Known Problems and Future Improvements

This page lists currently known problems (bugs) and suggestions for future improvements for Centurion. Most of these have been reported/suggested by users. You can participate by reporting bugs and suggesting improvements too. You can track items of your interest here and also contribute to suggested solutions or make comments about urgency and usefulness. For this, each item has an individual page with more details, ideas how to fix/implement, and the scheduling.

FI#23: Enemies details in job definition window
In the combat analysis the properties of the enemies are shown and can be understood very quickly, for example hit points, initiative, flanking and so on. It would be very useful to have these as a tooltip when defining a job… Details.
FI#21: Optimisation – Specify Target Grid
Please allow to configure the grid level that Centurion is optimising to. Sometimes it is sufficient even for optimisations (not just useful generals) to stop at 8x or 4x. Precision might be enough and it may save calculation time. Details.
FI#20: Re-calculate All
Can we have a re-calculate all button/menu option?
When I change general skills etc, I want to go to a save and run all the calculations again to get the updated numbers. Currently I have to click on each entry and click ‘Run’. Would be nice to be able to click one button to add all jobs back t the queue. Details.
FI#17: Truncated Fields in Adventure Plan
Some fields in the list of adventure plan items are truncated, i.e. the information contained in them is often too big for the available space. There is a tool tip that pops up but it is only there for a few seconds. Details.
FI#18: Gameplay with Checkboxes
While the gameplay in the agenda is a good idea, it would be more natural/convenient/simple if it worked with checkboxes rather than buttons and a filter. Details.
FI#16: A Name for Jobs
Allow jobs to have a name, much like adventure plan items. This would allow to better distinguish them in the job list. The command line may serve as a way of distinguishing them but it is lengthy and inconvenient. Details.
FI#14: Best General & Book Feature
There is a best general feature, but would it be possible to make a best general & book feature. Ie give them an army (or armies) they are going against, give them a selection of generals to test, and let the program run each general with each combo of books. Just for those of us who aren’t great at deciding how to spec out generals for certain adventure series. Details.
FI#12: Highlight the main/boss camps for easier identification
Original request: “Was ich auch noch super schick fände: wenn in der Lagerliste für ein At die Hauptlager irgendwie kenntlich gemacht wären, fettgedruckt oder farbig hinterlegt z.B. Ok, wär Luxus, aber fein. :-)” Details.
FI#9: Reduce calculation time by avoiding recalculations on smaller grids
There seems to be a lot of wasted calculation when reducing grid size. If I run a job where there is a small range of possible troops allowed, the grid calculations (x64x, x32x, x16x, etc) all seem to repeat the same calculations for the hi and lo range of troops numbers, at each resolution. Finally, as resolution drops below the give range, there are additional calculations for the middle of the allowed range.

I am guessing this is how it works by looking at the “progress” column.

There is enormous potential for speed up by saving calculations at points in the grid which will be repeated in the next smaller resolution. Details.

FI#5: Improve Runtime Performance on UsefulGenerals
Running a useful Generals query right now, still only using one core, seems like this would be a good query to run on multiple cores/threads, one for each general Details.
FI#4: Easier Access to Enemy Troops and Their Names
You can’t print all the (emeny) troops and their names, nor can you hop over to the browse and look at it when you have the window open to enter them into an attack. Maybe you should add them to the end of the manual as an appendix so they can be looked up, or printed from there. Details.
KP#13: Poor Optimisation Result (Lock) (by Derwish77)
The following command line leads to a poor optimisation result: “-Camp=JuHolz#11 -Objective=Lock -Attack=*BSK;*GSS;Tav“. Details.
KP#8: Generals buttons (by CHS)
The graphical generals don’t give an easy way to see the difference between original and new generals. Details.

Solved: KP#1, KP#2, KP#3, KP#4, KP#5, KP#6, KP#7, KP#10, KP#11, KP#12, FI#1, FI#2, FI#3, FI#6, FI#7, FI#8, FI#9 (part 1), FI#10, FI#11, FI#13, FI#15, FI#19, FI#22

101 thoughts on “Known Problems and Future Improvements”

  1. I can’t find the adventures “Secluded Experiments” or “More Secluded Experiments”. Trying to Browse for adventures, and I can’t see them there.

    Like

  2. I would like to see what enemy troops are killed in a suicide wave. A distribution of what troops I lose is provided; could we also have the same thing for enemy troops, if it isn’t a 100% win?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. There seems to be a lot of wasted calculation when reducing grid size. If I run a job where there is a small range of possible troops allowed, the grid calculations (x64x, x32x, x16x, etc) all seem to repeat the same calculations for the hi and lo range of troops numbers, at each resolution. Finally, as resolution drops below the give range, there are additional calculations for the middle of the allowed range.

    I am guessing this is how it works by looking at the “progress” column.

    There is enormous potential for speed up by saving calculations at points in the grid which will be repeated in the next smaller resolution.

    Like

  4. There is an error in the database, for adventure Secluded Experiments. Camp 53 is marked as 100DS,100PS It should be 100DS,100SR

    Like

  5. There’s an issue with a solution found outside the bounds given in a command line in version 0.1.1

    Copied from the details.

    command line:
    -Camp=44RoyM;80RoyLB;3RoyC;1EvilK;1RoyRes -Iterations=500 -FillUpLastWave -Attack=*R;0-157S;128-196K;GM2

    results:
    αO-C v0.1.1 10-Mar-2018 16:27:15 (UI-launched)
    32R;157S;96K;GM2 ==> 2.45XP/PLVMix, 948.95PLVMix, [40]s duration, [724.8-948.95-1160.4]PLV, PlrDd [29]R;[142-142.97-143]S;[0-5.54-11]K, [2323]XP
    16R;157S;112K;GM2 ==> 1.75XP/PLVMix, 1326.92PLVMix, [40]s duration, [991.9-1326.92-1546.3]PLV, PlrDd [14]R;[143]S;[7-15.46-21]K, [2323]XP
    64R;157S;64K;GM2 ==> 1.55XP/PLVMix, 1502.92PLVMix, [40-50.28-60]s duration, [867.7-1499.28-2263.5]PLV, PlrDd [58]R;[141-143.00-143]S;[3-18.70-38]K, [2323]XP
    -Camp=44RoyM;80RoyLB;3RoyC;1EvilK;1RoyRes -Iterations=500 -FillUpLastWave -Attack=*R;0-157S;128-196K;GM2

    command line limied cannoneers to 128-196
    solution ended with 96 cannoneers

    Like

  6. easter…. it would be nice to use centurion to plan an attack on party crashers.

    It should be possible, in general, to define an opponent, How about an XML file, like the config file, for defining all the camps and adventures and opponents…? This would make it easy to update if something comes up in an event, or to deal immediately with any new adventure. Just a thought….

    Like

    1. Hi Chris, you can define attacks for the Easter event. The troops Ids all begin with “O” (the letter). Just go to the opponents’ window and filter for the troops there. They are all contained in the database… Let me know how it works out. Works fine for me. Cheers, aO 🙂

      Like

  7. Strange behaviour…. finds a solution without using all troop spaces, even though using fill last wave!

    αO-C v0.1.2 09-Apr-2018 07:26:18 (UI-launched)
    256R;GM2 ==> 8.86XP/PLVMix, 152.41PLVMix, [30]s duration, [134-152.41-168]PLV, PlrDd [134-152.41-168]R, [1350]XP
    8S;260R;GM2 ==> 8.85XP/PLVMix, 152.5PLVMix, [20-21.43-30]s duration, [134-152.50-166]PLV, PlrDd [134-152.50-166]R, [1350]XP
    32S;32AB;221R;GM2 ==> 8.85XP/PLVMix, 152.54PLVMix, [20]s duration, [134-152.54-168]PLV, PlrDd [134-152.54-168]R, [1350]XP
    -Camp=50Kl;RLL -Iterations=5000 -FillUpLastWave -Attack=*S;*AB;*K;221-285R;GM2

    Note final solution uses 256R only.

    Config file (replacing angle brackets with parentheses) is
    (?xml version=”1.0″ encoding=”utf-8″ ?)
    (CenturionConfig)
    (CustomGenerals)
    (CustomGeneral Id=”GM2″ BasedOn=”GM”)
    (Skill Name=”Juggernaut”/)
    (Skill Name=”Juggernaut”/)
    (Skill Name=”Juggernaut”/)
    (Skill Name=”FirstAid”/)
    (Skill Name=”FirstAid”/)
    (Skill Name=”FirstAid”/)
    (Skill Name=”Overrun”/)
    (Skill Name=”Overrun”/)
    (Skill Name=”Overrun”/)
    (Skill Name=”SniperTraining”/)
    (Skill Name=”BattleFrenzy”/)
    (Skill Name=”BattleFrenzy”/)
    (Skill Name=”BattleFrenzy”/)
    (Skill Name=”GarrisonAnnex”/)
    (Skill Name=”GarrisonAnnex”/)
    (Skill Name=”GarrisonAnnex”/)
    (Skill Name=”WeeklyMaintenance”/)
    (Skill Name=”MasterPlanner”/)
    (/CustomGeneral)
    (/CustomGenerals)
    (PersonalValues)
    (PersonalValue Id=”R” Value=”1.0″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”M” Value=”3.6″/)(!–2.0, 3.5–)
    (PersonalValue Id=”S” Value=”4.9″/)(!–3.0, 8.5–)
    (PersonalValue Id=”E” Value=”22.6″/)(!–7.0, 999.0–)
    (PersonalValue Id=”C” Value=”3.6″/)(!–3.0, 3.6–)
    (PersonalValue Id=”B” Value=”1.3″/)(!–1.0, 0.95–)
    (PersonalValue Id=”LB” Value=”2.6″/)(!–1.0, 1.45–)
    (PersonalValue Id=”AB” Value=”20.5″/)(!–3.0, 999.0–)
    (PersonalValue Id=”K” Value=”39.6″/)(!–9.0, 999.0–)
    (PersonalValue Id=”SK” Value=”5.7″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”BSK” Value=”6.7″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”RIT” Value=”4.5″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”SS” Value=”13.2″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”GSS” Value=”15.4″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”BSS” Value=”14.2″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”BEL” Value=”32.4″/)
    (/PersonalValues)
    (/CenturionConfig)

    Like

  8. Feedback on the interface layout… The latest version, 0.2.1, has two pages: “Main” and “Options”. I don’t see any benefit from the division: I frequently alter options, esp the number of iterations; and I found the earlier layout in a single page to be more congenial, as I could see the whole job in one page before submitting.

    Like

    1. Hi Chris, so nice to read you again! I understand what you’re saying about the Options. I feel the same way about my dear FillUpLastWave option. But I was hearing from users that this dialogue has grown to be overwhelming and I tried to tidy it up. There will be more content in the Main tab in the next version because I’ll introduce graphical buttons for the players’ troops R-K and SK-BEL for those who are more graphically oriented. When I added the new option “Constraints”, it was the straw that broke the dialogues back for me and I created Main and Options. As I said, I understand that it feels less comfortable for you now. As a resolution I am planning to enhance the XML config file in the next version so that users can move options back to the Main page if they want. There will be examples in the config that comes with the next version. That should enable you to restore the arrangement you are missing. Until then, maybe in some cases it helps to remember that the “Create like” feature copies the options from the parent job, so if you have a job in your job list with the iterations you want, when you “Create like” you wont have to go into the options to adjust the number. Cheers!

      Like

  9. S’ok! I’ve been busy and not looking closely at the sim for a while. hope to look at it more in the next 3 weeks while i am on leave from work. You won’t be able to be perfect for everyone: too much customization can end up causing its own problems!

    But now that we mention it… 🙂 Would love to be able to edit generals through the interface, rather than edit a config file. A low priority suggestion: but the “Browse generals” window could possibly be extended to actually edit the skills being displayed. Add a “clone general” button (to get a new general as a copy of an existing one) and then also allow skills to be added and deleted in the table.

    Similarly, the “Browse troops” could provide the possibility of editing the “personal value” (or returning to some “default”)

    Like

  10. I am getting errors for various jobs in the latest version for some unknown reason. Here’s an example job:
    -Camp=148HK;4WK;RLL -Iterations=100 -FillUpLastWave -Attack=*R;*M;*S;*E;*C;*B;*LB;*AB;*K;Nus2

    The job succeeds with general as “Nus”, but fails with “Nus2″. Difference is in skills. Error box is:
    System.ArgumentException: Relative increase must be 0.0 … 1.0
    at AH.TSO.Simulation.CombatPreparationService.BonusManipulationUlong.AddRelativeIncrease(Double pValue)
    at AH.TSO.Simulation.CombatPreparationService.PrepareDamageMinMax(ICamp pAggressorCamp, Boolean pForPlayer, AdventureZoneBuff pAdventureZoneBuffs, CombatMode pCombatMode, UInt32 pNumberOfRound)
    at AH.TSO.Simulation.CombatPreparationService.RoundPrepare(ICamp pPlayerCamp, ICamp pComputerCamp, AdventureZoneBuff pAdventureZoneBuffs, CombatMode pCombatMode, UInt32 pNumberOfRound)
    at AH.TSO.Simulation.FightSimulator._SimulateRound(ICamp pPlayerCamp, ICamp pComputerCamp, UInt32 pNumberOfRound, CombatMode pCombatMode, AdventureZoneBuff pAdventureZoneBuffs)
    at AH.TSO.Simulation.FightSimulator.Simulate(String pPlayer, String pComputer, AdventureZoneBuff pAdventureZoneBuffs)
    at AH.TSO.Simulation.FightSimulator.MultiSimulate(String pAggressor, String pDefenders, UInt64 pNumberOfRuns, AdventureZoneBuff pAdventureZoneBuffs, ISimulateFightProgressContainer pProgressContainer)
    at AH.TSO.Optimisation.Optimiser._OptimiseFightWithGrid(String pTargetCamp, AttackConfiguration pAttackConfiguration, IConditions pConditions, UInt32 pGrid, TypicalObjective pObjective, AdventureZoneBuff pAdventureZoneBuffs, ISimulationResultsCache pSimulationResultsCache, IOptimiseFightWithGridProgressContainer pProgressContainer)
    at AH.TSO.Optimisation.Optimiser.OptimiseFight(String pTargetCamp, String pAttackConfiguration, IConditions pConditions, TypicalObjective pObjective, AdventureZoneBuff pAdventureZoneBuffs, IOptimiseFightProgressContainer pProgressContainer)
    at AH.TSO.Centurion.GUI.JobManagement.CommandLineJob.Optimise.Execute()
    at AH.TSO.Centurion.GUI.JobManagement.CommandLineJob.CommandLineJob.b__10_0(ICommandLineHelper pCLH, ICommandLine pCL)
    at AH.TSO.Centurion.Application.Shell.Shell.ExecuteAlgorithm(String[] pCommandLineArgs, Action`2 pOptimise, Action`2 pUsefulGenerals, Action`2 pSimulate)
    at AH.TSO.Centurion.GUI.JobManagement.CommandLineJob.CommandLineJob.Run()
    at AH.TSO.Centurion.GUI.JobManagement.AbstractJob.DoWork()

    Config file, relevant portions, is
    (CenturionConfig)
    (CustomGenerals)
    (CustomGeneral Id=”Nus2″ BasedOn=”Nus”)
    (Skill Name=”FirstAid”/)
    (Skill Name=”FirstAid”/)
    (Skill Name=”FirstAid”/)
    (Skill Name=”RapidFire”/)
    (Skill Name=”RapidFire”/)
    (Skill Name=”RapidFire”/)
    (Skill Name=”SniperTraining”/)
    (Skill Name=”SniperTraining”/)
    (Skill Name=”SniperTraining”/)
    (Skill Name=”Cleave”/)
    (Skill Name=”Cleave”/)
    (Skill Name=”Overrun”/)
    (Skill Name=”Overrun”/)
    (Skill Name=”Overrun”/)
    (Skill Name=”GarrisonAnnex”/)
    (Skill Name=”GarrisonAnnex”/)
    (Skill Name=”GarrisonAnnex”/)
    (Skill Name=”MasterPlanner”/)
    (/CustomGeneral)
    (/CustomGenerals)
    (PersonalValues Baseline=”24/05/2018 in-game changes”)
    (PersonalValue Id=”R” Value=”1.0″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”M” Value=”3.1″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”S” Value=”4.4″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”E” Value=”14.3″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”C” Value=”3.9″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”B” Value=”1.3″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”LB” Value=”2.65″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”AB” Value=”12.0″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”K” Value=”22.6″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”SK” Value=”4.3″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”BSK” Value=”8.8″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”RIT” Value=”5.3″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”SS” Value=”5.1″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”GSS” Value=”9.3″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”BSS” Value=”10.5″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”BEL” Value=”7.6″/)
    (/PersonalValues)
    (/CenturionConfig)

    Like

  11. lots of problems making the new interface work in v 0.2,2. The graphical generals don’t give an easy way to see the difference between original and new generals. I use both. Also, in various cases I get multiple generals showing up in the text box under the graphical general selection buttons.

    The text box for entering troops responds instantly in unintuitive ways to single key strokes. It’s effectively impossible to enter a troops composition as the interface keep adjusting what is in the box while I am trying to type, and also moving the cursor back to the start of the box.

    The “simulate more often” option to rerun an optimizing job with more runs for teh final solution doesn’t work; fails to pik up the proper troop composition.

    Like

    1. Hi Chris, thanks for your message! As far as I understand there are three separate issues in what you wrote. I have created three individual “known problems” KP#6, KP#7, KP#8 for them. On some I need more details to be able to understand and reproduce what you are referring to. I suggest that we discuss these on the respective KP pages in the comment section there. I already wrote a starting comment for the threads on those pages. Thanks for your patience, hope to read you…

      Like

  12. I thought this used to be here, but can’t spot it… “Saving Results”. I would like it if there was an option to save the results, so they could be reloaded latter.

    How I see it happening is…
    – Click select the results you want to save (in the order you want them, which may be different to the order you actually created them)
    – these are saved as an xml file
    – the file also saves the actual configuration of the generals you selected

    when you reload them,
    -it loads them into the results screen (in the order you selected them)
    – if a general listed now has different skills than it had when it was saved it is highlighted (red?)
    – if a result was still being calculated when it was saved, so the result isn’t necessary completely optimized it is highlighted (grey?)
    then you should be able to click on the highlighted ones to re-compute them, because they are either out of date or not finished in the first place.

    just my 2c worth 🙂

    Like

    1. replying to myself, is that like talking to myself…

      also just thought, should record the camp number AND the troops; just in case the troops in the camp are updated at some stage as they are every now and then due to data input.

      Like

      1. Hi Coyote, so nice to hear from you again! No, the feature you describe hasnt existed before… so it didnt get lost somewhere along the way 🙂 I am going on vacation for a week, I will get back to your suggestion in more depth after that. Let me just mention that I have been thinking of something similar… to save done work and also ongoing work so that the user can recover in case the computer crashes or can just save something and reload later when he/she wants or needs to close Centurion for a while.

        Like

  13. Got a even weirder (possible) feature request. There is a best general feature, but would it be possible to make a best general & book feature. Ie give them an army (or armies) they are going against, give them a selection of generals to test, and let the program run each general with each combo of books. Just for those of us who aren’t great at deciding how to spec out generals for certain adventure series.

    Like

  14. Camp #11 in Sohne (Sons of the Little Tailor) has 70Ba;40Fu;20Rie but is recorded in the database as 80Ba;40Fu;20Rie

    Like

  15. In a battle where everyone dies, the game counts it as a win, and Centurion counts it as a loss. For example:

    αO-C v0.2.5 30-Aug-2018 05:15:14 (UI-launched, PV 24/05/2018 in-game changes)
    1R;Nus ==> 0% wins, 400XP/PLVMix, 1PLVMix, [10]s duration, [1]PLV, PlrDd [1]R;[1]Nus, [400]XP, EnmDd [10]NerAff
    -Camp=Chupa#25 -Attack=1R;Nus

    Nusala kills all 10 Nervous Apes in first strike; but also gets killed by the apes first strike as well. Game calls that a win, and Nusala lives to fight another day.

    Like

  16. In Camp 29 of El ChupaCabra, the content includes 1 NerAff.The record is given in the DB as 5StsAff;10StwAff;10AlpAff;1NerAff;RLL; should be 5StsAff;10StwAff;10AlpAff;10NerAff;RLL

    Like

    1. Hi Chris, thanks for pointing these two out! Both will be addressed in v0.3.1, coming this next weekend.

      Like

  17. Strange behaviour; when trying to optimize an attack, with “fill last wave” in use, this command used only half the available capacity and failed to find winning attacks at all, using an attack of 90SK, and failing to use any of *BEL

    Details:
    Command line: -Camp=Wissen#23 -Iterations=10000 -FillUpLastWave -Attack=80-90SK;0-1BSK;*BEL;Var2
    Results:
    αO-C v0.3.1 08-Sep-2018 14:01:16 (UI-launched, PV 24/05/2018 in-game changes)
    90SK;Var2 ==> 0% wins, 1.81XP/PLVMix, 348.3PLVMix, 10s duration, 348.3PLV, PlrDd 81SK;1Var2, [560-631.28-665]XP, EnmDd [16-18.04-19]Sa
    90SK;1BSK;Var2 ==> 0% wins, 1.77XP/PLVMix, 357.1PLVMix, 10s duration, 357.1PLV, PlrDd 81SK;1BSK;1Var2, [560-631.12-665]XP, EnmDd [16-18.03-19]Sa
    90SK;4BEL;Var2 ==> 0% wins, 1.68XP/PLVMix, 375.4PLVMix, 10s duration, 375.4PLV, PlrDd 82SK;3BEL;1Var2, [560-631.40-665]XP, EnmDd [16-18.04-19]Sa
    -Camp=Wissen#23 -Iterations=10000 -FillUpLastWave -Attack=80-90SK;0-1BSK;*BEL;Var2

    Config: (with angle brackets replaces by parentheses)
    (?xml version=”1.0″ encoding=”utf-8″ ?)
    (CenturionConfig)
    (CustomGenerals)
    (CustomGeneral Id=”Var2″ BasedOn=”Var”)
    (Skill Name=”FirstAid”/)
    (Skill Name=”FirstAid”/)
    (Skill Name=”FirstAid”/)
    (Skill Name=”UnstoppableCharge”/)
    (Skill Name=”UnstoppableCharge”/)
    (Skill Name=”UnstoppableCharge”/)
    (Skill Name=”Overrun”/)
    (Skill Name=”Overrun”/)
    (Skill Name=”Overrun”/)
    (Skill Name=”GarrisonAnnex”/)
    (Skill Name=”GarrisonAnnex”/)
    (Skill Name=”GarrisonAnnex”/)
    (Skill Name=”WeeklyMaintenance”/)
    (Skill Name=”WeeklyMaintenance”/)
    (Skill Name=”MasterPlanner”/)
    (/CustomGeneral)
    (/CustomGenerals)
    (PrimeGenerals)
    (PrimeGeneral Id=”GM2″/)
    (PrimeGeneral Id=”Nus2″/)
    (PrimeGeneral Id=”Var2″/)
    (PrimeGeneral Id=”MdK2″/)
    (PrimeGeneral Id=”MXM2″/)
    (PrimeGeneral Id=”PD2″/)
    (PrimeGeneral Id=”Tav”/)
    (/PrimeGenerals)
    (!– Using value 120 per sec of production in barrakcs and elite barracks –)
    (PersonalValues Baseline=”24/05/2018 in-game changes”)
    (PersonalValue Id=”R” Value=”1.0″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”M” Value=”3.1″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”S” Value=”4.4″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”E” Value=”14.3″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”C” Value=”3.9″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”B” Value=”1.3″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”LB” Value=”2.65″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”AB” Value=”12.0″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”K” Value=”22.6″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”SK” Value=”4.3″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”BSK” Value=”8.8″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”RIT” Value=”5.3″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”SS” Value=”5.1″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”GSS” Value=”9.3″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”BSS” Value=”10.5″/)
    (PersonalValue Id=”BEL” Value=”7.6″/)
    (/PersonalValues)
    (/CenturionConfig)

    Like

    1. Oops. I made a mistake in the above specification. Should have used BSK not SK; the given inputs have no hope of a win. Using BSK fixed the run.

      Like

  18. Outlaws camp 20 composition is incorrect. There are 80 Guard Dogs left out.

    Database shows: Outl#20 30SL;50WL;RLL
    Should be Outl#20 30SL;50WL;80GD;RLL

    I am not 100% sure that order of troops is correct, but certainly the 80GD is missing.

    Like

  19. I don’t know this makes much difference, but the database description of Klug#5 is missing the camp type description for “Wildlife Leader Cave”

    110Ba;69Rie;1RieBa (as given)
    110Ba;69Rie;1RieBa;RLL (should be, or something like it)

    (RLL is actually Wildlife cave, don’t know if there’s another code for a leader cave)
    Never really grasped the importance of a camp type, except perhaps for timing with the demolition time.

    Like

    1. Hi Chris, yes demolition time is the main reason. It may vary from type to type. When I forgot the type, demolition time is 0. That’s not only wrong, it may even be dangerous in case someone calculates a lock for the camp. So I will put in the correct type in the next version (end of oct). Thanks for the hint! Also, the next version will cover range buffs (rain of arrows, assassin and 4 others). Some of them are applicable to certain camp types only. If I model that, the significance of camp types will increase… 🙂

      Like

  20. It seems to be hogging memory. Getting bigger and bigger over time. Not sure if it is releasing memory after it no longer requires it.

    Like

    1. ok, it finally cleared most of the memory when one of the two general queries finished.
      Currently if I have two many running, the program comes unresponsive and I am unable to do anything on it, ie even min/max the window until some of it has processed. I.E. it has been running for the last 9 hours today but I can’t even click the help button on the top line to find this web address, had to do it manually. I am only running nine (9) quires. Just one happens to be a two general one and is hogging all the resources and taking days. It was responding (very slowly) until I added the last quire.

      May I suggest a new feature

      QUE PROCESS LIMIT
      allow the user to select how many in the que to run at once. once one if finished start the next. So if I select 4, it doesn’t matter if I have four or forty in my que, only four will run at any given time.

      maybe this will solve my resource management problem the program is having. PS; the rest of the computer is responsive and usable, so it is only for some reason causing itself issues.

      Like

    2. Error…
      Not enough quota is available to process this command

      System.ComponentModel.Win32Exception (0x80004005): Not enough quota is available to process this command
      at MS.Win32.UnsafeNativeMethods.PostMessage(HandleRef hwnd, WindowMessage msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)
      at System.Windows.Interop.HwndTarget.UpdateWindowSettings(Boolean enableRenderTarget, Nullable`1 channelSet)
      at System.Windows.Interop.HwndTarget.UpdateWindowPos(IntPtr lParam)
      at System.Windows.Interop.HwndTarget.HandleMessage(WindowMessage msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)
      at System.Windows.Interop.HwndSource.HwndTargetFilterMessage(IntPtr hwnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wParam, IntPtr lParam, Boolean& handled)
      at MS.Win32.HwndWrapper.WndProc(IntPtr hwnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wParam, IntPtr lParam, Boolean& handled)
      at MS.Win32.HwndSubclass.DispatcherCallbackOperation(Object o)
      at System.Windows.Threading.ExceptionWrapper.InternalRealCall(Delegate callback, Object args, Int32 numArgs)
      at System.Windows.Threading.ExceptionWrapper.TryCatchWhen(Object source, Delegate callback, Object args, Int32 numArgs, Delegate catchHandler)

      Like

  21. bug…
    accidently started best gearn search on two campsw which don’t exist by changing the numbers.

    it allowed me to do it, but its not doing anything, and i can’t stop or delete the calculations.

    Like

    1. Weird, I tried to reproduce the behaviour… I get the proper error message: “The following token has an unsupported Id: 2Dieb#24”, that is supposed to show up. Can you send me the complete command line?

      Like

      1. -Mode=UsefulGenerals -Camp=2Dieb#24 -Iterations=200 -Generals=MyNus;MyMarry;MyAns;MyVargus;GM -Attack=*SK;*BSK;*RIT;*SS;*GSS;*BSS

        and

        -Mode=UsefulGenerals -Camp=2Dieb#25 -Iterations=200 -Generals=MyNus;MyMarry;MyAns;MyVargus;GM -Attack=*SK;*BSK;*RIT;*SS;*GSS;*BSS

        I do them 0-23, but I didn’t realise how many camps there were, so I also did 24, 25, and 26. 26 came up with the error I expect when I try to make one for a a camp which doesn’t exist so I stopped adding new ones. It was only latter that I realised that 24 & 25 weren’t doing anything, didn’t exist and couldn’t be stopped/deleted.

        The way I enter them is I make up the command line for camp 0, and then I click on ‘create like’; go to the first tab and delete the camp number and type the next camp number. I don’t select the camps from the drop down.

        hope this helps.

        (just checked and it allowed me to do it again; so now I have three I can’t stop or delete.) 🙂

        Like

    2. Still unable to reproduce… even with your command line. I’m Kind of stymied. Are you suing v1.0.2? Because that’s the one I used when trying to reproduce…

      Like

  22. camp 3 in 2nd thief says it has 100Kl;100Re;100Berit;100Stei;RLL

    it only really has 100 horseman and 100 stone cannon.

    (ver 1.02)

    Like

    1. You’re so right about 2Dieb#3… will be corrected in v1.1. Several other simulators have this one wrong also. Must have changed some time in the past. Wow.

      Like

    1. Yes, they are labelled 8, 9, 11, 14 for history reasons. The other numbers do not exist. So those 4 numbers match the camps. You can compare its “population”. Should match… They are attacked in descending order of the number.

      Like

      1. ok, was confused. haven’t looked at the map, as there isn’t one attached for some reason with this version

        Like

  23. Hi, can you please check the troops of Ali Baba and the Treasure of Knowledge camp 52

    according to the program it has

    90 Sword Wielder (Sa)
    50 Sword Master (Schwe)
    90 Dune Marksman (Du)

    but unless I attacked the wrong camp, as far as I can tell it has

    90 Dune Marksman (Du)
    50 Sword Master (Schwe)
    90 Mounted Bowman (Berit) !!!!

    copy of end of fight
    http://prntscr.com/m3y3et

    copy of camp on map after fight
    http://prntscr.com/m3y3ta

    Like

    1. Hi there, I am sorry, you are absolutely right. The population of the camp should read “50Schwe;90Du;90Berit;RLL”. This will be corrected in the next version. You can expect the next version 1.1 in the second half of January. It will have a few new features and will be 3-5x faster in optimisations of 95% of all camps.

      Like

  24. Hi… not been active for a while. In camp RvH#6, 50DesE;100DesAB;150RoyR;50RoyM;RLL should be 50DesE;100DesAB;100RoyR;50RoyM;RLL (100 Recruits, not 150)

    Like

  25. ver 1.2.1;
    -Camp=Siege#3+4+5 -Attack=*R;*M;*S;*E;*C;*B;*LB;*AB;*K;VM

    resulting error…
    System.Exception: takes too long
    at AH.TSO.Simulation.FightSimulator.SimulateCombatMode(CombatMode pCombatMode, ICamp pPlayerCamp, ICamp pComputerCamp, Dictionary`2 pRounds, AdventureZoneBuff pAdventureZoneBuffs, Double& pAggressorExperiencePointsGained, Dictionary`2 pDuration, IAttackeeSummary`1 pAggressorDead, IAttackeeSummary`1 pDefenderDead)
    at AH.TSO.Simulation.FightSimulator.SimulateSingleComputerCamp(String& pMeltingAggressorConfig, ICamp pComputerCamp, Int32& pCounter, AdventureZoneBuff pAdventureZoneBuffs, SingleSimulationResult& pResult, Double& pAggressorXPGained)
    at AH.TSO.Simulation.FightSimulator.Simulate(String pPlayer, String pComputer, AdventureZoneBuff pAdventureZoneBuffs)
    at AH.TSO.Simulation.FightSimulator.MultiSimulate(String pAggressor, String pDefenders, UInt64 pNumberOfRuns, AdventureZoneBuff pAdventureZoneBuffs, ISimulateFightProgressContainer pProgressContainer, TerminationCallback pTerminationCallback)
    at AH.TSO.Optimisation.Optimiser._OptimiseFightWithGrid(String pTargetCamp, AttackConfiguration pAttackConfiguration, IConditions pConditions, UInt32 pGrid, TypicalObjective pObjective, AdventureZoneBuff pAdventureZoneBuffs, ISimulationResultsCache pSimulationResultsCache, IOptimiseFightWithGridProgressContainer pProgressContainer)
    at AH.TSO.Optimisation.Optimiser.OptimiseFight(String pTargetCamp, String pAttackConfiguration, IConditions pConditions, TypicalObjective pObjective, AdventureZoneBuff pAdventureZoneBuffs, IOptimiseFightProgressContainer pProgressContainer)
    at AH.TSO.Centurion.Application.JobManagement.CommandLineJob.Optimise.Execute()
    at AH.TSO.Centurion.Application.JobManagement.CommandLineJob.CommandLineJob.b__10_0(ICommandLineHelper pCLH, ICommandLine pCL)
    at AH.TSO.Centurion.Application.Shell.Shell.ExecuteAlgorithm(String[] pCommandLineArgs, Action`2 pOptimise, Action`2 pUsefulGenerals, Action`2 pSimulate)
    at AH.TSO.Centurion.Application.JobManagement.CommandLineJob.CommandLineJob.Run()
    at AH.TSO.Centurion.Application.JobManagement.AbstractJob.DoWork()

    also happens with camps 6+7+8 and camp 11. Really doesn’t seem to like the poor Master of Defense.

    Like

    1. Hi there, and thanks for pointing that one out 🙂 I analysed it and I can reproduce it. Centurion stops the simulation of a certain combat (in this case 192K;VM versus 1Sti) after 100 rounds because when I coded it I was afraid of endless loops (combat system is rather complex) and I though there couldn’t possibly be any fights that last 100 rounds or more. Turns out that assumption is wrong since the introduction of the VM 🙂 The opponent has 5000 hit points and VM causes 25-50 damage in each round. So 1VM versus 1Sti is going to last longer than 100 rounds. I will have to increase my “emergency exit threshold” maybe to 1000 rounds. Before I do that I’ll have a few dry-runs on tsotesting to see whether it actually behaves like that in the game. You might have a fix version 1.2.2 on the weekend… 🙂

      Like

  26. Suggestion, When you use the ‘Statistics’ button with the ‘Gameplay filter’ turned on; is it possible to have the number of troops required for the camps left listed, rather than the number of troops required for the entire adventure listed. Sometimes I don’t have enough troops when I start, so when i’m half way through it would be nice to see how many more i need so i can send them over once made.

    Like

  27. LOADING DOCKET

    OK, a weird request. When i do an adventure I load up my quatermasters with the troops my agenda say, and off they go.

    Every now and then I make a mistake and send the wrong number.

    A simplest version, a loading docket would just list the total number of troops to send as well as each group of troops to send. This way once I finished loading the troops, if the total number column didn’t match how many troops my quatermaster(s) were carrying, odd are i made a mistake.

    (yes, sent wrong number of troops to an adventure the other day even though I had an agenda for it.

    Like

    1. Loading Docket.

      Okay, you use an agenda, Are you aware of the statistics panel that can be toggled with a button that looks like the Greek letter “sigma”? Would it be helpful if there I just added the total number of individuals in brackets […] just like in the agenda itself as a check-sum? Just an idea, would be a consistent enhancement…

      Like

      1. yep, that’s what i’m looking for, just the sum of all th enumbers so i know i have the right count loaded 🙂

        Like

  28. EASY LOAD

    Some of my troop selections are crazy. For example one of my attacks has SEVEN (7) different types of troops to load onto the general for one attack.

    When you right click on a calculation that has already been made, would it be possible to add and option called something like ‘easy load’, which would then re-run the simulation, but this time trying to get a result which is the same as the previous result score wise, but used less different troop types (not less troops, i don’t care if it uses more troops).

    So the object would be to find a result which has the same score loss, etc wise, but was easier to load.

    For example A result I received was as follows …

    -Mode=Simulate -Camp=Sattelf#17 -Iterations=10000 -Attack=50R;10M;12E;48B;32LB;6AB;2K;MyBorris
    αO-C v1.2.3 29-Apr-2019 16:41:24 ()
    50R;10M;12E;48B;32LB;6AB;2K;MyBorris ==> 100% wins, 37.93PLVMix, 20s duration, [34-37.9-45]PLV, 570XP, PlrDd [15-18.9-26]R;20B

    but with a little manual playing I found the same results with

    -Mode=Simulate -Camp=Sattelf#17 -Iterations=10000 -Attack=30R;42E;20B;56AB;MyBorris
    αO-C v1.2.3 29-Apr-2019 16:49:14 ()
    30R;42E;20B;56AB;MyBorris ==> 100% wins, 37.93PLVMix, 20s duration, [34-37.9-45]PLV, 570XP, PlrDd [15-18.9-26]R;20B

    Now the first result, which I found using the simulator, has seven different types of troops to load, while the second one I played around with manually to try to make it easier to load only has four different types of troops to load.

    So I hope I made some sense, just looking for an option to click on a already calculated result and ask it to come up with an easier to load but same result option. Oh and yes, I realize the second option has a lot costlier troops in it, so may not be a good option for newer players with less costly troops, but as i have the costly troops available, i’d like to have the easier loading option as long as it is just as efficient score wise.

    Like

    1. Easy Load.

      Right… That’s a known phenomenon and it will be addressed in the next version which is coming out in a few days (v1.3). There will be a new feature called “troops attenuation” achieving exactly what you described. Giving up a tiny little bit of optimality, the number if troops in the suggested solution can be reduced greatly. People can still optimise without attenuation but those who wish can switch it on as a default. I hope you’ll like it.

      Liked by 1 person

  29. Agenda resources.

    A button where I can click on in my agenda and it will tell me what I need to replace the armies lose (on average) for that agenda.

    Currently it tells us the min, average and max number of each troop lost in an agenda. Would it be possible to click a link which will bring up a box which will list all the resources required to make that those troops as well. This way i can ensure my production status is up to the level I want to replenish the troops used.

    Like

    1. Hi, what do you consider exactly the resourced to be? Everything that going into producing the fighters, like swords, horses, beer, … (“1st level”)? What about the production time (Centurion would have to know the level of your barracks)? What about the resources that go into the resources for the fighters (“2nd level”, “3rd level”, …)? Can you give me an idea with a sample table maybe of what would be sufficient from your point of view? 🙂

      Like

  30. Hallo,
    Ich benutze seit längerer Zeit wieder deinen Simu.
    Wäre es möglich, bei den Jobs “Nützliche Generäle” als Ergebnis auch den Zweitbesten und eventuell auch den drittbesten General aufzulisten. Habe jetzt einmal “Einen Schritt voraus” und “AliBaba und der 2. Dieb” dort durcharbeiten lassen, die Ergebnisse sagen aus, das ca. 90% der Lager mit Boris optimal sind.Für den Spielfluss würde ich aber gerne zu Lasten des Optimalen auch meine anderen Generäle einsetzen. Es würde meiner Meinung vollkommen ausreichen, als Job-Ergebnis die zwei oder drei besten “Nützlichen Generäle” und die zugehörigen EP-Gewinne und EP/PLV Mix auszugeben, da ja dann immer noch die “Optimierung” ansteht, Erst in der Optimierung bekomme ich dann die beste Einheitenzusammenstellung.

    Like

    1. Hi,

      Du kannst die zweit-, dritt-, usw. besten Generäle heute schon sehen (aktuelle Version 1.3.0.2), indem Du in der Jobliste den Job mit den nützlichen Generälen auswählst, einen Rechtsklick drauf machst und im Kontext-Menü auf “Details…” gehst. Da erscheint ein neues Fenster mit den Ergebnissen in textueller Form. Je Zeile ein General, oben der beste, unten der schlechteste. (Anleitung, Kapitel 3.6). In der nächsten Version 1.4 wird es hier eine Verbesserung geben: Die Darstellung wird tabellarisch und interaktiv sein.

      aO
      🙂

      Like

  31. Can we have a re-calculate all button/menu option?

    When I change general skills etc, I want to go to a save and run all the calculations again to get the updated numbers. Currently I have to click on each entry and click ‘Run’. Would be nice to be able to click one button to add all jobs back t the que.

    Like

  32. I can’t read red txt. I get migraines, so I have glasses which shift and reduce the colour red. It means when I am trying to read how many troops die in a particular plan I need to take my glasses off and get real close to the screen.

    Is it possible to put the txt colours used into the config file so I can adjust them so I can read them etc?

    Like

  33. Duplicate agenda.

    Sometimes I want to make some minor changes to an agenda to see how it pans out, but don’t want to change the agenda i’ve already built up.

    It would be great if I could have the option to duplicate a current agenda, so i can then work on it, rather than having to build it up from scratch first.

    Like

    1. Duplicate Agenda: In v1.4 it will be possible to achieve this as follows: Create a new agenda as usual and give it a name. Arrange the windows of the original and the new agenda such that they can be seen next to each other. To do this, drag the tab of the new agenda and drop it where possible to extract it from the tab view. Then you select all items in the original agenda and drag them over to the new (empty) agenda where you drop them. Today this will MOVE the items from one agenda to the other but in v1.4 it will insert copies into the new agenda… pretty much what you want. I hope this will be sufficient. Everything except the “insert copies instead of move the items” is already working in the current version.

      Liked by 1 person

  34. Kann man irgendwo einstellen das der Immer mit max. Truppen simulieren soll bzw. auch nur in 5er Schritten berechnen braucht ? ich benutze dein Tool heute zum 1. mal und muss sagen: auf der einen seite Hammer leistung, echt super, aber die Bedienung / Dokumentation ist nicht so pralle 🙂 Aber ich werd da schon noch besser durchsteigen.

    Like

    1. Hallo Frizze, danke für Dein Feedback! Wenn Du Verbesserungsvorschläge hast zur Bedienung/Dokumentation, immer her damit. Die Weiterentwicklung des Tools wird hauptsächlich durch Benutzer-Feedback gesteuert!

      Immer mit max Truppen: Ich nehme an Du meinst, dass die Kapazität des Generals immer voll ausgenutzt werden soll? Ja das gibt es… Mache einfach das Häkchen hinter ‘Letzte Welle auffüllen’ an. Das gibt es bei Optimierung und bei nützliche Generäle. Bei Simulationen macht das keinen Sinn.

      In 5er Schritten rechnen: Centurion fängt beim Optimieren immer mit einem 64er Gitter an und verfeinert dann: 32er, 16er, 8er, 4er, 2er, 1er. Das kann man im Moment noch nicht umkonfigurieren. Ich hab schon mal darüber nachgedacht, das zuzulassen, aber es gab bisher keine Nachfragen dazu und ich ich hielte es bisher für eine Option, die viele eher verwirren würde… 🙂 Aber vielleicht ändert sich das ja.

      aO
      🙂

      Like

      1. ah ok , vieleicht könntest du bei den Schritten einen Schieberegler einbauen ?
        einfach aus dem Grund, ich pers. wäre auch mit 4er oder 8er schritten zufrieden, dafür ginge die Berechnung ja schneller .

        Weiterhin fänd ich klare Ausdrucksweise gut.
        Bei “Verluste” werde ich nicht schlau raus “PlrDd [64-64,5-67]B” was bedeuten denn die beiden Zahlen ?

        Beim Job Definitionsfenster gibt es auswahlmöglichkeiten B-K; SK-BEL, man findet es schnell heraus wenn man mal daraufklickt, aber wenn einfach “normale” und “elite Einheiten” davor stehen würde ging es noch schneller.

        ich werde bestimmt noch mehr “Feedback – gemecker ” von mir geben. Aber ich meine nix davon böse.

        MFG
        Frizze

        Liked by 1 person

    2. * Schieberegler für Gitter: Ich habe eine extra Seite dafür gemacht (https://alphaorioniscenturion.wordpress.com/fi21/), so dass wir details dort klären können. Außerdem in Englisch damit es mehr Leute mitbekommen.
      * PlrDd [64-64,5-67]B: Die Zahlen sind ein Intervall, von..bis. In der Mitte steht der zu erwartende Wert, der Durchschnitt. Die Zahlen kommen aus den vielen Einzel-Simulationen, die während Deines Jobs gemacht worden sind. Mehr Details sind auf dieser Seite erläutert: https://centurion-kampfoptimierer.fandom.com/de/wiki/Einf%C3%BChrende_Beispiele_-_Simulation
      * B-K; SK-BEL .. Okay, ja.. den Titel kann man ändern. Nächste Version kommt vor dem Halloween Event 🙂

      Like

      1. Hui ui ui,

        ” “PlrDd [5-5,3-6]R;[1-6,6-14]AB”: „PlrDd“ steht für „player dead“, also die toten (verlorenen) Spieler-Einheiten. Wir verlieren hier zwischen 5 und 6 Rekruten, mit einem Durchschnitt über die 1000 Simulationen von 5,3 Rekruten sowie 1 bis 14 AB. Der Durchschnitt muss also keineswegs genau in der Mitte liegen.

        Ich habe gelesen ” 5 bis 5, 3-6 Rekruten und 1 bis 6, 6 bis 15 Armbrüste … dann konnte ich das ja nicht verstehen das gemeint ist ” 5 bis 6 ( Ø 5,3 ) “

        Like

  35. Guten Tag,
    Als erstes möchte ich mich für Deinen Kampf-Simulator bedanken, ich finde, er ist einer der besten.
    Was mich jedoch stört, das es keine Möglickeit gibt, mehrere bzw. alle job-ergebnisse am Stück in einen
    Spielplan einzukopieren.
    Das einzeln markieren und einkopieren in den Spielplan ist sehr lästig.Die Windows-funktionen
    ausschneiden und Strg wären sehr vorteilhaft.

    Like

    1. Hallöchen, und Danke für den Kommentar. Aber ich glaube das geht schon: Du markierst einfach alle Zeilen im Jobfenster, die du verschieben willst (STRG-A zum Beispiel wird alle auswählen) und dann machst Du mit der Maus Drag-and-Drop, d.h. Du ziehst alle markierten einfach in den Spielplan hinein… sie sollten dann alle dort erscheinen. Ich arbeite regelmäßig so. Oder ist das nicht das, was Du meinst? Über STRG-C (Kopieren) und dann STRG-V (Einfügen) könnte ich mal nachdenken, ist bestimmt hinzukriegen. Aber mit der Maus sollte es jetzt schon gehen….
      aO
      🙂

      Like

    2. ich meine damit, in den Spielplan einzubringen und damit die windowsfunktionen ausschneiden und strg
      zu benutzen

      Like

      1. mhhh, ich möchte ja gerne die gewünschten job’s markieren, ich kann aber immer nur einen markieren

        Like

      2. “ausschneiden und STRG” gibt es nicht… es gibt nur STRG-C (markierte Sachen in die Zwischenablage kopieren), STRG-X (markierte Sachen in die Zwischenablage nehmen und vom Originalort entfernen) sowie STRG-V (Sachen die sich in der Zwischenablage befinden einfügen). gewöhnlich hat man STRG-X und dann STRG-V um etwas auszuschneiden und an einem neuen Ort einzufügen oder man hat STRG-C und dann STRG-V um etwas zu kopieren und dann irgendwo einzufügen (also wie STRG-X nur eben ohne Löschen am Original-Ort).
        Meine Aussage war, dass eine Aktion der Art STRG-C und STRG-V heute bereits geht, nur eben mit der Maus und nicht mit STRG.

        Like

      3. “…ich kann aber immer nur einen markieren…”

        Bist Du sicher, dass Du über die Jobliste sprichst? Dort kann man definitiv mehrere markieren. Oder meinst Du etwa mehrere im Spielplan zu markieren? Das geht tatsächlich nicht, weil der Spielplan eine hierarchische Baumstruktur hat. Dieser Baum unterstützt das so nicht. Aber in der Jobliste hast Du keinen Baum sondern eine flache Liste… da geht das wie auch in der Agenda.

        Ich beziehe mich natürlich immer auf die aktuelle v1.4. Es gibt eine alte Version (sehr alt) da konnte man in der Jobliste tatsächlich nur einen markieren aber das ist lange her…

        Like

  36. und dieser Job hat in der Job-Liste vorne in der ersten Spalte ein kleines Dreieck und diese Zeile ist dann gelb hinterlegt

    Like

    1. Ich benutze Version 1.4 , die über die Schaltzentrale erzeugten Jobs sind Listenmäßig aufgeführt mit der jeweiligen Kommandozeile -Camp=*****#des Lagers-Iteration…. usw. Nur das Mehrfachmarkieren funzt nicht

      Like

    1. Das geht, ist ja auch ne PDF

      1. Einführung
      Soooo, du hast jetzt α-Orionis Centurion, den Kampfoptimierer für Die Siedler Online. Glückwunsch! Und was machst Du jetzt damit? Hier kommen die ersten Schritte, um Dich an die Arbeitsweise und Leistungsfähigkeit des Optimierers heranzuführen:
      A. Informiere dich grob, was der Centurion leistet. Insbesondere, was der Unterschied ist zwischen einem Simulator und einem Optim………………….

      Like

      1. AAAHHHHHHHHHHH, der macht das, ohne es anzuzeigen :-))
        ok, jetzt habe ich es kapiert, schwere Geburt, Danke für die Hilfe

        Like

  37. AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, Centurion macht es ohne es anzuzeigen/darzustellen.
    Jetzt habe ich es kapiert, Danke nochmal für die Hilfe

    Like

  38. Multiple groups per attack in the agenda.

    The group attacks feature is great for determining how many troops you need.

    Is it possible to make it so each attack can be in more than one group for example though.
    Group A is attack 1,2,3,4
    Group B is attack 4,5,6,7

    in the above example attack 4 is in both Groups A and B.

    The reasoning is that by the time the first generals in a group will (often) be back before the last generals have finished their attack. It would be nice to be able to then send them generals out in a second group of attacks, and have the calculations still determine how many troops.generals are required.

    The problem with the current system is that you have to put the following attacks in a separate non-overlapping group. But often I want the generals in the first part of a group to also be in the first part of the next group, but the original group of attacks is ongoing, and the new attack is only (currently) able to be listed in one group at a time.

    Does this make sense? If not, I will dig out an example to hopefully make it clearer 🙂

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s