Inability of AI to Launch TLAM strike

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

Folks,

This is off topic. I promise I will tell you what the reason is behind TLAMs not being launched against land based platforms when I go through the code.

If there is one thing I have learned then it is that every 'expert' of Harpoon is crazy.

Let's go back to a technical discussion without the conjecture. Base your theories on what you observe.

[Shemar]

I strongly suggest you stop smoking whatever it is you are smoking...
 

Show me in any database you choose (or one you wish to make up) an example whereby a ship fires TLAM-C at a ground target while on Transit mission.

 
Any person with above average intelligence that read my reply can see that what I said was: Wait until the not attacking unarmed units is fixed because the TLAMs may well not be firing because they consider the targets unarmed (or not armed enough), and if that does not fix it then we can worry about it. If you can find any phrase of mine that even implies that I claim to have a fix for the current patch version of the game, provide it.
 
 

You claim to be an expert in the game,

 
Again, show us where I said anything even close to that.
 
 

so show me where I have missed the mark.

 
Based on the two out of two misses above, I'd guess everywhere. Seriously, you need to stop having a different version of the conversation in your head than the one the person talking to you is actually posting. Since you need to disagree with everything and be negative about everythyng, at least make the efford to disagree with what people are actually saying, instead of what you imagine they are saying.
 
Now let's see if I can put it in simple enough terms...
 
There are (at least) three possible reasons why TLAMs are not fired while on a transit mission...
 
A. The valid TLAM targets are not considered a thread due to A Value calculations. Removing the need for a positive A Value before the AI fires on a target of oportunity should fix that. In case it is STILL not clear, I am not referring to a database fix, I am referrig to the fix Russel plans to do based on the other thread about not attacking unarmed targets. And A value is not irrelevant just because you say so. If you want to make that claim prove it by creating a land facility that is a threat to a naval unit (not to aircraft) and see if the naval unit will fire on it. In that case the problem could be:
 
B. Naval units simply do not attack facilities. If that is the case it is a faulty AI behavior that should be addressed but it has nothing to do with TLAMs specifically. To disprove that one you would have to put the hypothetical, threatening land facility within naval gun range and observe the guns firing but the TLAMs not firing. In which case:
 
C. The problem is limited to TLAMs. Unlikely in my opinion, unless TLAMs only target very specific types of targets or have some other unique property that other weapon systems do not have.
 
Based on the above solutions are:
 
A. Make units in transit attack unarmed/non-threatenign hostile targets if no better targets are available.
B. If A does not fix it, make sure land facilities are properly recognised as threats and targets by naval units.
C. If the above fails, look into TLAMs specifically
 
Of course someone with access and familiarity with the source code could probably figure out if it is A, B or C pretty easily, but without it these are only guesses. And of course there may be other possibilities (with their own solutions) I have not thought about, than the 3 I mentioned.

[hermanhum]

Ah, another wonderful quote fest. Well, I'll try to sort it out.

ORIGINAL: Shemar

Show me in any database you choose (or one you wish to make up) an example whereby a ship fires TLAM-C at a ground target while on Transit mission.

Any person with above average intelligence that read my reply can see that what I said was: Wait until the not attacking unarmed units is fixed because the TLAMs may well not be firing because they consider the targets unarmed (or not armed enough), and if that does not fix it then we can worry about it. If you can find any phrase of mine that even implies that I claim to have a fix for the current patch version of the game, provide it.

With my intelligence clearly sub-par from your lofty standards, I better stick with quotations and links to the answers.

Since you were able to claim that I was definitely

ORIGINAL: Shemar

Wrong. If the facilities had a threat value then any unit would fire on them upon detection, just as they would fire SAMs against an incoming aircraft or SSMs against detected ships.

fb.asp?m=1842902

Then you need to show me the error of my ways, as I asked here: (fb.asp?m=1843064).

ORIGINAL: Shemar

ORIGINAL: herman hum

You claim to be an expert in the game,

Again, show us where I said anything even close to that.

Same answer as above. Since you know that I am 'wrong', then obviously you have the 'correct' answer.


[[snip on pontification]]

ORIGINAL: Shemar

There are (at least) three possible reasons why TLAMs are not fired while on a transit mission...

[[snip]]

Based on the above solutions are:

A. Make units in transit attack unarmed/non-threatenign hostile targets if no better targets are available.
B. If A does not fix it, make sure land facilities are properly recognised as threats and targets by naval units.
C. If the above fails, look into TLAMs specifically

Of course someone with access and familiarity with the source code could probably figure out if it is A, B or C pretty easily, but without it these are only guesses. And of course there may be other possibilities (with their own solutions) I have not thought about, than the 3 I mentioned.

What, not so 'certain', anymore? Now, they are only 'possible' reasons?

You sure see positive enough with:

ORIGINAL: Shemar

Wrong. If the facilities had a threat value then any unit would fire on them upon detection, just as they would fire SAMs against an incoming aircraft or SSMs against detected ships.

fb.asp?m=1842902

And that's the whole point of the matter. You don't know.

At least other folks are able to admit this when they have doubt. However, this trait seems sorely lacking for anyone who seems to have been infected by the AGSI Virus.

[Shemar]

Since you like quotes so much here is one:
 

All you need to do is wait for the A Value > 0 requirement to be removed and see what happens. If TLAMs still don't fire after that then it would be a bug and not a behavioral issue.

 
clearly indicating (to intelligent people of course) that I have no way of knowing for sure if it is the A Value or not.
 
And yes you are clearly and blatanly wrong when you dismiss something without any kind of real information. Saying that the A Value is irrelevant when you have failed to conduct any proper test showing that makes you wrong by default. Even if it turns out us is not the A Value, you are still wrong as claiming that anything is irrelevant and expecting it to be taken seriously requires actual proof and contrary to what you may think your word is far from that.
 
I may not be an expert in Harpoon, but I have gone through a fair number of your 'bugs' and I am quite well informed in the field of how often you are flat out wrong about something.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Shemar

All you need to do is wait for the A Value > 0 requirement to be removed and see what happens. If TLAMs still don't fire after that then it would be a bug and not a behavioral issue.

clearly indicating (to intelligent people of course) that I have no way of knowing for sure if it is the A Value or not.

And yes you are clearly and blatanly wrong when you dismiss something without any kind of real information. Saying that the A Value is irrelevant when you have failed to conduct any proper test showing that makes you wrong by default. Even if it turns out us is not the A Value, you are still wrong as claiming that anything is irrelevant and expecting it to be taken seriously requires actual proof and contrary to what you may think your word is far from that.

Excellent. I knew that this would eventually get back around to the original question.

Okay, I'll ask for the fourth time, if it is an aValue problem as you claim, show me.

Anyone with a Scenario Editor and Database editor will be able to create a situation to prove it (but only if it is true). Of course, if it is the usual bluster, then it is simply not possible.

My proof that it is a Transit mission problem is here:

fb.asp?m=1840623

Where's yours?

[Shemar]

You are making a lot of wrong assumptions as usual. Here are some of them:
 
- That your 'proof' means anything as this is obviosuly a scenario where the facilities have zero A Value (unless somebody attached some long range SSMs to those runways).
 
- That I care whether you think I am right or not and am willing to spend time proving anything to you.
 
- I don't even  know if it is possible to make a facility have an A Value against a ship. If a database includes some shore based SSMs maybe, but as stated above I don't care enough to go looking for it.
 
- That whether I am right or wrong is some big deal that I have to worry about; that's you not me. At the end of the day I have no inside information as to how Harpoon works on the code level, so any thinking person understands that anything I say is within that context. Unlike some other people I get my personal validation in my every day work so when it comes to Harpoon I have the luxury to care more about making the game better than proving somebody wrong. Yeah, I know, alien concept to you...
 
Now the short version for the attention impaired:
 
Proving it is (or it is not) an A Value issue would involve creating a facility with an A Value towards ships and testing. Nothing else proves anything one way or the other. Since the only gain of such proof would be the stroking of my own ego, it is a worthless endeavor and I prefer to leave those kinds of ego stroking exercises to you.
 
If you somehow manage to say anything that has a hint of a possibility of improving the game, I'll respond to you, but getting into a pissing contest about who is hypothetically right and who is hypothetically wrong? I don't think so, my time is way more valuable than that.

[kipallen]

Guys, can we respond as adults here and ease up a bit on the "gotcha" comments? We're all on the same side as fellow Harpooners.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Shemar

- That your 'proof' means anything as this is obviosuly a scenario where the facilities have zero A Value (unless somebody attached some long range SSMs to those runways).

- That I care whether you think I am right or not and am willing to spend time proving anything to you.

- I don't even know if it is possible to make a facility have an A Value against a ship. If a database includes some shore based SSMs maybe, but as stated above I don't care enough to go looking for it.

[[snip]]

Proving it is (or it is not) an A Value issue would involve creating a facility with an A Value towards ships and testing. Nothing else proves anything one way or the other. Since the only gain of such proof would be the stroking of my own ego, it is a worthless endeavor and I prefer to leave those kinds of ego stroking exercises to you.

If you somehow manage to say anything that has a hint of a possibility of improving the game, I'll respond to you, but getting into a pissing contest about who is hypothetically right and who is hypothetically wrong? I don't think so, my time is way more valuable than that.

Ah, the usual bluster. Of course, folks are free to interpret your denials, deflections, and evasiveness anyway they like. Some might even see clearly enough through all the obfuscation that you simply aren't able to prove a single claim. Ever.

And here, you have actually shown the correct way. Put some kind of offensive weaponry on a land facility to see if it triggers an attack from units on the Transit mission. Such examples already exist for anyone who has the slightest ability to use the Scenario Editor. Of course, I have already tried that, as I previously stated (fb.asp?m=1843064). I couldn't make it happen, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt in case you could. Evidently, you can't. So, you don't care enough to go looking. It seems to be quite indicative of your entire testing methodology: Come to conclusions without an ounce of proof or justification.

So, there is no need to claim anything theoretical or hypothetical, at all. The empirical evidence is quite easy to obtain. Mine is here:

fb.asp?m=1840623

Once again, yours seems to be in fantasyland.

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

Alright guys. The tone is getting well beyond what is proper for the technical discussion this thread should support. Let it end here so I don't have to lock it down.

[Shemar]

*deleted as per Russell's request*

[Shemar]

After performing actual proper tests, looking for actual facts, I can now prove that Herman's description of the issue as being related to TLAMs is wrong. I have an actual, non-imaginery, clear of irrelevant parameters, test, available to anyone upon request that shows naval units during a transit mission excibiting the following behavior:
 
They will fire on an incoming plane immediately, but they will not fire on a land facility with any weapon even when they are being fired upon. The test uses an Iowa class BB set in a transit mission very close to a coastal battery, well within range of its main guns. The coastal battery opens fire and the BB keeps ignoring it. Therefore any theory or assumption regarding the TLAMs being the issue is false. The issue appears to be that ships will not fire on land facilities.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Shemar
They will fire on an incoming plane immediately, but they will not fire on a land facility with any weapon even when they are being fired upon. The test uses an Iowa class BB set in a transit mission very close to a coastal battery, well within range of its main guns. The coastal battery opens fire and the BB keeps ignoring it. Therefore any theory or assumption regarding the TLAMs being the issue is false. The issue appears to be that ships will not fire on land facilities.

OMFG, ROTFL. That's what I said!

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

Show me in any database you choose (or one you wish to make up) an example whereby a ship fires TLAM-C at a ground target while on Transit mission.

I think that I've tried every target/weapon combination in existence and cannot get this to happen. I've armed ammo dumps and other facilities with all manner of missile and guns to inflate the aValue, yet the ships continue to sail past on their Transit missions. The ships will fire guns, SAMs, SSMs, and torpedoes on all other armed targets they run across, but no TLAM on the land targets. Of course, I could have missed something. Show me the solution.

What values do I need to use to get the results that you say are possible?

fb.asp?m=1843064

So, it's not specifically related to TLAM. It is a mission-related problem. The Transit mission doesn't allow units to fire on land targets. Thanks, once again, for proving what I said in the first place.

As I said before, the inability of the Transit mission to engage land targets has nothing to do with the aValue of the target and everything to do with the Transit mission. It has always been your contention that it was an aValue-related problem, not mine.

ORIGINAL: Shemar

Wrong. If the facilities had a threat value then any unit would fire on them upon detection, just as they would fire SAMs against an incoming aircraft or SSMs against detected ships.

fb.asp?m=1842902

Game set and match.

fb.asp?m=1842636

[Shemar]

Oh really. Let's see what my actual, not quoted out of context, not responding to meaningless ramblings, very first post was:
 

I don't know the exact internal workings but I would assume that the reason detected facilites are not attacked right away is that they have no threat value. If that is the case, simply removing that condition (as Russell intends to do) will bring us close to what was the behavior in 3.6.x.

 
And no Herman, spin it all you want but "Inability of AI to Launch TLAM strike" is not the same as "ships will not fire on land facilities". In fact the two point to completely different causes for the behavior, so one is misleading and borderline useless and the other gives a good starting point in identifying the problem. They may look the same to you, but that is simply your lack of understanding or software workings or proper troubleshooting procedures. Not to mention that mine is backed up by an example file while yours is backed up by nothing more than your usual mutterings about stopping progress and going back.
 
And this is priceless:
 

The ships will fire guns, SAMs, SSMs, and torpedoes on all other armed targets they run across, but no TLAM on the land targets.

 

OMFG, ROTFL. That's what I said!

 
Never once did you fail to qualify your description of the problem as being a TLAM problem and never once did you even consider that TLAMs may actually have nothing to do with it. In fact the possibility that it is all weapons against land facilitiesa and not just TLAMs was clearly stated by me on one more post that you failed to quote, before I even did any testing. So yeah, that's what you said... sure, enjoy.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Shemar

And this is priceless:

The ships will fire guns, SAMs, SSMs, and torpedoes on all other armed targets they run across, but no TLAM on the land targets.

OMFG, ROTFL. That's what I said!

Never once did you fail to qualify your description of the problem as being a TLAM problem and never once did you even consider that TLAMs may actually have nothing to do with it. In fact the possibility that it is all weapons against land facilitiesa and not just TLAMs was clearly stated by me on one more post that you failed to quote, before I even did any testing. So yeah, that's what you said... sure, enjoy.

Yup. I failed to say that TLAM, guns, missiles, rockets, bombs, slingshots, peashooters, etc. fail to fire when on the Transit mission.

It's a good thing that I already caught it here:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

Transit missions fire on all manner of other targets (ships, subs, aircraft) when the aValues are > 0. Show me how this can be done for TLAM vs. facilities.

fb.asp?m=1843118

Here's the money shot:

ORIGINAL: Shemar

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

Nope. Threat value is utterly irrelevant. No TLAM attacks against anything. Period. Unless the ship is on Ground Strike mission.

Wrong. If the facilities had a threat value then any unit would fire on them upon detection, just as they would fire SAMs against an incoming aircraft or SSMs against detected ships.

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

Shemar, starting another thread on the same subject is the same as continuing the other thread that I asked for you to focus back on the original topic. While you guys started a technical discussion, it took two posts to go back to a he-said-she-said discussion.

Both of you, this thread is locked and please do not continue this conversation anywhere else. We will find the answers to your questions with the next 3.9.4 beta.