Question about AI's use of radar

[DWReese]

First, there is nothing wrong with the game. The scenario is the same for everyone, so that is not the issue.

I played the South China Clash, but it could really be any scenario. At one point a Chinese TF is observed by a US UAV. The Chinese TF, by the orders of the scenario designer, has its radars off. (That's understandable.) But, when the TF learns of the patrolling UAV, it lights up it FC radar and shoots a SAM its way. The SAM destroys the UAV.

The US side also had a 4-plane group of Hornets armed with HARMS in the area, and another 4-plane group of Hornets, armed with SLAMERs. The US group fires all of its HARMs at the lone Chinese ship that had been radiating. Again, everything is fine. The Chinese TF is strong and it starts shooting SAMs at the HARMs. The US side then launches all of its SLAMERs at the TF. The Chinese 52-C has a ton of missiles and easily knocks out all of the HARMs, and some of the SLAMERs. But, the designer had it planned that the missiles would enter from various courses, so that they don't all arrive at the same time.

Here is the question: After shooting down all of the HARMs, and all of the SLAMERs that the Chinese TF could see, the TF then turns off its radars almost instantly. So, it never sees the rest of the SLAMERs heading toward the TF. The TF is completely obliterated because all of its radars are off when the SLAMERs arrive.

So, is the a designer issue where it was planned to return to a no emissions status? If so, that seems kind of dumb. The TF was just attacked, so the US obviously knows that the TF is there, so why turn off your radars?

Or, is this an AI situation that realizes that the TF was in Emcon B (no emissions) before the attack, and it is going to return to that status because the threat is over. (BTW, the SLAMERS hit at two minutes, at the most, after the HARMs were destroyed.)

The reason that I ask, is if this is how the AI handles this situation, then I have to do something, or set something differently than it is currently set in order to make it work better with my scenarios. Turning off your radars immediately after an attack is unrealistic.

Any insight that you can provide as to how the AI or the scenario is designed to cause this would be appreciated.

Doug

[Gunner98]

Doug

I think you're portraying a tactical dilemma that the TF (any TF) has. The longer the ships are emitting in this sort of environment, the longer they are vulnerable. But if they shut down, any fix on them from the time they had their radars on will degrade over time, perhaps minutes or tens of minutes. Quandary for TF Commander:

Do I leave my radars on and stand ready to repel all comers?
Do I immediately turn everything off and have a short time of vulnerability?

The real solution to the defenders problem here is mutual support - have another sensor protecting the TF that does not at the same time give away the game.

While I agree that the game handles this situation somewhat arbitrarily, you can quite easily design the scenario to compensate. If there is an on-bard EW helo, you can have an accompanying patrol that only emits when on station and you can also have it move to its station at low altitude to avoid giving away the TFs position. Failing that a land based asset can do a similar job.

On the other hand, if the TF is recklessly exposed and isolated, the cost of not being supported is measured in how quickly it will die. Unless of course it is powerful enough to go in with all emitters on and swat away any attackers.

B

[DWReese]

Hi Gunner,

Thanks for the response.

In this scenario (and others like it), the TF is isolated. There is no air support of any kind in the immediate vicinity. So, the situation boils down to the TF seeing the incoming missiles, eliminating THOSE missiles, and then what takes place afterward. Is the next portion of the TF's actions controlled by artificial intelligence, or is it simply relying on its original orders of operating with its Doctrine in Emcon B, no emissions? What made it revert back to no emissions is really what I am after? And, what can I do, given the same set of circumstances (no air assets)to keep it from happening in the future? Is there something that tells a TF to keep radiating for 5 minutes, or so, AFTER an attack? I don't think that LUA could do that, so I would think that the AI is what is telling the TF to revert back to its original Doctrine.

In any case, I know that the game is not absolutely perfect, and things could happen like this, but it seems that it should have kept its radars on a little longer than 30 seconds to a minute before determining that the threat is over.

I'd love to hear more from you (and others) about this.

Thanks in advance.

Doug

[Gunner98]

Doug

I believe that this is standard AI behavior when you're doctrine is set to Passive only (EMCON B)

I'm away from my computer at the moment but I think you can set things up to do as you wish with a combo of Lua and standard events:

-Set a trigger probably detection of the missiles
-Set a Lua action to turn radars and OECM on
-Set a timer in a non-player side. Simply have a marker teleport into a box, have a trigger for 'Unit (marker) remain in box XXX time'
-use the Time trigger on the non-player side to launch another Lua event that turns everything off when you want it.

Some of the Lua Wizards on the forum will probably be able to design a much slicker way of doing this, as described it does have limitations.

Just a quick thought, will chew on this a bit more.

B

[DWReese]

Gunner,

Thanks again for responding.

So, at the present time, the AI's behavior will return to whatever is was (EMCON B in this case) as soon as the threat is believed to be over. This is the explanation for what happened in my particular scenario.

Your LUA solution sounds like something that should somehow, eventually anyway, be incorporated into the AI, wouldn't you think?

But, at the present time, I think that your LUA solution is a great work-around, but it is definitely above my pay-grade as far as making this actually happen via LUA. I am, however, somewhat LUA-challenged. I am very good at being able to look at an EXISTING LUA script, and then applying it to my own situation, so if someone else reading this could write a real actual script as an example, I could easily apply it to my scenarios.

In the meantime, perhaps the game designers could make this aspect of action part of the AI the next time that that is updated.

Thanks.

Doug

[Peter66]

It's an interesting discussion. Here's what I do with my TF:

All aircraft fly at 1000ft to their patrol/mission(s).

Under normal circumstances I have aircraft emit only on station. In combat however, they are all off. As I use a modern TF and the recent addition of the F-35, I favor that aircraft. However before the F-35 was introduced to my TF I got away with E-2's and MH-60's operating hundred to hundreds of miles away. This allowed me to cover large areas without giving away my actual position. I also send lighter more agile ships ahead of the TF, especially if they have good sensors in order detect in a timely manner. This allows to either form an engagement plan, or more commonly simply re-route the course.

If however I'm involved in a surprise attack I choose to emit radars and sonars. This is because I have enough defensive firepower to repel most attacks while scrambling other assets for combat. This would change however if I did not have that stance. One day I had a lone ship 180nm front of the TF. It's helicopter came under attack so I had it RTB. Turned all sensors off and flank speed back towards the safety of the TF. Done in a timely manner this saved the ship.

As for the AI, I would suggest doing Gunners method first. The event editor is extremely easy to use. On the Command Lua documentation you can copy/paste and check with one unit that it works. Then edit one bit of the code at a time. Soon you'll be fiddling with all the commands trying to get new things working!

Good luck

[Gunner98]

Doug

As Peter66 says this one is fairly basic and is well documented here: http://commandlua.github.io/#Functions

Here's a step by step:
Set a trigger - detecting the incoming missiles is a good one, or have relative RPs around the TF (probably on the non player side) and when a specific missile enters that box
Actions on that trigger are to:
-Start the timer: teleport action for a marker into a box on a non-player side (all basic event stuff, no lua)
-Turn the Radars ON: Lua - ScenEdit_SetEMCON('Group', 'Your TG Name', 'Radar=Active;OECM=Active')

Set another trigger - unit remains in area (your marker in the area defined by the box on the non player side) for say 20 min or whatever
Action on this trigger are:
-Turn the Radars OFF: Lua - ScenEdit_SetEMCON('Group', 'Your TG Name', 'Radar=Passive;OECM=Passive')
-Turn the timer off (so you can use this multiple times) simply teleport the marker out of the timer box into another box for holding

By making it repeatable, which is the part I have not tested BTW, the marker will teleport into the box every time the initial trigger fires - but the timer may already be in the box so should not change the initial timing. The problem with this is that if the attack lasts for 19 min the second trigger will fire at 20 min only minute after the last missile is detected and the normal AI behaviour will kick in so you don't get the duration of Active emissions your looking for.

Like I mentioned the Lua Wizards will have a much slicker way of doing this but I usually opt for basic events whenever possible and augment with Lua for specific things as opposed to constructing the entire event in Lua.

B

[DWReese]

Gunner,

Thanks for the explanation. I understand everything, EXCEPT (and I have never really looked into) MARKERS. I see the term used often, but I don't know what it actually does. Can you briefly explain what that does?

One last thing that I have noticed is that when a TF is on the move, and it changes direction, I see some reference points that actually start moving on the map along with the relative position of the TF. I've never known reference points to move before, but they do know. I haven't really looked into this, but it would appear that they are perhaps connected to markers. Is that right?

Thanks again.

Doug

[Gunner98]

Doug

Two different things.

Markers are simply generic units that you can insert, you could use anything really but there are several specific markers

You can make any reference point relative to any unit or group. They are either fixed meaning they always stay in the same place relative to the unit or rotating meaning that they stay oriented with the unit. This functionality has been available since the game was released and is how patrol missions remain with a carrier group or ASW patrols with its ship etc. Very common. You can get very creative with relative RPs however and use them as triggers, hide them from players and generally do all sorts of tricky stuff.

B

[DWReese]

Gunner,

Thanks again.

I don't remember any floating reference points with Harpoon, so I guess that I never really tried to learn anything about them since they didn't really affect me with what I was doing. I will start looking into them and learn a few things. Thanks again for the preliminary info.

Doug

[thewood1]

They were in Harpoon in a different form. In the formation editor in Harpoon, you set stations relative to a unit or a bearing. In Command, they are disconnected from the formation editor so you can use them for any type of unit and position. That is why the concept of reference points is a very smart way of addressing formations and areas.

I think your biggest issue is using your play in Harpoon as a reference. If that's how your playing the game, you are missing a lot. Can I suggest you read the documentation on reference points? I think that would explain a lot. Manual, FAQs, addendums, and the warfaresim articles.

[DWReese]

Thanks for your input.

I was using Harpoon as a point of reference regarding my concept of what was initially "expected." Face it, after playing Harpoon since its inception, you kind of have an idea of how things generally work with CMANO. It certainly gives you a heads start on others who have never played CMANO before.

I realize now, after reading all of the documentation, how moving reference points work. While I have played with CMANO since its inception, most of my play has been on a user created scenario which involved mostly air strikes. Any TGs that I ever dealt with were rather small in nature, especially using the early scenarios (before LUA), so these options either weren't used, or they weren't even important to the scenario. Even in the scenario that I was asking about the bearing (whether relative or fixed) wouldn't be critical to anything. It would have worked the exact same either way. So, in my opinion, you don't really have to know too much about relative (or fixed) positions within the TG to enhance game play; at least not mine with most of the scenarios. Perhaps, as I work my way through the scenarios, it will become more vital to have that option, but I haven't seen it as of yet.

One more thing that I do have a question about, really it's a follow up question for Gunner (perhaps for you, too, if you are knowledgeable enough): If the AI initially turns on the radar when the missiles are coming, and then turns it off after it perceives the attack is over, wouldn't those orders be in conflict with the LUA command? The EMCON status is initially B, so there are no transmissions. The missiles are observed, by whatever means, and the radar turns on and the SAMs defeat the incoming missiles that are seen. If we use the LUA command, as Gunner suggested, to tell the TG to leave the radars on for a period of time, wouldn't the AI, at some point. revert back to turning them off because that's what it is designed to do? If so, when would that happen? It looks like the orders would be in conflict with one another, unless the AI is being told to stand down because the LUA orders supersede the AI. And, if that happens, exactly when does the AI kick back in? What if AI needs to change the direction of the TG, or perform some other task? Would that cause an overhaul of the AI that could result in the radars being turned off, even if the timer that Gunner had mentioned hadn't expired as of yet? It just seems as if we are trying to jury-rig some orders which could potentially interfere with the AI. Just some thoughts.

Doug

[Gunner98]

The Lua command to turn radars on supersedes the AI impulse to turn them off, up until the timer turns them off and then the AI resumes its defensive tactic of turning them on long enough to defeat an attack.

The terms your using of EMCON B (A & C) are dependent on actual national doctrine for a certain time period and not specific to the game. In the game there are two settings - active or passive; and three options - radar, sonar or OECM. Your interpretation of what EMCON B means is not universal.

Am not following on your second question, the EMCON status you set remains in play for the duration of the timer you set. Yes this is a jury-rig, thought that was what you were looking for?

B

[thewood1]

"I was using Harpoon as a point of reference regarding my concept of what was initially "expected." Face it, after playing Harpoon since its inception, you kind of have an idea of how things generally work with CMANO. It certainly gives you a heads start on others who have never played CMANO before."

I played various versions of Harpoon for many years and Command is only superficially like Harpoon at all. It looks like it from a first glance at the map, with the map and unit icons, but it is completely different from there on. I suspect that is why you have issues with certain aspects of the game.

For example, reference points. RPs are a fundamental part of the game and they are a very big difference from Harpoon in how you play it. If you aren't using reference points, its hard to get units, especially AI units, to do what you intend. If you want to enjoy Command, and be successful with it, you need to stop using Harpoon as the benchmark. Harpoon did some things well, but also did a number of things not well. Many times those were compensated for by doing weird things with scenario building or a lot of manual intervention. In Command, that is compensated for with lua and a very strong event editor.

A great example is in the first year of Command's release. A couple people came in making demands about fixing the formation editor. It was pointed out multiple times that the Command formation editor is basic for a reason. You have reference points, missions, and events that make building a formation much more complete and realistic. These people thought they wanted a rebuild of Harpoon. The devs did add a few things to appease Harpoon players, but, in the end, formations should be built with reference points, missions, and ROEs and not need a special formation editor. And no, you can't just come in and plop a ship into a formation and have it go about its business. It will work to some extent and will function similar to Harpoon, but it won't be very realistic. Typical Harpoon players won't notice because that's how they always lived with it. But Command players should be using ROE options, WRA, withdrawal options, mission options, etc. to squeeze as much as they can out of the game and minimize micro-managing to get a plausible result.

Harpoon was built for the lowest common denominator as a player. It required some pretty good Harpoon skill to get the game to do a lot of things. Command gives you a lot more flexibility and options that Harpoon never even considered. That includes RPs, lua, event types, mission types and options, detailed ROEs, etc.

[DWReese]

Gunner,

That is exactly what I was looking for. I have been attempting to get it going using your method. I believe that it will work without a problem.

The second part primarily dealt with what may happen if conflicting orders (commands) were given, and how would the AI respond to it. In theory, it appears that your method is perfect. Once I get it going, I'll have to test it to make sure that there's not a hidden glitch that we didn't forsee.

Thanks for your help, Gunner.

Doug

[DWReese]

Either you are obsessed with the word "Harpoon", or you enjoy cherry-picking words out of a post that you want to expound on. Either way, it's an odd form of behavior.

I don't understand why are you "harping" on Harpoon? My statement about Harpoon merely established a point of reference as to why I expected CMANO to act in a certain way. It was a preconceived notion which was based on years of game play using Harpoon. Nothing more, nothing less. That was my only mention of Harpoon.

You, however, are the one who apparently has some kind of agenda. It is almost as if you are on some kind of Quixotian crusade to make this into something that it isn't. Seriously, Harpoon needs no further discussion. It is long gone. It's not worth talking about, much less you writing five paragraphs about. Do you have some kind of bizarre obsession that kicks in when the word "Harpoon" is mentioned by a poster? Are you the unofficial Harpoon police, or something? If so, perhaps that would explain your call-to-arms. If not, well.......

In the future, if you don't mind, I'd prefer to communicate with others on the forum other than you, as I see nothing productive coming from your posts.

Doug

[thewood1]

You are the one who brought up Harpoon, not me. You have mentioned a few times in various threads, if I remember correctly. My point is you never even knew about a critical feature of the game and you mentioned it in the same breath as Harpoon. If you never even knew what RPs were and you are trying to build a scenario, there is something wrong. I am just pointing out that using Harpoon as a reference really makes it harder to understand some of the key features of Command. Feel free to ignore. Its just advice.

[kevinkins]

[/quote]

Face it, after playing Harpoon since its inception, you kind of have an idea of how things generally work with CMANO. It certainly gives you a heads start on others who have never played CMANO before.

You can say that again. I started with Command a year ago with zero experience with Harpoon or anything like it. 40 years of ground warfare. After playing everyday for a year I am still a novice rookie. If it were not for this forum, and interactions with like minded people, players like myself would give up after a month.

Thank you to Gunner98 et. al.

Kevin

[thewood1]

I agree on naval games in general. But I still think that former Harpoon players are in many ways at a disadvantage for the exact reasons pointed out above. It superficially looks like Harpoon, I have seen too many players completely skip manuals and tutorials. They miss big parts of what makes Command, Command because they think they know it already.

A good friend of mine played Harpoon for years after I gave up on it. After he bought Command on my recommendation, he came to me bitching about not being able to edit the database. He wanted add new radar to a russian ship I think. I pointed out you can do that in Command, in many ways easier than in Harpoon. He had never even picked up the manual and had spent half a Saturday looking for the dbeditor program. btw, he also was incredibly frustrated with the mission builder and event editor. Again, a superficial resemblance to Harpoon, but much more versatile and complicated. I finally convinced him to treat it like a brand new game and forget playing it like you play Harpoon.

[DWReese]

Gunner,

Can you explain the purpose of the marker in the Korean Missile Crisis scenario? I have gone over it for an extremely long period of time, and I don't understand its purpose. It appears to be linked to postures, but I'm not sure. The marker is teleported in when the Nodong is destroyed, thus making Russia and the US friendly. A second marker exists for the Sinpo, as well. Why is this deployment necessary?

Doug