Tech Question for everyone

[Shaka of Carthage]

I've been dying to answer this, but no one has asked, so I will answer it anyway!

What is Fuzzy logic?

I'm glad you asked that. First, lets talk about a computer. At its lowest level, the computer can only recognize two (2) different states. You can think of them as ON and OFF. Computer thinks of them as 0 or 1. That would be known as binary.

People don't think that way, so they developed programming languages to act as the interface between the binary language of a computer and people. This lead to the development of what is known as conventional logic. Also referred to as Boolean logic.

IF condition is TRUE , then do this.

ELSE do something else.

I'm sure some of you geniuses have already figured out, that the ELSE condition is the opposite of the TRUE condition. In other words, TRUE or FALSE , ON or OFF.

Then some egghead, decided to mucky it up.

IF condition is maybe TRUE , then do this.

Notice that addition of maybe ? We no longer have a clear cut TRUE/FALSE anymore. We have blurred the definition of TRUE. Or as an egghead would put it, it has become fuzzy.

If you have enjoyed this, please send a $5 donation to the address I will provide. Upon request, the next seminar would cover true AI, artifical neural nodes.

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

I have a question, can you expain virtual fuzzy $5 Donation, please?

Thanks for the education, as always it's been very enlightening.

[ May 14, 2003, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

KDG

I like what you said about the HQ's. Got me to thinking. You're right, in the sense that if a Corp/Army Soft defense factor is increased, so should the HQ.

KDG and 6thAirborne

2. Increase number of units HQ can supply

3. Increase distance HQ can supply

4. Improve the supply of HQ's.

Command and Control

...gradually upgrade the number of units an HQ could supply and control as well as the amount of extra supply and readiness that was added to the controlled forces.

Basically same idea. But here we have a problem. What you say is true, but is it a big enough increase to justify six (6) different steps? If I increase # units under control 1 per step, then at L5, that would be 10 units that HQ controls.

Distance the HQ can supply, I don't know the numbers, so no comment. Improve the supply and readiness, I don't fully understand. Care to elaborate?

Wachmeister

My understanding is that research techs currently only improve the attributes of affected friendly units - they do not now directly reduce the attributes of enemy units.

Excellent point. Logic wise, you would have to add programming code so that instead of using the Sub's "dive %", you would used the "modified dive %" which would be a result of the Sub's number minus the Attacker's ASW %.

[KDG]

Edwin

4. Although many people complain about air power, I agree with the games restriction of AD benefits to cities and resources as one normally did not place AA guns outside of the cities. To do so would have limited the number of AA guns that could be concentrated in defending the city. If a unit wanted protection against air power it had to be within a city or under the protection of a nearby air fleet. - Remember this is WWII.

I don't agree completely. We would only be talking about the hexes that surround the city. Think of them as outskirts of the main city. If an army was stationed there, they would gain most of the same benefits as the central hex when defending vs. air attacks. If they are protecting the city from attack, I would assume that they would have anti-aircraft(which we know they do since they have an air defense level) and any gains in tech for air defense should also be reflected in those units.

Shaka

Basically same idea. But here we have a problem. What you say is true, but is it a big enough increase to justify six (6) different steps? If I increase # units under control 1 per step, then at L5, that would be 10 units that HQ controls.

2. Increase number of units HQ can supply

This is huge. I'd need 2-3 HQ's instead of 4-5, which saves me 1000 MPP's.

3. Increase distance HQ can supply

Current distance is 5 (less over mountains, rivers, etc), this could go up with tech.

4. Improve the supply of HQ's.

The farther away an HQ is from a city, the lower its supply goes down. This could improve with tech. HQ's also have a command number, this could be modified as well.

I wouldn't do all of the above. Most likely I'd chose improving air defense, as well as number of units it can supply. Next choice would be distance an HQ can supply.

[ May 14, 2003, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[Edwin P.]

KDG

I am thinking about what you said, and I although I understand your point of view I still think that AD would not have extended beyond the 50x50 (250) miles covered by each hex. Even more so when this is extended to cover all six surrounding hexes at the same time (an additional 1250 square miles).

Perhaps you could say that the AD bonus is 30% (or some %) likely in a surrounding hex and 100% likely in the city hex. Thus units adjacent to a city would have an increased chance of getting air cover, but it would not be guaranteed.

Any thoughts? or am I totally off-base?

[KDG]

That would be a good idea to have it be a 50% chance for the AD bonus, or we could make the AD bonus .5 per tech level for those surrounding hexes as opposed the normal AD bonus of 1.

[Edwin P.]

I would prefer to go with the all or nothing possiblity. Why?

In WWII attacking aircraft sometimes attacked with full surprise before the AD forces were able to respond. In other cases coast watchers spotted the incoming craft and called/radioed ahead and the aircraft ran into prepared AD fire. I think that the 50% chance captures this better than the 0.5 point AD bonus.

[KDG]

A .5 AD bonus inflicts about .33 damage more. Thus, when this is randomized, sometimes there won't be any damage, sometimes 1 point of the damage would be inflicted. This would correspond to your all or nothing scheme, but would fit in with the current war equations.

[Edwin P.]

I agree, thanks for the information on how the damage is calculated

[Panzer39]

I am all for the HQ suggestions. Do yall think there is any chance we might see this "extra tech slot" show up?

[ May 15, 2003, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: Panzer39 ]

[JerseyJohn]

Sounds good.

[Edwin P.]

Panzer39

That is a question that would have to await a response from Hubert, the game's designer and all around good guy.

Personally, I would like to see;

1. A tech added, any tech.

2. Yugoslavia Partisan Rules for post surrender Spain/Russia/UK/Turkey

3. FOW for the Siberian transfer

4. Some Random starting positions - see related thread.

5. Improvements to the AI in the Med

6. Some AI fine tuning

7. Reclaim Tech Chits Option for AI

8. French Unit in Beruit moves to guard Suez.

----------- And for the Really Far Out and most unlikely additons -----------

8. Arrival of US Pacific Fleet in the Atlantic if the UK or Canada falls to the Axis(aka Siberian transfer for the US)

9. Russian Mass Uprising Event - Post Russian surrender there is a 5% chance per turn (once per year) that 1 partisan or 1 russian corps unit will appear in every unoccupied Russian city and resource hex. This would place some limit on the number of German forces available for the war on the Western Front.

10. German invasion of Norway/Sweden added to AI.

11. Allied attack on Iraq added to AI

12. German Sea Lion added to AI if UK undefended.

13. Allied Invasion of Portugal, Spain, Italy added to the AI

14. The Axis AI gets devious and makes an amphibious landing behind Russian lines.

[ May 16, 2003, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

It would be unwise for Mr. H to endorse or approve any of the suggestions that we are making.

We are really playing a "if it was me in charge" game, putting the idea out in public, seeing if anyone can poke holes in it, refine the idea, let more holes get poked in it, then finally put out a finished idea (or a close relative of it) that maybe, just maybe will appear in a future SC.

[santabear]

Edwin P continues to be a source of excellent ideas. A few of my own (albeit less excellent...):

1. I agree about having air defence benefits localized in cities. My understanding of WWII is that air defence depended on having (at least local) air superiority. There wasn't any really effective AAA (just ask the Germans in the cities wiped out by the American air force)--certainly not for ground troops. If they were caught in the open by enemy planes they were in SERIOUS trouble--a few .50 cal machine guns or whatever didn't do much. And naval anti-aircraft defence depended on having aircraft carriers, not AA guns on the battleships.

2. If there is a partisan tech, I think the current engine for partisan appearances needs some refining. They pop up in predictable and often illogical places (mountains between Turkey and Russia--goat farmers get mad at the Germans?; swamps near Finland east of Leningrad--that part of Russia is about devoid of people--and they interfere with supply in the URAL MOUNTAINS for God's sake...); and simply plunking corps in swamps and mountains elimintates any chance that they will appear. This would nullify any advantages of the technology.

Historically, there weren't any partisans worth mentioning until 1943 or so, and then only in certain areas. Whether through Edwin's tech suggestion or through other refinements, it would be good to see this acknowledged in the game. The tech idea would probably do well with this. At first, Russia was too concerned about survival to put many resources into the partisans, later they did with significant effect.

It is strange to have Soviet partisans but not the French resistance, too. Again, the tech could help to rectify this.

It should NOT be possible to reinforce a partisan unit as though it is regular infantry. I have been able to reinforce Russian partisans to strength 13 when the Russians have "anti-tank" technology. If there is a tech, partisans should become a separate kind of unit. Otherwise they would become a cheap way to build high-tech corps--making the 'unlimited manpower' problem that much worse.

3. My vote is to modify the "sonar" tech into a more general 'ASW tech' that would not only assist with detection, but would counter the 50% dive probablity at high levels. Since one has to hunt submarines with capital ships in this game, allowing subs to survive and inflict significant damage on a battleship group is too much. There should either be a counter to the dive % or a "cheap and nasty" (Churchill's phrase) naval sub hunting unit that could be built for this task. Hunting subs with battleships is problematic in many ways for the game.

[JerseyJohn]

Interesting posts all the way through.

Regarding a couple of santabear's suggestions. I think Partisans are okay to become reinforced as regular corps if they are linked to the main supply source. At that point they become regular soldiers. If cut off again presumably the become reinforced partisans. Many of the partisans were at least built around groups of soldiers who never surrendered.

I don't take BBs, CAs and CVs to be litterally Battleships, Cruisers and Aircraft Carriers. Officially they are supposed to represent a mix of vessels with the identification being the largest ship of the unit. Presumably they all contain destroyers.

Historically, around the middle of the war America and Britain began sending out Killer TFs consisting of an escort carrier and severl destroyers or similar small warships equipped with sonar and anti-submarine weapons. Combined with long range flying boat patrols, they were reasonably successful at first and decisively successrul later on. Part of the later success was attributable to the capture of a Kriegsmarine Utra machine that the admiralty thought had gone down with it's sub.

The addition of such a group in the game, especially as part of a research tech, perhaps somar, would be very interesting. But first the whole Battle of the Atlantic needs to be turned inside out and rebuilt so it has more to do with reality. Why make an anti-sub unit to fight subs almost nobody builds in the first place?

[Edwin P.]

Santabear

I like your comments regarding Partisans and where they appear.

I think that partisans should have a chance to appear in ungarrisoned city, resource, and forest hexes in addition to mountains and swamps as these areas are likely to atract partisan activity.

Also, the presence of partisan unit(s) in country should increase the chance of another partisan unit appearing. Why? Successful partisan activity makes it easier to recruit more partisans.

Example: In the game Yugoslavia has a base 15% per turn of a partisan unit during non-winter months. So;

1 partisan unit activated +5% thus a 20% chance.

2 partisan units activated +10% thus a 25% chance.

3 partisan units activated +20% thus a 35% chance.

4 partisan units activated +40% thus a 55% chance.

JerseyJohn

I build subs!

But only, if German air power has detroyed most of the allied navy forces (I keep a count of UK naval units destroyed) or have them bottled up in the Med (once I took an Undefended Gibraltar and trapped the allied fleets in the Med.)

I think that the the current spotting range for Naval ships is realistic and would oppose changing this as sonar in WWII had a very short range.

Perhaps what is needed is an inexpensive air unit for sub spotting whose max strength would increase as ASW tech increased. Naturally such an air unit would have an Air Defense Strength of 0 as its primary use would be to spot Sub Units. Perhaps the diving percentage of subs spotted by such an air unit could be reduced?

Note: I believe that air units should have a percentage chance to spot sub units within their range, not the 100% that they have now.

I say this because most aerial sub patrols in WWII involved very few aircraft.

Example: ASW Air Unit - Cost 180 MPP, Spotting Range as per Bomber

Tech 0 - Strength 1, 20% to spot subs within range

Tech 1 - Strength 2, 30%

Tech 2 - Strength 3, 40%

Tech 3 - Strength 4, 60%

Tech 4 - Strength 5, 80%

Tech 5 - Strength 6, 100% to spot subs within range

[ May 16, 2003, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

Three new tech Ideas:

1. Political Influence Tech (a simple way to reflect diplomacy)

Reduces war readiness of opposing neutral nations by 5% per tech level and increases war readiness of friendly neutral nations by 5%.

Thus UK Level 1 = +5% Russia/US and -5% Italy

Thus German Level 1 = +5% Italy and -5% Russia/US.

2. Minining Technology

Each level of Mining Technology increases the maxiumum production of controlled resource hexes by 2 MPP.

3. Armor Production (and Naval Production and Air Production)

This reflects achievements in mass producing one specific type of a weapons system.

Each level of armor production reduces the cost of producing armor units by 5%.

Thus players could conceivably reduce the cost of producing Armor units by 50% (+25% Industrial Lvl 5 & +25% Armor Production Lvl 5)

[ June 29, 2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

Agreed that subs can be very good for the Axis. If they get five or six of them operating together in the Atlantic it can become hard for the British to handle them without losing a few battleships in the process.

Shaka

Great Ideas, I like anything that alters war readiness and weariness; two overlooked aspects.

[Edwin P.]

Too often people overlook that fact that good intelligence vastly increased the ability of the UK Airforce to defend London.

Intel

Advance warning of incoming bomber fleets allows the defenders to mobilize their air fleets for defense.

Each level of advancement in Intel gives a 10% that intercepting air fleets will receive a 40% readiness bonus.

Thus at Level 5 Intel, the intercepting airfleet has a 50% to receive a 40% readiness bonus.

[ June 29, 2003, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

Leadership and military skill is an advantage that is only discovered during warfare, perhaps;

Tech: Leadership

At each increase in Leadership level the combat rating of one randomly selected HQ unit increases by 1.

Example: The rating of a randomly selected Italian HQ would increase from 4 to 5, or if already at 5 from 5 to 6.

[disorder]

excellent! great ideas! :cool:

[Edwin P.]

Here's a tech that directed towards affecting the opponent's ability to make war.

During WWII both sides targeted the opposing side's military leaders, although most of these attempts ended in failure. The US Navy did succeed in shooting down the plane carrying Yamamoto. To simulate this;

Tech: Leadership Target

At each new level in Leadership Target there is a 10% chance that the highest level HQ unit of a randomly choosen opposing nation (USA/UK/RUSSIA/GERMANY) will be replaced with another unit choosen randomly from that nation's force pool.

Example: 10% that German Rommel HQ is replaced by a randomly choosen HQ unit. This test occurs at each increase in the Leadership Target tech level.

This event would be announced with a randomly generated news bulletin:

1. General (xxxxxx) was killed when his plane was shot down by enemy fighters. (FOR ALL)

2. General (xxxxxx) was arrested and charged with treason. (FOR AXIS and RUSSIANS)

3. General (xxxxxx) was removed from command due to scandalous situations revealed in the press. (FOR USA ONLY - HQ Unit returned to Force Pool)

4. General (XXXXX) was killed when his plane crashed into the sea due to unkown causes. (FOR ALL)

[ June 30, 2003, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

Any new ideas?

[japinard]

Is someone making a mod for SC?

Is this why this thread was started? Or is this discussion for the benefit of Hubert?

Sorry if these are dumb questions.

All the suggestions above are EXCELLENT.

I have a suggestion that is totally different than all of yours: Nuclear Research.

Exceptionally expensive and risky research program. When used it would eliminate all units and production for the hex hit.