Unit Proficiency

[DWReese]

Has anyone ever played around with the Unit Proficiency option? It ranges from Novice to Ace, and there are a total of five different groupings.

Is an enemy plane more evasive if it is piloted by an Ace? Is it less by a Novice? We can assume that this is true, but has anyone actually tested it?

If the Novice/Ace thing is true (which I assume that it is), then how does that apply to subs? Are Ace subs harder to detect? Are Novice subs easy? How aggressive are these subs? Does a Novice sub under attack merely try to evade? Does an Ace sub, for example, not only evade but also fire off a Bearing Only Launches (BOL) toward the incoming torpedoes?

Anyone have any insight?

Doug

[Joelsi]

• Proficiency modifiers are applied on a side level (on the "Add/Edit Sides" window in ScenEdit mode) and can affect a wide number of factors. The available levels are Novice, Cadet, Regular, Veteran & Ace. Default proficiency level for each side is Regular.

• Aircraft turn rates and agility modifiers on missile evasion attempts are now affected by proficiency levels. The changes, as percentages of the original values, are as follows:
• Novice : 60% of nominal
• Cadet : 70% of nominal
• Regular : 80% of nominal
• Veteran : 100% of nominal
• Ace : 110% of nominal

• The weapon endgame messages have been updated to display the information of these modifiers.

• OODA values are affected by proficiency levels. Novice crews take twice the nominal OODA value to execute their targeting process while ace crews beat even the nominal best-case value
• (all other levels in-between).

This is what I found from the V1.02 patch notes

-Joelsi

[DWReese]

Thanks, fir responding, but I kind of knew some of that. I wasn't aware of the turn rate changes, however.

I have never seen the "weapon endgame messages" make any reference to this, but I haven't actually looked that hard either. <lol>

I did know that the OODA times were affected.

I am most curious as to how this affects ships and, in particular, subs. I would love to see an enhancement made to subs that would have the AI fire a Bearing Only Launched torpedo down the axis of an in-coming sub. I do believe that this is a quite normal procedure. Not only would it force the original firing sub to turn and run, thus breaking its wire connection, but it will also keep it from tracking the defending sub because it is now running for its own life.

I was hoping that as PROFICIENCY levels increased, that the AI would get smarter, and that this would become common practice. This is primarily he purpose for this thread.

Hopefully, someone will have played around a little bit with this to offer some actual play experience.

Doug

[KungPao]

Is an enemy plane more evasive if it is piloted by an Ace? Is it less by a Novice?

yes

LightAttack #1 has nominal agility: 3. Agility adjusted for proficiency (Regular): 2.4
Fishbed #5 has nominal agility: 3. Agility adjusted for proficiency (Cadet): 1.5

it only applies to aircraft. Surface ship and submarine's chance of survive do not impact by unit proficiency

[DWReese]

Okay, aircraft only.

It would kind of be interesting if it could, however.

I believe in the release notes of the new update it made some mention of improving the AI based on proficiency. I had hoped that the example I gave would be one of the improvements.

Thanks.

Doug

[Gunner98]

it only applies to aircraft. Surface ship and submarine's chance of survive do not impact by unit proficiency

I'm not sure that this is true - but am not sure. I was under the impression that reload rates, ooda loop, use of decoys, target acquisition etc were affected by skill for units other than AC. But am not entirely sure.

B

[DWReese]

Gunner,

The sub battles become so much more interesting when the targeted sub fires a torpedo on a BOL toward the direction of the original shooter. I believe that they call it a snapshot. I have found that, if the targeted sub detects the attack, then I switch and take control of the targeted sub and return fire, the original shooter then breaks his wire control and takes off running. It really improves the survive ability of the targeted sub.

I really think that higher proficiency units should adopt this practice. I have not seen it implemented in the game as of yet, but if I can think of it, then I'm sure that the real navies have already thought of this tactic. If they have thought of it, then it would be nice if the AI adopted this tactic too.

Doug

[KungPao]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

it only applies to aircraft. Surface ship and submarine's chance of survive do not impact by unit proficiency

I'm not sure that this is true - but am not sure. I was under the impression that reload rates, ooda loop, use of decoys, target acquisition etc were affected by skill for units other than AC. But am not entirely sure.

B

Ahhh, my bad, I should put this more accurately.

Unit proficiency increase the chance of survive as a soft factor too. But if the target is submarine or surface warship, the calculation of final PoH do not include Unit Proficiency

2:44:15 AM - Weapon: Mk48 Mod 4 #1371 is attacking K-292 PLA-671RT Victor II [Syomga] with a base PH of 75%. Final PH: 75%. Result: 68 - HIT

[SeaQueen]

I really think that higher proficiency units should adopt this practice. I have not seen it implemented in the game as of yet, but if I can think of it, then I'm sure that the real navies have already thought of this tactic.

The thing is, it's a TACTIC. One can still be incompetent and use that tactic. They just might do it slower and less effectively (e.g. OODA loop limitations).

I'm of the opinion that as little AI behavior should be keyed to unit proficiency as possible. The reason is that when you key AI behavior to unit competence, you're making the assumption that "Only an incompetent would do ever do X and a skilled operator would always do Y!" In practice that often tells me more about what gamers think good tactics are than what they might actually be. There's other variables in play, including the military culture, doctrine, and the particulars of the situation. As I've been exposed to the study of actual tactics around the world, I've been impressed by how different nations, commanders and operators solve the same problem differently. To me, that's where the real art of the game is.

So when you key it to competence, it limits the ability to model doctrine. Just because one nation shoots snapshots and the other doesn't, doesn't necessarily make one nation's military more competent than the other. If Marko Ramius chooses not to fire a snapshot is Marko Ramius no longer an elite sub commander? Maybe he's following doctrine? Maybe he's making a decison based on the situation? There's lots of reasons not to fire a snapshot, that a competent commander might recognize. Maybe they're low on torpedoes, for example, and want to preserve them? Maybe they think their countermeasures are so good, or their enemy's torpedoes are so bad, that they don't need to make a shot in the dark to throw them off? Maybe another platform is already prosecuting that target?

[DWReese]

SeaQueen,

Thanks for chiming in. I was hoping to get your perspective.

I get exactly what you are saying, and why. That makes perfect sense to me.

The reason that I brought it up was I remember reading somewhere that the AI will (has been) improved and I thought that a logical way to accomplish that could be with the proficiency rating. In fact, I do believe that proficiency was even mentioned.

While I agree what you are saying is true, it does seem that an Ace would be more likely to be more quick and be able to fire off a snapshot as opposed to a novice (not that they give subs to novices in the first place). And, if it was indeed a "normal" sub tactic to fire off a snapshot when an attack is first discovered, then why doesn't the AI do that now, regardless of the proficiency rating? It seems like a good move, if it is possible.

It seems as though more could be done with proficiency to include subs, ships, and land units. Right now, it only seems to really affect planes, which is okay. But, I tend to think of subs as underwater planes, so the same type of principles seem like they would logically apply. Change altitude/change depth; lower speed/increase speed; evade; relocate the enemy; target acquisition; fire; etc. They seem to be the same, other than one being above ground and the other below. Therefore, since proficiency is involved with planes, then it would seem that proficiency could play a role with subs too. At least it does to me.

I guess what I am saying is that it would be nice to see the AI-controlled subs be a little more Marko Ramius-like and a little less predictable. Right now, if I can get off the first shot then I seem to have nothing to worry about as far as retaliation.

Does anyone know of any scenarios where AI-controlled subs can be coerced into firing a defensive snapshot? Perhaps a Lua code could be employed? Perhaps some other way?

Thanks again for responding. It's always nice to hear your perspective.

Doug

[SeaQueen]

You don't know what an "ace" submarine would do versus a "novice." You're assuming they'd apply a certain tactic and then apply different tactics as they improved. That isn't necessarily the case. There isn't a scale where incompetent crews do one thing every time at the bottom of the scale and competent crews do always do another at the top. Every crew is trained to employ certain tactics dictated by doctrine, and some of them are better and worse at them. If I did a Kilo on Kilo engagement (e.g. PRC versus Vietnam) they'd probably employ similar tactics, partially because of their similar technology, and also because they both went to Russia for their initial training. What would make them different? Basically just their OODA loop (who was better at using the same tactics and technology).

Because actual tactics are classified, you're making an assumption about tactics based on what you've seen in unclassified sources. You're further assuming that all crews of similar competency apply similar tactics. Since you're basing that assumption on unclassified material and in The West we tend to be far more transparent about what we do than in The East, most of the material out there is about western sub tactics, and of that, it's mostly American sub tactics. It is not reasonable to assume that all nations train their submarine officers to behave like an American submarine captain. Maybe the British or Chinese doctrine is not to shoot a snapshot because it's not likely to hit? Does that mean they're less competent? No, it just makes them different. Maybe they rely on their fancy expendable decoy system or anti-torpedo torpedo system. They might have just as fast an OODA loop as an American submarine, while employing different tactics for whatever reason.

Furthermore, some of what you see in unclassified sources is deliberately planted misinformation.

One of the goals of Command's AI development, in my opinion, ought to be to make it "doctrine neutral" in the sense that it shouldn't reflect any particular assumptions about the best course of action in any particular situation. Typically, there isn't a single "best" tactic, but rather compromises. Reasonable people might disagree what the best solution is. Part of the game is figuring out what tactics are best in a given situation. That's the fun of wargames!

Therefore, in my mind, the best thing is that if there was the option for the AI to snapshot or not, there ought to be (I can hear D shuddering from here) another doctrine menu option.

[DWReese]

Got it. It makes sense.

But, I do believe that an AI-launched defensive snapshot option is needed as part of the doctrine. Right now, unless there is another way to do it, it appears that if you can get the first shot off against a sub, then the targeted sub will turn and run. That means that you can stay 10 kts and under and follow with impunity.

On the other hand, it does seem that if the targeted sub could simply manage to get a defensive snapshot off, the firing sub would have to break the wire and also run, thereby reducing the original shot and chance of a hit.

Regarding actual versus perception when it comes to our "game", you have to ask, how much of what we do here is based on perception? No one really knows whether the China's DF-21 missile could actually hit a moving carrier. It's never actually even been tried. Who knows whether this RIM-161E could actually destroy the DF-21 up in space because it's never been done? So, in order to model it into the game, the designer has to "fudge" the results a little. They have to assume that it would work, and if it works, they have to assume what the results would be, based on our perception.

So, if those results are based on our perceptions, then why wouldn't a defensive snapshot, which isn't really an actual known tactic, but merely a perception of one, be included since many sources (as you pointed out) discuss that specific action.

Not that I have a vote in this matter, I'm just a consumer who buys all of the products, but I would think that having an option to program an AI-launched defensive snapshot would be a nice thing to include in sub warfare because it balances things out a little bit, even if it is only a perception.

Thanks again.

Doug

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen
Therefore, in my mind, the best thing is that if there was the option for the AI to snapshot or not, there ought to be (I can hear D shuddering from here) another doctrine menu option.

I feel the goose bumps already. Someone opened a window all of a sudden?

Tying specific AI behaviors to specific proficiency levels sounds like a really neat way to give each unit a "personality", until you consider the gameplay implications.

Let's say you play the Iraqi AF side in a DS scenario. if the setup is historically accurate, most of your pilots will be really green (the officer corps was heavily purged between the end of the war with Iran and DS). If you make smart evasion manouvers veteran/ace-only, most of your pilots won't perform them. So if you really want to win, you now suddenly have a very strong incentive to step down from the theater command center and micromanage every throttle, stick and rudder command, essentially manually performing the evasion tricks that your pilots would do on their own if they were more proficient. At this point, one of Command's central mantras breaks down.