SITREP

Discussion in 'Command Ops Series' started by Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor, Jan 15, 2015.

  1. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,697
    Likes Received:
    215
    SITREP 1030 Wednesday 31 Oct 2018

    I managed to get the enemy intel force displays dynamically updating. These have not been doing so. The actual enemy force and the intel force we track within the side's intel data were updating correctly but these updates were not being displayed in the intel force data dialogs you see on the screen. So while an enemy nit may have been pounded and reduced by friendly fire it would appear as though they were immune to it.

    Having got that out of the way I have resumed testing the issue of attacks slipping. The fixes to the reassessment duration times for attacks made an impact on this but yesterday I discovered another factor causing this issue. In this instance I had the 1st 318th Inf Bn attacking the Steinbruck crossing in the tutorial scenario. It had C Coy 51st Arm Inf Coy attached and this company was the assault subject. It received its orders fine and created four missions within its op plan - one each for the advance to the FUP, the FUP Reorg, the assault and the final Reorg. It arrived early. What should have happened was it should have determined that it was ready to start the FUPReorg, but it didn't. Hence it went on hold and the scheduling code didn't know how to kick off the next mission because it had no direct linkage. I need to modify thew scheduling code to ensure these linkages are set and work properly. That's my next task.
     
    panzerpit and Bie like this.
  2. john connor

    john connor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,675
    Likes Received:
    78
    Wow. What a monstrous amount of remedial work before you even get to making changes, Dave. Hang in there. Thanks.
     
  3. dwbennett

    dwbennett Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2018
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, Dave, I've made sure I only use "Current" intel reports but still don't see much good with the arty. I've rained steel down on units for hours with very little apparent effect. Even the suppsed Tiger IIB's I've blasted for several hours should have a least been suppressed for a little while.

    Take care,
     
  4. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,697
    Likes Received:
    215
    It doesn't matter whether the intel status is current or not. There are two issues here, one is the report icon not moving and not aging when it should and the other is the enemy intel data view not updating, regardless of status. Together they paint an errant picture. There may well be an issue with arty fire, but I'm not going to address that till I rule out the intel as the probable cause. So we take it one step at a time.
     
  5. dwbennett

    dwbennett Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2018
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, I got to thinking about that after my post. If the unit icon postion isn't updating then I can have any intel condion on and it's still "false".

    Hope you figure it out without too much trouble.

    Take care,
     
  6. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,697
    Likes Received:
    215
    Yep, I've fixed that. It will be in the new build.
     
  7. dwbennett

    dwbennett Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2018
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great!
     
  8. col.sanders

    col.sanders Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    8
    How's it coming Dave in the land down under any progress so far yes no maybe so.
     
  9. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,697
    Likes Received:
    215
    I'm making lots of progress. I'm just waiting for a search of the code right now. I've been overhauling the schedule engine and in particular the code relating to attacks where a force bunkers down and recovers. The changes to basing HQs in attacks made the old code for recovering from bunker down non-effective in some cases. This resulted in forces staying put until their boss decided to replan. That's not the way it is supposed to work. It's got to do with the way we handle the data for plans and tasks. It's quite complex. I've had to restructure the code to handle not just a sequence of tasks but a sequence of plans. Anyway I've done all that and am now testing and fine tuning it.

    The assaultSubject - usually a line company, assigned to lead the assault - now bunkers down correctly and advises the boss (usually a Bn HQ) who also bunkers down but now sets the formation type to in-situ to prevent the assault force from moving back to the boss's location. The Bn HQ now advises his boss (usually a Brigade HQ) if its part of a bigger complex attack. Previously the Bde HQ was resetting the Bn HQ's task to an independent defend task. But this was causing new orders to be sent that null and voided the bunker down. I now leave the attack task in the Bde HQ's plan as is and don't send orders. This allows the Bn and it's assaultSubject an opportunity to recover and get back into the fray. The Bde HQ may commit reserves to reinforce one of the other subAttacks to offset the bunkering down group.

    So as I said, it's coming along nicely now. I still have a few other more minor issues on my task list to do. This includes modifying the AssessToExtendAssault() to avoid cases where the assault runs out of time when it is almost at the objective. I want to tweak the 'making progress' code to give the force a better chance of continuing. The whole thrust here is to improve the attacking performance of the AI and prevent cases where the AI seemingly stalls in the offensive.

    I also want to review the morale check code to better factor in recent cas and cas since start of scenario factors. I want to increase the probability of units failing their morale check where they have just taken significant recent casualties. This should reduce the number of cases where a force seemingly ignores the great weight of pain being inflicted upon it.

    Also, I want to review the duration we use for recent intel reports and the effects these have on the firepower influence maps. My aim here is to prevent the AI from removing such reports too quickly and thus opting to Move rather than Attack.

    With a bit of luck I hope to see the back of these changes this week and then I'll get a build out to our beta testers.
     
    ghibli, Bie and panzerpit like this.
  10. col.sanders

    col.sanders Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    8
    Sounds good Dave,looks like a major improvement looking forward to trying it out,thanks for the update.
     
  11. pekische

    pekische Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    3
    All planed fixes sound well....
     
  12. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,697
    Likes Received:
    215
    Just to keep you posted. I have finished modifying the attack and scheduling code and now the results look much better. I haven't tested this extensively yet. That will be done by our beta testers. Tomorrow I move onto reviewing the morale code with the aim of reducing the probability of units holding till they are wiped out. Then I'll review the intel code with the aim of keeping recent intel around for longer.
     
    Bie and pekische like this.
  13. jimcarravallah

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    35
    FWIW, the concept of holding ground defending in-situ while pausing / resting / replanning after a successful attack pulse is doctrinally sound.
     
  14. pekische

    pekische Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    3
    Dave, I have short question, if unit´s log could be extended within this upgrade. Extended log means that "log" tab brings more information about unit´s progress.
     
    #654 pekische, Dec 5, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018
  15. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,697
    Likes Received:
    215
    pekische, I have added extra entries for when a force bunkers down and recovers. I've also got rid of some reduntant entries (duplicates) but that's about it right now.
     
    pekische likes this.
  16. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,697
    Likes Received:
    215
    SITREP Tuedsay 11 Dec 2018

    I've finished my overhaul of the scheduling code and I'm in a test phase at the moment. So I've got my laptop on autotest and I'm quashing bugs on my dev machine as they are found. All of these so far are minor and relate to my recent changes. Once I have these ironed out I want to get a recording where a force recovers after bunkering down and go through that in detail to make sure it all works properly. I haven't done any analysis in terms of the effects these latest changes have on casualty levels. I want to look into that too. All in all I'm happy with progress. I'm going to resist any more tweaks except for those required to fix any bugs. Stay tuned.
     
    #656 Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor, Dec 10, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2018
    Ripppe, Bie and pekische like this.
  17. David Johnston

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    1
    So glad to see this title is being worked on. I kept checking the DLC’s on the steam store site hoping for inclusion in the steam winter sale and I was worried that it had fallen by the wayside.

    I also think that it’s great that you have provided such detailed updates here.

    Regards,

    Dave.
     
  18. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,697
    Likes Received:
    215
    SITREP Friday 14 Dec 2018

    Well I was on a real high yesterday. The autotesting all went well. I was reasonably happy withe casualty levels after all my change (though that needs further scrutiny). But I thought it worthy at last to put a new beta build for our in beta test group. I converted all the data. worked up the installer. All good. Then I ran the tutorial and it seemed to run fine. But something nagged me and I decided to watch the battle unfold a little longer and then my high hopes were dashed when one of the attacking assault groups was moving to its FUP and got into a formation lockup. I felt gutted.

    I mulled over it last night and woke this morning with the conclusion that I need to redo the formation movement model for road column. The existing model works by having all units within a formation use an offset to the formation hub. This works well for all other formation types. But with road column you can have intervening subGroups between the unit and the hub - eg the advance guard can have the main guard between it and the formation hub - ie its boss. What is needed is to enhance the current structure and change the processing just for road columns. We already store the unitAhead in each unit. I'm going to add a unitBehind member to the ScenRealForce class. This will be set when we determine the order of march for the formation. Inside CanMove() I already have a function that tests to see if we should wait for the unit ahead. I'll add another to see if we should wait for the unit behind. If you pass these hurdles it will go into the existing CalcFomationNextmoveLoc(). Inside there, I'll have units in road column ignore all the hub offset logic. They will still be subject to other constraints like the hub routing off etc. This way, we should avoid the lockups caused primarily when we have a lot of small units operating close together. It's a fidelity issue with the 100m map grid we use.

    This should fix this problem once and for all. The bad news is it's going to delay things a tad further. I'm sorry.
     
  19. ultradave

    ultradave Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2015
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    1
    90% of the battle is figuring out the problem :) Drive on!
     

Share This Page