AIs. When attempting to move a unit or a stack of units they become "stuck" and will no longer obey any movement orders. I can put them on sentry and take them off sentry, but that is all. They will accept movement orders, but not execute them. I have a save game available if it will be of use.
  5. Observations on the AI. I've been playing on a 2000x2000 map, 3 elite AI opponents. So far, no one has attacked me, the computer players have expanded very litte. They've built no aircraft. The one enemy that I am at war with is the one that I attacked. They do not attack each other either. My own expansion was rapid and I frequently left cities undefended, even entire islands. They were ripe for invasions by the AI. Nothing. I enjoy playing games solo so AI is very important to me. To see a game released with an AI that isn't capable of rudimentary function is disappointing. When I saw the lobomotized AI in the demo, I thought it a work in progress as the game hadn't been released. But now? The AI builds warships that are sent to sea then don't move. It builds transports and loads them, but doesn't invade or expand. It builds masses of land units that do nothing. This isn't even a basic AI . . . yet, because it is not capable of challenging the human player in any way. I am surprised that a game in this state is associated with the Battlefront name. I believe the customers who purchase this game can have the reasonable expectation of an AI that is challenging and more advanced than anything that they saw in the Empire series. After all, that is the point of the game, to expand upon and extend the concepts and enjoyment of the genre. I have to agree with rich12545 that it appears that we are funding an ongoing beta. I hope there is a plan for a dynamic, challenging, and enjoyable AI. That would guarantee replayability and a long life for the game. Unfortunately, once the game went live, it became a valid target for reviewers as it is now. That rush to release, even if the AI is later completely fixed (which would be a surprise in this industry), will likely result in a lingering taint.
  6. Thanks for the reply Bill. Here is the screenshot of the save file for the Chittagong example. Yes, there was an Allied unit in 20,34. Since you mentioned the possibility, you may be aware of the situation. / / The four hours was mostly that I look for my own errors before I think to point the finger at someone else. I want to understand all the nuances and make sure I have it down. As it happened, I realized part of what Clarke suggested, from the other side, after I went to bed last night, toning down the chance per hit on changing Stalin's mind, from the Allied side. The AI scripts on diplomacy I hadn't looked at and totally missed. Forest for the trees comes to mind. Fortunately, patience and I are well acquainted. As for assuming a different outcome in Europe, I wonder how far to take that before historical becomes what-if. Not trying to be argumentative, but wondering. We could also speculate on Hitler not squandering resources foolishly and the war lasting longer or on a Hitler assassination and the Generals letting the Western Allies have a pass, while directing all resources to holding the Russians back. Stalin would have been seriously upset. Anyway, I appreciate your help and I expect you have had your own forest and trees moments as you designed Z. Those four hours weren't wasted. I looked at the detail under the hood and had time to think about and through some of the thought processes you must have gone through to reason out how it works.
  7. No doubt Blashy. I am talking about for the Operation Z scenario, or at least for a mod to have a historical Soviet war entry based on Yalta. That is all.
  8. Bill, In Operation Z, I may have spotted a couple bugs. First, the port that corresponds to Chittagong is not destroyed when the city is captured (21,35). To destroy and hence capture the port, the Japanese player must move to (20,34). Second, I was playtesting my script modifications and thought I had made a mistake when the Soviet Union kept entering the war early. I spent four hours pouring over the scripts and loading saves. Finally, I went back to deleted saved games from the stock scenario and found that the same thing had occured there. A creeping activation that I couldn't account for. Garrisons were kept in place and new units placed in late '43 in both games. There only thing that makes sense is that the computer AI is using diplomacy to sway the Stalin into an early declartion. Interesting and nice to see the AI can make that kind of investment, but makes managing the Yalta event difficult. Is it possible to exclude the USSR from other Alled nations' diplomacy options? Thanks.
  9. In the game, as it stands now, Stalin can intervene early, quite early with an invasion of Manchuria. Interesting stressor for Japan, but it mars what is a very solid effort on Bill's part to provide a historical scenario. Thanks for understanding. I put so much effort into getting the Russia part of the post correct, that I didn't craft the US part right.
  10. Clarke, I was not saying that there was a shortage of money, per se. My intent was that, in combination with the length of the war and the increase in casualties in 1944, the American public was growing war weary. Hence the reference to Iwo Jima and the bond drive centered around the flag raisers. As anxiety at home increased, worries about the future increased. Memories of the post-war years, after the Great War, inflation particularly, were hard to shake. The bond drives were successful, but became harder in late '44 and early '45. When victory became assured the ease of raising money again increased. Fortunately Roosevelt had strong opinions and good reasons both during and for post-war planning purposes for not engaging in just printing massive amounts of extra money and stuck with it. I believe that we experienced a misunderstanding of content and intent.
  11. Amen Blashy. Hubert's ability to keep focused on what's important has keep the series going strong. Of all the suggestions made, the garrison idea seems the one that might have the most staying power. If a garrison worked something like aircraft on an aircraft carrier. It could automatically build up over successive turns. One point per turn, using the existing code structure. Starting level of one on the turn of capture (subtracting one strength point from the capturing unit). Max level of 5. A city would then show two numbers e.g. 10/5 at full strength. Garrisons could be placed for resources too. The garrison would have strength 1 for infantry defense and 0 for all other ratings. Possible combat scenarios: Direct attack without another unit present - the garrison would defend and if defeated the city would fall. Direct attack with another combat unit present - the regular combat unit takes over the defense of the city. Only its values would be used. Ranged/strategic attack - either tie the garrison's losses directly to the strength of the city/resource, i.e each 2 points lost from the city reduces garrison by 1 or create a seperate attack against the garrison's resources. Keeping garrisons from becoming a micromanage issue would be a highly desireable outcome. If it could be done in such a way that the AI would be freed from seeing rear area cities as vulnerable, then it might result in a most significant recasting of how solo play evolves.
  12. Hi Bill, You've done fine work on Z. This is an outstanding scenario. The design is thorough and well thought out. Historically, it is the best of all the "cover" designs for any of the SC releases. I'm impressed with how solid this feels from both sides without having to increase the difficulty. Well done! After my first pass, I have two sets of comments. 1. As has been noted by others, the US production queue might be over the top. It is not a-historical, however. If anything, it is understated. The problem is that an Allied player can become so casual with his losses that aircraft carriers become throw away items. There were times in SC2 when I wished for a casualty counter (for the Soviets) and in this case one would be needed for the US and its Allies. The US had two weaknesses that are not usually addressed. Hypersensitivity to high casualties and a shortage of cash. The US casualty rate for WWII was low overall, but escalated rapidly in the last three years of the war. The national sensitivity to casualties might not have been felt until the total number of casualties doubled the historical total, but racking them up willy-nilly seems a bit much. By 1945, the US had been funding the entire war effort of the rest of the world. I don't even remember how many bond drives had been held by the end of 1944 and the well was just about dry. That was why the Iwo Jima flag raising picture and the Marine participants were hyped so much in 1945; more bond money was desperately needed. (Obviously, this can't be included in the scenario. I threw this in in the interests of completeness.) 2. Russia enters the war against Japan at a strange time. This seems to be almost a conceptual holdover from SC2. Stalin and his Soviet Union had two "main adversaries," the United States and the United Kingdom. By the mid-1930's his intelligence services had well penetrated the inner workings of both governments and their scientific establishments. The German invasion of the Soviet Union was dangerous, but did not change his focus. In fact, it offered him the opportunities to bend his main adversaries to his will, gain territories in Europe, expand his influence, and prepare for the next round of conflict with the US and UK. How did the Far East fit into his calculations? A. He liked how the Japanese had the US so obsessed with China, a backwater. Stalin was not averse to expanding his influence or his borders in the region, but he was not going to risk a war with Japan or distract Japan from a war with the US. Japan, like Germany, was a foil with which he could keep the US and UK distracted. B. The historical seizure of territory by Stalin when the collapse of Japan was imminent was in character. He did not distract Japan while it viable. He grabbed off land that he could take with minimum risk, and he created more headaches for the United States. C. In the game, I've seen the Soviet Union jump into the war with non-historical, un-Stalinlike haste. He didn't care what happened in China, even if Mao was completely overrun. (Stalin had executed many foreign Communists. Mao could be replaced.) He didn't care what happened to Japan, as long as it was chewing up the United States and Great Britain. And I can't fathom why, in game terms, he would invade, when Japan was winning on all fronts and had managed a stalemate at sea. Stalin was a manipulator. His favorite position was to sit behind his borders, building his war machine, suppressing internal dissent, while egging others on outside his borders. He was not a risk taker. Even when Japan was on the verge of immediate and total collapse his one historical act of aggression in the Far East was happened on his terms, timing, and goals. / / In game terms, the use of Soviet research and MPP to supply and support Chinese Communist forces keeps the Soviets from being wall flowers. The same could be done with the US, but your solution works. If Soviet Union were more historical there might be more emphasis on building and pushing the Communist Chinese forces, rather than building Soviet troop levels. Current scripts for Manchukuo garrisons, including the increase in 1944 seem appropriate in scale and timing. As for the units no longer needed to push offensives in China when both Chinas surrender, Japan faces a paradox. Surely some might be freed to assist a last, late push into India, or to defend against a British counter attack, but then other requirements and limitations will affect their usefulness. - A quarter to a third will be needed to help police the conquered Chinese territories, including possibly one headquarters. The pace of guerrilla pop-ups can pick up and keep things interesting if too many units are pulled out. - Some units, again with headquarters, might be used to attempt counter-attacks on islands or island groups, if the IJN has enough control of the seas and air space to keep these experienced troops safe. - A major cross-Pacific amphibious assault might be tried, but without massive superiority at sea, these irreplaceable troops will be lost. - An invasion of the Soviet Union would be silly. So the paradox is that even with the surrender of China, those troops don't translate into the military power that can be easily projected into other theaters of the war. Especially the military power Japan most needs, sea power. I've provided this discussion to illustrate that forcing a Soviet Union activation isn't all that necessary, in order to keep the Japanese occupied. It would tie up some MPP, but a competent Allied player should have been able to do that without Soviet interference. The Soviet role is as a hovering presence, enough to divert some Japanese resources, but not enough to joggle their collective elbow should be sufficient. (And giving the Soviets more units than SC2 did for the Soviet Western Front facing the Germans is overkill and unrealistic, at least before redeployment from Europe.) So the question comes down to whether the Soviet sledgehammer must be used because it is there or can they be more historical. / / Here are some possibilities. - Remove scripts for Soviet activation that do not specifically deal with Manchukuo garrisons. - Remove scripts for Soviet troop transfers from the West unless tied specifically to Yalta. These would not have made sense. If Stalin had to weaken himself at what was, to him, the critical point in Europe, he would not even consider it. - Scale Soviet unit availability in the Far East to a more appropriate level until after the European war is completed and the Yalta deadline for action looms. - Keep the Soviet goals, if a Manchukuo driven activation occurred, reasonable. The Soviets would not have gone for a knockout against Japan or for a conquest of China. A seizure of Manchukuo, on the the other hand, and perhaps the Korean peninsula would have been possible if the forces on-hand were capable of making the necessary gains without reinforcement. - A likely military scenario in Manchukuo (in an early activation event) would probably have gone something like the following. The Soviets realize the Japanese have significantly reduced their garrisons, Stalin finally decides to see what the situation on the ground is by authorizing a limited offensive, a probing attack in one location (Kiamusze for example). If the Japanese seem weak enough, he might authorize a larger attempt to snatch one important local center (Harbin maybe). Nothing much at one time. He would not have wanted to get in over his head and find himself in a situation that would compel him to divert his attention and resources from what was most important. If it looked like the Japanese might get too committed to driving him back, he might even have apologized and agreed to ceasefire in place. He still wanted Japan fighting Americans. Once the collapse of Japan was imminent, if Japan ultimately lost, he might try to go for a few more local gains depending on where his forces were at the time, but without risk. - The above scenario would only come into play if Manchukuo garrisons fell below mandatory minimums. Keeping Soviet troop levels low would make this possible even for the Allied AI. - Now, I think that if he managed to get Harbin cheap and easy, we could accept that his appetite would have been whetted and he'd decide that all of Manchukuo would be his. I can't really see him going for China. He had no interest in beating up on the Japanese. At that point, a smart Japanese player/AI would try to reach a negotiated settlement with the Soviets securing a border between Manchuria and Korea. Stalin might go for this to keep Japan in the war longer or he might just go with greed. At that point, it would be a coin toss. Still, Stalin would be acting to minimize his risk and keep Japan in the war against the US. / / The Soviet Far East campaign involved the attack on Manchuria, part of Korea, part of the Kuril Islands, and the southern half of Sakhalin Island. Stalin fulfilled the commitment made in Yalta to attack within 90 days of the surrender in Europe. He kept the southern half of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands that he seized. That he gave up Manchuria and Northern Korea can be considered something of a miracle, although it laid the groundwork for much of how how the next sixty years of history played out. Manchuria became the base of operations for the Communist Chinese and North Korea became the bastion of totalitarian idiocy it remains to this day. All the legacy of Stalin's offensive. If Stalin or his military leaders in the Far East had applied the lessons learned in the West, about logistics support for ongoing armored offensives, there was every possibility that all of Korea would have been Communist. Further, if Emperor Hirohito had not surrendered when he did, a delay of a few weeks might have permitted a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido resulting in a North Japan to add to the Cold War's miseries. As for the post-Yalta Soviet Far East campaigns, the following might be viable. - Soviet trigger would be both the date, August 9, 1945, and the Allies possessing Manila, at minimum. If the Western Allies are not winning, there is no point in having Stalin commit. This would place a realistic limiting motivation on the Soviets and the Americans. - In Scripts, Activation_1, change Flag for surrenders of China and Australia to 0. The surrenders of those two countries was unlikely to have an effect on Russia's war entry. - In Scripts, Activation_3, change Flag for both 1944 Soviet activation increases to 0. Also change the activation date for the 1945 script to 1945/08/01 to get a historical activation. For the same script, change the Trigger to 100 and both the min and max activation percents to 100. - In Scripts, Unit, change both "USSR Deploys Veterans From The War With Germany" scripts so that their activation dates and failsafe dates read 1945/07/01. - A decision event will probably be needed to tie Activation_3 script and both deployment scripts (from Germany) into a Yalta event. This would allow them to be tied to Allied territorial gains in the Pacific, Manila most importantly. The decision event script is below. { #NAME= Soviet Help in Far East #POPUP= The White House %NPresident Roosevelt %N%NOur progress in the Pacific has provided the opportunity to invite General Secretary Stalin to break his non-aggression pact with Japan and invade in the Far East. Stalin has indicated that he might be willing to invade Manchuria and other Japanese held areas ninety days after the war in Europe ends. Do you want Stalin's help in defeating Japan? #IMAGE= #SOUND= #FLAG= 1 #TYPE= 0 #AI= 0 #LEVEL= 0 ;Set global variable condition to always trigger (dummy value) #GV= 1[1,100] ;Set link value to always trigger (dummy value) #LINK= 0[0] #COUNTRY_ID= 3 #TRIGGER= 100 #DISPLAY_ORDER= 0 ;Set decision value #DECISION= 6 ;Set AI acceptance % #AI_RESPONSE= 80 #AI_RESPONSE_POPUP= President Roosevelt Asks Stalin to Invade Manchuria #DATE= 1945/02/11 ;Set friendly position (Manila): #FRIENDLY_POSITION= 56,39 ;Set variable conditions: ;1st Line - US politically aligned with Allies and not surrendered #VARIABLE_CONDITION= 3 [2] [100] [0] ;Dummy condition position (always satisfied) #CONDITION_POSITION= 0,0 [0,0] [0,0] [0] [0] } - In both the Activation_3 script and the two redeployment form Germany scripts, the Link line would need to read #LINK= 6[1]. These changes would put the Soviet Union on a historical footing for the invasion. As for how to create the scripts for a tentative earlier offensive, I don't know. The game is set up more for all or nothing. Even if it were possible, it might well be too much effort for too little return. I am in the process of playtesting this set of modifications now. Again Bill, thanks for a great main scenario.
  13. Uranium bombs like the one used on Hiroshima were abandoned after the war. U-235 was too hard to generate. That one bomb used the entire stock of refined U-235. Fat Man type bombs, using plutonium, were easier to supply and were used for the first post-war tests and formed America's immediate nuclear weapon stockpile. These were the Mk3A fission bombs. As of June 1946, the United States had 9 Fat Man bombs. I don't recall any tests between the end of the war and that month. In July 1946, two were used in the Crossroads tests at Bikini Atoll. So, we can guess that there were 7 (maybe 8) in inventory by the end of July 1946. Another fact was that the fission core for the third wartime bomb was delivered to Tinian on August 11, 1945. The third bomb could have been dropped a week later. So if we take the 7 from the end of July 1946, subtract the 1 we know was available in August 1945, add back the two Bikini test bombs, we get eight manufactured from September 1, 1945 through end of June 1946. Ten months for eight bombs. I make that approximately 304 days, which yields one bomb every 38 days on average. I would guess that this is plus or minus three to five days. I hope this is of some help.
  14. Welcome to the SC community cubby. I too have been having trouble in Windowed mode with PTO. Hubert advised me to run in full-screen for the time being.
  15. Clarke, The garrison issue (them getting pulled into offensives then replaced by scripts) has been a long-standing debate on the boards. The more advanced modders have tried to find ways to fix the problem too. So far, this remains unresolved. If it gets fixed, it would take care of one of the sorest points with scenario designers in the SC2 series. That you picked it up so early in play says good things.
×
×
  • Create New...