Welcome to the LnLP Forums and Resource Area

We have updated our forums to the latest version. If you had an account you should be able to log in and use it as before. If not please create an account and we look forward to having you as a member.

SITREP

Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

Panther Games Designer
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
3,415
Points
113
Location
Canberra, Australia
Website
www.panthergames.com
SITREP Fri 6 Sep 2019

Hi All,

I have been working solidly on the HQ Basing Issue. I now create a basing task for senior HQs for Move and Defend plans. I've modified the scheduling code to allow for them, which includes modifying the ObjectiveAchieved()s in the various doctrines. I've been working through the reassessment code these last two weeks. My focus so far has been limited to Secure missions. But these bring in Move, Defend, Delay and Attack. So it's a big chunk of the pie.

In the course of this I have had to revise the force allocation code to ensure that senior HQs that are already based remain so. The AllocateForcesToSecureTasks() now worked for the full plan development and when it just does a partial plan to launch a peripheral attack. It was quite pleasing to see it in action.

But one thing that concerns me as I stepped through the reassessment code was just how frequent it was being called. There is code that asks if enough time has elapsed since the last reassessment. The function that handles this can use generic changes like Minor, Major and Replan or specific changes like change formation, reorg etc. Trouble is it references a vector of previous times. But when a scenario starts these are all initialised to zero, which is sometime in 1904. Hence there's always enough time until we actually process a reassessment of the specific type. So that probably explains why at the start of the scenario there is a lot of reassessments that would otherwise have been filtered out.

I'm going to automatically set the timeLastActioned to the scenario start, which should preclude a lot of unnecessary early reassessments.

Before this HQ Basing feature is complete, I need to do more testing and tweaking of the reassessment code. I also have to write some code to reassess if the senior HQ should move its base. This will factor in progress of the main force if it's a Move and the effective command range of the HQ. If it needs to do so, it will redetermine the basing loc and modify the existing task location. We may also need to re-base if the HQ is threatened.

With a bit of luck I hope to wrap this up next week. I'll then put out a new beta build for testing. We're getting there. Thanks for your patience.
 

Keydet

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
759
Points
18
Age
72
Location
Suffolk, VA
As way of confirming what has been accomplished, would it be fair to say in the case of a scenario where the map is no wider or longer than the command range of the map boss, the map boss if not threatened will never move [a good thing!]?
 

Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

Panther Games Designer
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
3,415
Points
113
Location
Canberra, Australia
Website
www.panthergames.com
Working like a dog here at the moment. I've been working my way through a series of reassessment code getting it all to work with the new HQ basing code. There is just so much of it that gets affected. Right now I'm waiting on my machine to compile yet another change, this time to the AbandonTaskEvent. I'm getting two days into a scenario now, so it can't be long before I've clobbered them all. Believe you me, I want to see the back of this. I need a break.
 

Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

Panther Games Designer
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
3,415
Points
113
Location
Canberra, Australia
Website
www.panthergames.com
SITREP Friday 11 Oct 2019

Hi all,

I've just got through my first clean run of Manhay Crossroads and the Tutorial scenarios. I'm now running Greyhound Dash. If that goes through without an assert then I'll kick off the autotesters overnight. I've got my fingers crossed for getting out a new build next week to our beta testers.

HQ Basing proved a lot bigger job than I originally estimated. This was primarily because it affected just about all the planning and tactical doctrine, not to mention the scheduling code. Even if we're not getting asserts there may be untoward behaviour that'll be looking to our beta testers to identify so we can address it. So it probably will be a little more time before we can get this into your hands. But I'm now pretty pleased with the outcomes. Along the way I've fixed and improved quite a lot of the AI's behaviour. I think you'll be pleased with it too.
 

john connor

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
2,488
Points
63
Age
60
Location
Brussels
Great news! Thanks, Dave. And well done for slaving away at this basing improvement, the issues have been around for a very long time and it will be really excellent to have this improvement. Very much appreciated. It's a very significant change, I think. No more support units leading where they shouldn't be! (Fingers crossed...)
 

ironsight

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
29
Points
3
Age
72
Location
New York
Always happy to see progress. Thanks for all the continued support and hard work on this Dave!
 

Kensal

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
12
Points
1
Age
19
Location
London
If the basing coding for HQs works, would the same coding also work for artillery units, or would an entirely new piece of coding be required?
 

JArraya

Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
113
Points
18
Age
49
Location
UK
I know that game development is not easy, and certainly on this game it can't be, but given the pace of updates from other titles vs. this one I think CO2 is at risk of dying as the fan base moves to other games. If you think about the next big required improvement - dismounting troops - I would hate to have to wait another two years to see that happen.There is currently no other game out there like this one, and the devs should capitalise on that.

Please don't get me wrong, I love this game and I've been playing it a lot lately but seeing my mechanised infantry stop at the edge of a forest whilst 14 enemy escape to later reappear and stop an entire armoured battalion from moving is very frustrating. That and the superman commander of the HQ units!
 
Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Messages
11
Points
3
Age
30
Location
United States
As i elaborated in my AI topic, the poor AI is probably the greatest weakness of CO2 - especially with its inability to use AT and other supports properly, dashing towards objectives with small units that are too easy to defeat in detail, and putting its HQs forward. I really hope this gets fixed before new features - it really ruins the immersion when you see a Panzer Corps HQ dashing towards an objective miles behind the frontline, getting destroyed by reserves upon which it stumbled.
 

Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

Panther Games Designer
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
3,415
Points
113
Location
Canberra, Australia
Website
www.panthergames.com
SITREP Friday 1 Nov 2019

Hi all,

The autotester's been running for several hours now without asserting. If that lasts over the weekend then I will deem the HQ Basing feature finished - at least to the point where it go out for beta testing. But first I need to merge all my changes, and there have been heaps, with Pavlo's changes. Then we can put out a new beta build.

Boy, has this been a hard slog. I can't really believe it's taken this long. But it has. So much of the AI was affected by this feature - ie to base senior HQs so they don't end up moving with the main force and risking running into enemy. They now stage along the route to the objective and stop once they get within their desired command range. It's pretty cool. One day I'll revise the arty basing to stage like this as well. But than can wait for another time.
 

john connor

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
2,488
Points
63
Age
60
Location
Brussels
And if you do the same work for artillery and other support units will it be easier now, or still the same long project?
 

SamuraiN

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
58
Points
8
Age
30
Location
Global
One at a time is better.
Well, actually I think it could be acceptable that HQs occasionally march in the front of their troops. Soviets do it. Though in game, understandably HQ engagements with the enemy would be very painful to the player. I personally have not had such issues. because low alert movements of large troops (brigade and above) are only conducted in friendly territory. Otherwise one can at times expect the HQ commander playing hero and lead in the front ~~
 
Last edited:
Top