carriers at war AI great?

Carriers At War is Strategic Studies Group famed simulation of Fleet Carrier Air and Naval Operations in the Pacific from 1941 - 1945.

Moderators: Gregor_SSG, alexs

User avatar
Deathtreader
Posts: 1058
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:49 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada.

RE: carriers at war AI great?

Post by Deathtreader »

ORIGINAL: tomcat666

   How does the AI in HTTR compare?, i heard that it is flexible as well.

If you believe panther games it has the best AI. It is probably a greater achievement in programming since the nature of the game is more complex
Hi,

It's almost apples and oranges.......... CAW's AI is pretty good as the IJN but less so as the USN. A naval game. The AI in COTA (the game after HTTR using the same engine) is also pretty darn good most times and is noticeably more aggressive (in a planned/organized fashion) than the version in HTTR. Both land games.
I suspect comparing an engine tailored for land warfare (HTTR/COTA) to one doing service in both aspects ie. the warcard system present in both Battlefront & CAW is like comparing the 2 fruits. A better comparison would be between Battlefront's warcard system AI and COTA's engine AI. But that is for another forum............ [;)]

Rob. [:)]
So we're at war with the Russkies eh?? I suppose we really ought to invade or something. (Lonnnng pause while studying the map)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)
MarkShot
Posts: 7449
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:04 am

RE: carriers at war AI great?

Post by MarkShot »

I spent some time looking at the Scenario Designer in Harpoon ANW (3.8.0) this afternoon. I would say that the scenario design capability in CAW/CCAW surpasses Harpoon in terms of ability to have random placement, random forces, and complex triggered conditional behavior. Harpoon can define missions similar to CAW/CCAW, but with no ability to trigger and branch. My guess is that the scenarios have less replayability. On the other hand, it is like Combat Missions, there are hundreds and hundreds of scenarios.

I think SC/DW is a lot more powerful than both Harpoon and CAW when it comes to scenario design. Facilities for randomness, conditional logic, and generalized programming logic is quite a bit more powerful. However, there is one place where Harpoon probably out performs SC/DW in terms of scenario design and that is the battle group (task group/task force). In Harpoon, the AI seems to do a very nice job coordinating the actions of a group of ships in an intelligent fashion. In SC/DW, groups of ships behave too much as collections of separate entities without a common purpose.

---

I don't think you can compare RDOA/HTTR/COTA/BFTB or what we call PG's AA engine to any of the above games. The terrain analysis, objective analysis, force formation, and plan construction process is so completely different than naval combat, I don't think that there are any useful insights which can be drawn by comparing them.
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
MarkShot
Posts: 7449
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:04 am

RE: carriers at war AI great?

Post by MarkShot »

There is one place where I think Sonalyst showed true genious in building their engine. The behavior for AI units such as playable/non-playable platforms and weapons are described in what are known as doctrine files. These are plain text files. However, they are not simply spreadsheet of parameters. It is actually an interperted programming language that controls how a sub prosecutes a contact or how a sub evades a torpedo etc... Effectively, moders can change many of the core behaviors of the game; more so than in most moddable games.

For example, in the standard SC. The AI torpedo evasion is simply to extend away from the LOB of the shooter (and launch CMs). Unless the torpedo runs out of fuel, this approach isn't very effective. In SCXIIC, the most popular mod, evasion was modified to make subs extend and displace laterally after dropping CMs. This has a much higher percentage, since the it causes the target to move outside the seeker cone of the weapon.

There is no way in CAW or Harpoon that platform behavior by the AI can be changed. However, I do think in CAW, you can do some prioritization of targets for the AI. That's about it.
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
User avatar
vinboni
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:18 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

RE: carriers at war AI great?

Post by vinboni »

An exemple of bad AI for US navy.
In Wake scenario US carriers exit out the map without tray intercept japanese invasion fleet when it arrived near Wake island. It should be easy to win by strike invasion fleet. Us navy prefers to save is carriers and so lost. Now I tray to change some scenario cards in the warroom editor to have a better US AI.
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: carriers at war AI great?

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: MarkShot
... There is no way in CAW or Harpoon that platform behavior by the AI can be changed. However, I do think in CAW, you can do some prioritization of targets for the AI. That's about it.

After the patch, I hope the CaW AI now prioritzes CV TGs; before the patch, the AI (as the IJN) had a tendency to target fixate on enemy surface fleets w/its CV a/c untill they sank while enemy CV TGs were attacking other AI TGs.

I suggested a boolean "If,then,else" statement for the AI as the IJN: If SBDs and/or TBs = True, then launch search planes and find their CVs! Else sail on to scenario objective.
AI as the Allies: If B5N/6N = True, then ...
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
vinboni
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:18 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

RE: carriers at war AI great?

Post by vinboni »

I tray to change some scenario cards in the warroom editor to have a better US AI in Wake Island scenario. AI plays more batter. Is not important AI engine itself, I think. but warrom cards that make AI strategy.
User avatar
Reg
Posts: 2790
Joined: Fri May 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: NSW, Australia

RE: carriers at war AI great?

Post by Reg »

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Re 3# -- sounds like you read Reg's earlier post.

Hey... That's not what I meant.

I was just implying that a change of tactics may have been appropriate.
Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: carriers at war AI great?

Post by decaro »

Yes, I shouldn't have implied that Warspite3 was "clueless," but it's hard to believe he tried the same losing tactic 8X in a row w/o trying something different.

Then again, the historical Coral Sea battle was actually a tactical loss for Fletcher, but a strategic victory for Nimitz; and a strategic victory doesn't factor in the computer's decision in awarding points.

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
MarkShot
Posts: 7449
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:04 am

RE: carriers at war AI great?

Post by MarkShot »

Well, I was only speaking in general terms and not commenting specifically on anyone's abilities. However, if it seemed that I was making an insult, then I do apologize.
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
Post Reply

Return to “Carriers At War”