Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Please help me to understand how the AI chooses a target in defensive fire. I just had a situation where I have a stack of enemy units totally surrounded. When first surrounded, the enemy stack consisted of three infantry battalions totaling over 1000 men and one supply unit of about 200 points of supply. Playing with the optional no total elim from melee, I've had him surrounded for the past two turns. In each of the past two enemy turns, my surrounding units when firing auto defensive fire into the stack, have ONLY fired at the supply unit. Wow, in two turns of firing I managed to knock the supply unit down by about 75% and not one shot was fired at the enemy infantry in the hex. Should I have my own AI officers shot for ordering my men only to shoot at the supply wagon. What is it about the AI in defensive fire that has it choose a supply wagon to fire at, which is worthless for VP purposes, instead of at the more valuable target of the opposing enemy infantry. This is a totally ahistorical result which needs to be looked into and corrected. A supply wagon should always be the last unit in the order of priorities to be shot at. Please let me know if my logic is faulty.

Captain Bill Spitz
1/27th Regiment of Foot (The Inniskillings)
10th Brigade, 6th Division
Anglo-Allied Army
[image]http://www.regiments.org/img/badges/uk-crest/robinson/inf/027.jpg[/image]

Hey Bill trust your well. The AI def fire is definetly imperfect in this way it seems to hunt out supply I have witnessed this as well.

On the upside it does allow slightly different arty tactics than manual def fire. For example you can block off an area with guns and any one who moves through it will probably be fired at while they move. Quite handy but overall I have to say manual def fire is much more effective but as you know a slower game.

Salute!

General de Brigade Knox
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur (the regaled pheasants)
La Jeune Garde
CO. 1er Brigade, III Division Cavalerie Legere, III Corps Armee du Nord
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

Hi Colin!! Yup, all's well here. I'm having a great time as a new grandpa. How about yourself?

Yeah, I've always been a proponent of phased play and found that our games always seemed to move a fast pace, in spite of the extra e-mails. I was always amazed how quickly our turns would move, especially with us living half a world apart. I've been trying to get into the Napo turn mode,with an embedded melee phase, but am finding some of the AI firing anomalies to be bordering on the ridiculous. Now I make no bones about the fact that I am not a programmer and truly know nothing, zip, nada, about what goes into it. I give John T., Bill P., Rich H. and everyone else that is involved in creating these games and their scenarios, tremendous credit. I couldn't do it. But as a Know Nothing on game design and programing, I would like to ask again, what would it take to add an optional rule already in one series of games, e.g. the ACW games to the Napo series. What does it take to add the ability for phased games, which is already in the CCC, ACW and PzC games to the Napo games? Again, I ask because I truly don't know and don't understand what it would take. I want to be able to sit back and say "Oh, that's why they can't do it. That makes sense to me." Help me to understand.

Yeah, I know this has been discussed time and again, but I must have missed those discussions.

Thanks for any help that is forthcoming.

Captain Bill Spitz
1/27th Regiment of Foot (The Inniskillings)
10th Brigade, 6th Division
Anglo-Allied Army
[image]http://www.regiments.org/img/badges/uk-crest/robinson/inf/027.jpg[/image]

Hi Bill
I personally have no idea from a technology perspective although I suspect the argument is to do with being able to fire at units as they move. Which is a feature I like of AI Def fire. So a unit cannot scurry through a field of fire unharmed and they also take fire as they come in to a melee from more than one source. In Jena its quite effective and can slow down the role of melee based fighting.

Cheers
Colin



General de Brigade Knox
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur (the regaled pheasants)
La Jeune Garde
CO. 1er Brigade, III Division Cavalerie Legere, III Corps Armee du Nord
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

Hi Colin,

One problem I have been seeing recently is that the AI still acts in a most irrational, non realistic manner, too often. In my most recent endeavor, I have watched an enemy unit move up in line adjacent too a number of my units, fire at one of my units, which is in line, then the enemy unit takes defensive fire from nearly everyone of my adjacent units EXCEPT the unit that was fired on. Now is my thinking wrong on this, or would a unit being fired on from 100 yards away, not return fire? As I said, I have been watching this happen repeatedly. Enough, so that I am convinced it is something in the programing and not an isolated, random incident.

But that aside, it still goes back to the question as to why it can't be made an option to give the players the choice to use or not. Why, if it is an option in every other series published by HPS, can't it be made so in the Napo series? That's why I'd like to understand, in simple terms what it would take to do this that is so complex or time consuming that it can't be done in the next released then added as a patch to the other games? All I want to do is understand what's involved. Believe me I know I'm not the one who will have to do it. But if I could understand the how and why of it, I could accept the decision not to make the change and I could easily move on.

Captain Bill Spitz
1/27th Regiment of Foot (The Inniskillings)
10th Brigade, 6th Division
Anglo-Allied Army
[image]http://www.regiments.org/img/badges/uk-crest/robinson/inf/027.jpg[/image]

Bill - if you want to play Phased play then turn ON the Manual Defense Phase option when you play. That way you get (for games with French as First Player):

French Movement Phase (you perform Charge attempts/movement here too)
Allies Defense Fire Phase (you cannot change formation or counter-charge as in the BG series - just fire)
French Offensive Fire Phase
French Melee Phase

For the Allied player its the reverse for his turn.

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Bill,

I've been a NWC club member for nearly three years, as well as a club member of the ACW, the CCC and the PzC clubs for the same amount of time, so am very well aware of how phased play verses turn play works. Only difference being that in the NWC games to play phased it takes 6 emails per turn instead of the two in every other series and, lets admit it, there is nothing different about the flow of a game turn in any of the pre-modern games, be it the FIW to the Napo war to the ACW, but only in the Napo games must you have a totally separate defensive fire phase. I know this topic has been discussed time and time again and maybe I have missed the response that says "HPS cannot modify the Napo series because it would be too...costly to spend the time and effort to do it, or this would need changing and every that would have to be changed in every scenario in every game, or whatever.

All I'm asking is would someone, please take the time to explain why the option to use manual defensive fire with automated defensive fire can not be added to the Napo games when the language must be available in every other game HPS puts out. What don't I understand about the programming process that can be explained to me. I promise if I get an answer, I personally will never raise this question or issue again. Oh, and yes I am aware that apparently when the first HPS Napo game came out it appears the programming was lifted directly from the TS games, with the things that made a separate defensive fire phase necessary having been dropped. I'm willing to bet that if that decision was to be made today knowing the controversy it has brought about, the time would have been made to add the phased play feature from all of the other series. My apologies if my thinking and logic is wrong here.

Captain Bill Spitz
1/27th Regiment of Foot (The Inniskillings)
10th Brigade, 6th Division
Anglo-Allied Army
[image]http://www.regiments.org/img/badges/uk-crest/robinson/inf/027.jpg[/image]

Bill - I have a note in on this to John Tiller. Hoping to see that he could do this in the future. I give you an answer as soon as I hear something.

From what I remember John didnt want to spend time on the Manual Defense Phase option for the game. He wanted to work with the Single Phase mode to enhance it.

Most of us would like the MDP option to have cavalry counter charges and formation changes. At least to be able to form square.

Anyway, understand your interest and I should hear back on this soon.

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Bill,

As usual I appreciate all of your efforts greatly and will look forward to hearing what you find out. Thank you for your help, you are indeed a bonny lad.

Bill

Captain Bill Spitz
1/27th Regiment of Foot (The Inniskillings)
10th Brigade, 6th Division
Anglo-Allied Army
[image]http://www.regiments.org/img/badges/uk-crest/robinson/inf/027.jpg[/image]

Just to hazard a guess, I would think one of couple possibilities:
1) The more likely one being that the computer assumes that if the supply unit is eliminated first, the combat effectiveness of the surrounded units will be decreased, thus elimination of supply first is advantageous. Also, as you mentioned, in two turns, you reduced it by 75%. Fire against formed units would never be so effective.
2) Stacking order????
3) That annoying supply sargeant standing on the wagon seat, defiantly thumbing his nose at you.

Ensign William Davis
23rd (Royal Welsh) Fusiliers

Thanks for your thoughts, Willie, I do appreciate them. As to Stacking order - no I don't think so, as the Supply Wagon was on the bottom of the stack. Now to that Supply Sgt. - I don't think so, as I'm quite sure he was picked off with the first volley.

If your supposition about the AI considering the importance of the supply to the surrounded units is anywhere near the mark, then I must contend there is something wrong with the AI here, especially in a most incorrect attempt to simulate the situation realistic. As I mentioned before, it is inconceivable to me that units within 100 yards of the enemy would take deliberate aim at supply wagons rather than at the enemy who are shooting at them.

Captain Bill Spitz
1/27th Regiment of Foot (The Inniskillings)
10th Brigade, 6th Division
Anglo-Allied Army
[image]http://www.regiments.org/img/badges/uk-crest/robinson/inf/027.jpg[/image]

<i>"Most of us would like the MDP option to have cavalry counter charges and formation changes. At least to be able to form square."</i>

Bill, if you can get John to restore these old BG Multiphase features to the HPS engine that would be great! As I've pointed out in various previous posts, the absence of these features - especially square forming and cavalry counter charging - from the HPS engine make <i>multiphase</i> play far inferior to the old BG engine.

Although John prefers to concentrate on the newer single phase mode, but for the Nappy engine (less so of course for the ACW and EAW engine, where cavalry have a lesser role) there are still certain advantages in playing in <b>multiphase mode </b>... or at least there would be if a player could still form square and counter charge in his defensive turn.

I also realize that, for PBEM convenience, some players would like to see the option to use manual defensive fire with automated defensive fire, but if John is considering this as an option (or even if he isn't), could he also seriously consider restoring the old BG alternatives too?

Apparently some 70% of folks who buy these games don't play via PBEM, so to cater for their needs - and also to the needs of other gamers, like myself, who'd prefer the square forming and counter charge features - it would be better to restore these missing features that were present in the BG engine's defensive phase instead of catering to the more vocal 30% PBEM gamers.

Besides, as I'm sure you're aware, the single phase mode really doesn't deal with square forming particularly well - the multiphase BG system where units could form square just before a cavalry charge was much superior.

In addition, the removal of the cavalry counter-charge feature has a significant - and certainly not positive - impact on gameplay, and is sorely missed.

Of course I'd welcome improvements to the single phase mode that, for instance, provide the option of auto-squaring (instead of defensive fire) in response to a cavalry charge, and also the creation of a counter-charge feature. In fact these features really ought to have been put in place when the new single phase mode was first created, since the BG engine had covered these pretty adequately in multiphase mode. Instead of course we've actually lost these features in HPS multiphase mode, thus making this way of gaming far inferior to the otherwise obsolete BG engine.


Lt.Col. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

Ok - official word is that John is concerned about the ability of the AI to do things like change into square, launch counter charges thus he doesnt want to change the format.

Would anyone be happy with just having the AI fire back and thats it as far as the Manual Defense Phase goes? In other words no ability to counter charge, form square, change formation?

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

The inability of the A/I to handle square forming and cavalry counter charges effectively is a key reason for preferring multiphase mode play, with the players able to handle these personally. Thus a return to the BG style multiphase mode would be extremely welcome - preferably as an optional rule, since this would mean that extra files would need to be exchanged in PBEM games.

For single phase mode, I'd like to see something like the following:

Players can <i><b>pre-assign </b></i> individual units (or stacks) to form square or counter-charge in the subsequent non-player turn. This would give players much better control over what happens than just allowing the A/I to automatically handle this for all units.

For <b>square-forming</b>, this might be handled in various possible ways (ideally several options could be playtested)

1./ As soon as the enemy cavalry start their charge, provided they're within 5 hexes and LOS. To prevent gamey tactics, perhaps all cavalry charges and melees should be conducted <i><b>after</b></i> any other movement has finished. In this case the cavalry might move into position in the "movement" part of the turn.

2./ As an alternative to defensive fire at 1-2 hexes distance, <i>depending on how great the threat</i>. Thus a single squadron would be far more likely to trigger defensive fire from a 500 strong battalion than a square change.

3./ Immediately prior to melee (ie. instead of the possible last minute defensive fire), again depending on the threat level. In this case the A/I might also conduct automatic square-forming independently of any orders pre-issued by the player.

.................................

For cavalry counter-charges, having assigned orders in advance, the player might perhaps have less control than he might necessarily wish - of course cavalry, especially British cavalry, tended to be rather impetuous - but again this would need to be playtested so that potential gamey tactics could be dealt with in advance.

Guys - just from what I am getting John doenst want to go there. I would pretty much think that its a done deal for now. On to other topics.

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]