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:
    3,110
    Likes Received:
    383
    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, panzerpit and Seb3brv78 like this.
  2. ironsight

    ironsight Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2015
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    4
    Thanks for the update Dave. Sounds like great progress.
     
  3. Seb3brv78

    Seb3brv78 Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    3
    Good luck Dave !
     
  4. Keydet

    Keydet Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    14
    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!]?
     
  5. Rick S.

    Rick S. Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2019
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great! Glad to hear about the changes. Can't wait to test them out.

    Thanks Dave.
     
  6. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    3,110
    Likes Received:
    383
    SITREP Friday 20 Sep 2019

    SUCCESS!!!

    Finally got a senior HQ to base and stage forward realistically for a Move and a Defend mission.
     
    Keydet, Seb3brv78, ghibli and 7 others like this.
  7. jimcarravallah

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    76
    Good to hear, Dave.

    Thanks for the effort!
     
  8. john connor

    john connor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    119
  9. JArraya

    JArraya Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2015
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    12
    Any update on this Dave? Getting really itchy fingers!
     
    Keydet likes this.
  10. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    3,110
    Likes Received:
    383
    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.
     
    Chris Merchant, panzerpit and Keydet like this.
  11. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    3,110
    Likes Received:
    383
    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.
     
  12. john connor

    john connor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    119
    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 likes this.
  13. ironsight

    ironsight Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2015
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    4
    Always happy to see progress. Thanks for all the continued support and hard work on this Dave!
     
  14. Kensal

    Kensal Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2018
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  15. JArraya

    JArraya Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2015
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    12
    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!
     
    pekische likes this.
  16. Dr. Strangelove

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
    Kurt likes this.
  17. Kurt

    Kurt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    894
    Likes Received:
    36
    :joyful:
     
  18. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    3,110
    Likes Received:
    383
    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.
     
    Chris Merchant and Seb3brv78 like this.
  19. john connor

    john connor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    2,115
    Likes Received:
    119
    And if you do the same work for artillery and other support units will it be easier now, or still the same long project?
     
  20. SamuraiN

    SamuraiN Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2019
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    5
    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 ~~
     
    #740 SamuraiN, Nov 3, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2019

Share This Page