Close Combat Series :: View topic - Total Victory Paradox

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Gateway to Caen

#1: Total Victory Paradox Author: mick_xe5,

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:00 am
—
Doing some AI aggressiveness testing with a lightly modded version of GtC (max Allied Bgroups.txt characteristics + Allied BGs set to AllOut Attack in Campaign.txt). At the 60 minute mark in the third battle of a 2 map/2 BG no time limit Op the decimated Allied AI, which had requested multiple truces, took the final VL sending the battle into the two minute countdown. A minute later, while controlling all VLs, the AI's morale broke and ended the battle. Contrary to the Debrief Results text the Germans did not capture additional ground (expected 3 VLs) due to the opponents Force Morale failure. Instead, a Total Victory was won by the AI !?!

#2: Re: Total Victory Paradox Author: ScnelleMeyer,

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:48 am
—
Seems like a bug to me. - Do you have any luck on making the AI more aggressive by your BG editing?

#3: Re: Total Victory Paradox Author: vobbnobb,

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:36 pm
—
Even though your troops captured this map it wouldn't matter because ,You could not move anywhere and were forced to disband, in other words it was the allies who surrounded you OFF THE MAP. strat map connections. You had no where to retreat to.

#4: Re: Total Victory Paradox Author: mick_xe5,

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:32 pm
—
@ vobbnobb - it wasnt my troops who captured the map, it was the enemy (AI). The point is that even though the AI controlled all VLs when the battle terminated I should have been given 3 VLs due to the AI's morale failure and the ratio of our FMs. Had I rec'd those 3 VLs then owning no exit VL to retreat thru wouldnt be an issue. IRL - being surrounded by a routing enemy force is a target-rich environment not a defeat. I assume I would have gained those 3 VLS had the 'Take all VLs' option been unchecked.

@SchnelleMeyer - agree, its a minor bug involving an unforeseen situation. Am focused at the moment more on strategic aggressiveness than tactical but a tendency for deploying too far to the rear on contested maps is what hampers the AIs battlefield performance. It tends to get shredded by the time it moves up to VLs taken previously. Somewhat less so in GtC due to utilizing the new Move algorithm to follow more covered approaches.

What was interesting was the AIs timing - just short of the 60 min mark one of its 2 tanks made a dogleg between my inf teams to the last VL. This same tank had spent the previous 15 mins randomly patrolling a 50m² area. Guessing that approaching 60 min mark triggered it to try and 'beat the clock' even though the timer option was off.

#5: Re: Total Victory Paradox Author: mooxe,

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:46 pm
—
Interesting situation. Probably not been thought by the creators and definitely never reported as happening.

I wouldn't say its a bug. I would say the code was never made to deal with this situation. The manual is at odds with the gameplay. Who's right?

From CC5 manual.

"If a battle ends because of a morale failure, the Battle Group that flees loses 1-3 victory
locations depending on the ratio of the winner’s Force Morale to the loser’s Force
Morale. In addition, the Battle Group will lose two teams chosen at random from its force
mix as a rearguard/breakout force loss penalty. If the victor has 33% more force morale
than the loser, the winner will gain one victory location. If the ratio is between 33% and
66% the victor will gain two victory locations. If the ratio is greater than 66% the victor
will gain three victory locations. If the fleeing side still has any victory locations left, the
field continues to be split based on previous positions; otherwise, the losing side is
pushed off the map."

From GTC manual.

"Force Morale is an average morale state of your Battle Group during the battle.
Your Force Morale will go up or down depending on how your soldiers perceive
the battle to be going. With this option enabled, a battle will automatically end
if one side’s force morale is reduced below 30%, or if both sides force morale
have dropped below 50%."

"If a battle ends because one side had a Force Morale failure, the
winning side gains control of 1-3 additional victory locations, depending on the
ratio of the winner’s Force Morale to the loser’s Force Morale. If the victor has
33% more force morale than the loser, the winner will gain one victory location.
If the ratio is between 33% and 66% the victor will gain two victory locations.
If the victor has more than 66% higher Force Morale, the victor will gain three
victory locations. If the fleeing side still has any victory locations left, the field
continues to be split based on previous positions; otherwise, the losing side is
pushed off the map."

#6: Re: Total Victory Paradox Author: mick_xe5,

Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 4:53 pm
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

Probably not been thought by the creators...

"...If the fleeing side still has any victory locations left, the field continues to be split based on previous positions; otherwise, the losing side is pushed off the map."

Yup, nobody considered that the non-fleeing side might not have any VLs left. Another potential victory glitch might be having the timer end battle with one side controlling all VLs but before the two minute warning had expired. Likely the side owning all VLs would gain total victory on the map but a rules lawyer from the SPI/Avalon Hill era could argue it should remain contested with the next battle starting in the 2 minute warning.

re: AI tactical aggression - this was a masterful attack onto a map in a 20 minute op. A Bren carrier made an end run for the 3 VLs circled. The southern exit VL was my sole line of retreat to the rest of the op's maps. Equally noteworthy was its skillful use of armor supporting the main effort in the center. This battle passed the 'Turing test' - if I hadnt known I would have guessed my opponent was human. What's odd was the AI's movement in the lower right where there is no VL...as if it were setting up support or a secondary effort for seizing the key exit VL.

#7: Re: Total Victory Paradox Author: mooxe,

Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 8:49 pm
—
These two vids are demos of the stock AI doing its thing. I did not know the BG attributes, still don't. I can assume the aggressiveness was very low.

As I didn't do anything in the battle its possible the AI had nothing to react to. Who knows... a viewer still gets the idea the AI is pretty lacking.

Link

#8: Re: Total Victory Paradox Author: mick_xe5,

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:20 pm
—
Was in that thread before I recently bought GtC when it went on sale :) I wouldnt have proposed multiple variations of the Grog's Rules since the late 20th century if the AI were truly challenging. Editing Campaign.txt and Bgroups.txt for more aggressiveness has minimal effect. But, on rare occasions, the AI can surprise you.

Currently using a 21 slot / one man per team mod for solo play balance.

#9: Re: Total Victory Paradox Author: vobbnobb,

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 8:08 pm
—
You just told us in the first post it was you who took the flags, now it was ai? I read in the manual for GTC if you keep pushing battle weary troops too hard without rest it could also happen even if you are winning. I still think you got cut off by ai somewhere.

#10: Re: Total Victory Paradox Author: mick_xe5,

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 8:28 pm
—

mick_xe5 wrote (View Post):

... the decimated Allied AI, which had requested multiple truces, took the final VL...

You are correct in that my force was 'cut-off' but it was the AI that routed. As the battle result text stated - I should have 'gained additional ground'. Arguably that 'additional ground' should have been the southern exit VL + the lower right exit VL + the VL in the crop fields immediately north. Had this happened it would have negated the AI's total victory for controlling all VLs.

#11: Re: Total Victory Paradox Author: vobbnobb,

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 8:55 pm
—
Wasn't there something that said fighting keeps taking place over a certain period of days? calendar turn? I have not played GTC campaign vs ai in a while. Tried to think of it as a campaign instead of a battle.

#12: Re: Total Victory Paradox Author: mick_xe5,

Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2016 12:12 am
—
It was an op. My BG re-entered the strat map on the GE depot at 0600 the next day.

#13: Re: Total Victory Paradox Author: mick_xe5,

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:20 pm
—
re: AI aggression - the BG commander attributes in Bgroups arent used. Deleting all of them from the file had no effect. The BG battle plan values in Campaign.txt dont cause the game to error if changed to -1 or 9.

#14: Re: Total Victory Paradox Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 12:40 am
—

mick_xe5 wrote (View Post):

re: AI aggression - the BG commander attributes in Bgroups arent used. Deleting all of them from the file had no effect. The BG battle plan values in Campaign.txt dont cause the game to error if changed to -1 or 9.

Wow, wonder when those values stopped being used???

#15: Re: Total Victory Paradox Author: mick_xe5,

Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:55 am
—
Good question. When I get the chance I'll make the same edits to PITF, LSA etc. Anecdotally speaking it looks like The Blood designed the GTC AI to primarily make limited attacks on the closest VL. On occasion youll see a flanking manuever as above. Its cautious, follows covered approaches when possible and better keeps it units 'still', avoiding unnecessary infantry movements that plagued earlier versions. Wont pass muster with the AI as the attacker in stock ops & camps but custom btds with std exit VLs and one or two primary VLs seems to work.

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Gateway to Caen

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1