Matrix Games Forums

Darren,

Are you talking real life tactics or Harpoon? In Harpoon AI (sorry 'computer controlled') subs immediately go to flank and change course when a Mk46 is fired at them by a surface ship.
When I make a scen I create helo 'formation' patrols, and behind them sprint-drift or random ASW-capable ships, and behind them the HVUs. When the whole group is on Transit, ASuW or Ground Strike mission (because thats their primary mission) then neither the helo's nor the DDs or FFs will fire on subs. You say that is any navies doctrine?

In my opinion all 'computer controlled' planes or ships carrying ASW weapons should fire them on unknown submerged contacts on any mission. The 'computer' already is at a severe disadvantage as it can only follow the mission that the designer programmed for it.

I bet you that YOU as a human player drop torps on 'computer controlled' subs whenever you encounter them espaecially in the vicinity of your ships. No reason why the AI (sorry computer) should not do the same, as it has been doing for many years untill this latest change.

Freek

ORIGINAL: Bucks

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Bucks,

What utter nonsense. A shipgroup on ASuW patrol (under 'computer control') should not attack subs penetrating its formation?
So basically with ANW it is now impossible for a shipgroup to carry out a Ground Strike or ASuW Patrol and defend itself against a submarine?
The changes being made are so ludicrous and basically make the game unplayable.

Nothing ludicrous about it. Your ASuW ship group has Helos? You assign them to my proposed changes and you have an ASW force component as part of your group. You're almost suggesting everything fires at everything all the time rather than quite specific force components being used to undertake differing roles within the overall mission.

Sure it is ludicrous. You have a ship on ASuW Area Mission patrol and it doesn't have helos. So, a sub shows up on the doorstep of the ship and instead of firing on it, it just keeps sailing on and eats a torpedo before the sub moves in on the centre of the formation and kills the rest of the force (who won't fire back, either).

ORIGINAL: Bucks

So far Herman they seem to only tell you, where exactly we're not sure. Since the dissenters here seem of limited numbers, encouraging these "people" to comment here or contact Russell and I may provide further evidence of the supposed complaints and/or issues. Then we'd seriously look at the issues involved.

Again I'll state there is NO AI (Artificial Intelligence) contained in the coding. Simply sets of conditions or trigger points that cause the computer controlled units to react a certain way. I've even had comments that the current AO (Artificial Opponent) is much more realistic and not the Napoleonic, "line up and unload" we've been dealing with. I guess you don't want to help, everything becomes a finger pointing session with you guys rather than helping the effort.

I haven't seen any of those comments. Guess they didn't happen, either. [8|]

When I use the term AI, everyone over the age of 10 knows EXACTLY what I'm talking about and that I'm not suggesting Skynet-level intelligence. Of course, everyone else is free to describe it any way they like, too. Calling it a "Pre-programmed artificially intuitive codified opponent" seems to make some folks think that they appear smarter and self-important, but your mileage may vary.

But I am helping. I'm letting everyone know just how abysmally the AI performs in ANW. Of course, some users may thing that having a cloud of ASW helos following an unknown sub target like the Pied Piper is indicative of an intelligent function and fun game, but I would bet that many others do not.

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Do you still use a rotary dial telephone by any chance?

I most certainly do. You can't beat solid technology. Now, if only ANW had as much functional stability as a rotary phone, there would be no problems. [:)]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Do you still use a rotary dial telephone by any chance?

I most certainly do. You can't beat solid technology. Now, if only ANW had as much functional stability as a rotary phone, there would be no problems. [:)]

I know you think that's funny, but you and you alone. Please place your head back up your anus and then the rest of us won't have to listen to you. To suggest you're a purile recalcitrant is hardly touching the surface, anyway back to attempting to unravel how you've made jammable binoculars...

Looks easy really and it's not the binoculars... It's the fact your jammers are sucking energy from the ether, rather than putting it out. Of course you'll blame documentation etc like you did with the AIP sub. How could I build them with no documentation and yet you were unable to? I mean face it, you built it, it didn't work and you blamed AGSI.

Much more to come.

Thanks

Darren

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Please place your head back up your anus and then the rest of us won't have to listen to you. To suggest you're a purile recalcitrant is hardly touching the surface, anyway back to attempting to unravel how you've made jammable binoculars...

Ah, back to the insults. We all know what happened the last time you tried this tact. No wonder the game is in its current state since anyone who points out that the Emperor has no clothes is immediately the target of personal attacks.

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

Ah, back to the insults. We all know what happened the last time you tried this tact. No wonder the game is in its current state since anyone who points out that the Emperor has no clothes is immediately the target of personal attacks.

Why? Because you asked for it.

Go on, run to Erik and tell him I called you names. You're what we call a "lagger" here in Australia, actually that's about the worst insult you can use against an Aussie. If I get banned again that's fine, I won't come back and you can have this all to yourself...

Anyone over 10 with a working knowledge of English knows I used the anatomical term and not something that could be contrused as an insult or expletive. The colloquial Australian English phrase would have been:

"He's got his head up his bum"

Usually used to describe someone who is ignorant of a situation or simply thinks he knows best regardless of the facts...

Until this simulation runs the way YOU want it, it's just never going to be right is it Mr Hum?

Darren Buckley

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Darren,

Are you talking real life tactics or Harpoon? In Harpoon AI (sorry 'computer controlled') subs immediately go to flank and change course when a Mk46 is fired at them by a surface ship.
When I make a scen I create helo 'formation' patrols, and behind them sprint-drift or random ASW-capable ships, and behind them the HVUs. When the whole group is on Transit, ASuW or Ground Strike mission (because thats their primary mission) then neither the helo's nor the DDs or FFs will fire on subs. You say that is any navies doctrine?

In my opinion all 'computer controlled' planes or ships carrying ASW weapons should fire them on unknown submerged contacts on any mission. The 'computer' already is at a severe disadvantage as it can only follow the mission that the designer programmed for it.

I bet you that YOU as a human player drop torps on 'computer controlled' subs whenever you encounter them espaecially in the vicinity of your ships. No reason why the AI (sorry computer) should not do the same, as it has been doing for many years untill this latest change.

Freek

Freek,

You described this as a "latest change", and I'll admit I have no idea how many upgrades have taken place since July 27th, 2007 but that's when this was added to the coding.

Yep almost two years down the track and now we have a problem with it? Sorry mate this should have been apparent to people well before this if the change was made 23 months ago...

I'll have Don chasing me because of this but here's the Mantis entry for the change:

ID: 0002159

Category: [H3 ANW - H3Cx] Simulation
Severity: minor
Reproducibility: always
Date Submitted: 07-27-07 02:04
Last Update: 08-19-07 22:41

Reporter: ddearing
View Status: public
Assigned To: ddearing
Priority: normal
Resolution: fixed
Platform
Status: resolved
OS:
Projection none
OS Version:
ETA: none
Fixed in Version: 3.8.1 B7

Summary: 0002159: Changed ASW Patrol missions to enaged unidentified submarines

Description: Due to the difficulty of getting an exact ID on quiet subs, ASW Patrol missions will now treat unidentified submarines within their area of interest as hostile.
Steps To Reproduce:
Additional Information:

Database ANWDB

Looks to me like it was included as far back as 3.8.1, so I find it strange that it is now an issue where we'd not had any issues with it until now.

So rather than argue about it, why don't we look at having it fixed? I mean if it's taken 23 months to show its head maybe something else has happened that's having an effect on the way unidentified subs are prosecuted. In actual fact we're simply back to the point where we needed to add this modified coding so lets collect some data and examples and help the poor guy (yes just Russell) doing the coding get it right. Of course "right" may not be what everyone thinks is the way it should work.

I have to ask if once the hostile sub has fired, do your units under attack still, "do nothing"? Also if these complaints are based on using the PDB, as part of the Development Team and an interested observer can we take a look at the values that are being used in that Database? It may simply be yet another case of the DB having nothing but "assumed" PCS and Passive sonar input values to work with, which may in themselves be incorrect. I believe all Herman does is copy a similar platform, rather than individually calculate each platform or weapon's cross section values. IMHO that's a recipe for most of the issues.

Another interesting point is attacking subs from the rear aspect, if the sub has no TAS and therefore the rear 90 degrees may in fact represent a "blind spot" where an attack will not cause the sub to go to flank and run, it didn't hear the incomming torp so why would it run from nothing?

Lastly the issue of real life operations. Your surface group is ordered to move to Point X, according to higher command, you have a friendly sub in support. Therefore to avoid sinking your own sub, you're hoping he takes care of the bad guys. What happens when the bad guys take care of your mates in the sub first and you are operating unaware of this point? You detect a sub and simply fire on it? getting interesting with all of the possibilities now isn't it?

Cheers

Darren

ORIGINAL: Bucks

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Darren,

Are you talking real life tactics or Harpoon? In Harpoon AI (sorry 'computer controlled') subs immediately go to flank and change course when a Mk46 is fired at them by a surface ship.
When I make a scen I create helo 'formation' patrols, and behind them sprint-drift or random ASW-capable ships, and behind them the HVUs. When the whole group is on Transit, ASuW or Ground Strike mission (because thats their primary mission) then neither the helo's nor the DDs or FFs will fire on subs. You say that is any navies doctrine?

In my opinion all 'computer controlled' planes or ships carrying ASW weapons should fire them on unknown submerged contacts on any mission. The 'computer' already is at a severe disadvantage as it can only follow the mission that the designer programmed for it.

I bet you that YOU as a human player drop torps on 'computer controlled' subs whenever you encounter them espaecially in the vicinity of your ships. No reason why the AI (sorry computer) should not do the same, as it has been doing for many years untill this latest change.

Freek

Freek,

You described this as a "latest change", and I'll admit I have no idea how many upgrades have taken place since July 27th, 2007 but that's when this was added to the coding.

Yep almost two years down the track and now we have a problem with it? Sorry mate this should have been apparent to people well before this if the change was made 23 months ago...

Here's the Synopsis:
[ol][*]This atrocious behaviour was present when the game was released June 14, 2006.

[*]A lukewarm half-measure was implemented with Patch 3.9.0 March 25, 2008.
AI units on ASW mission were permitted to fire. All other units remain impotent and unable to defend themselves against submarines.

[*]This abominable behaviour persists to this day, June 8, 2009.
Quiet submarines remain virtually invulnerable when attacking AI units.[/ol]


http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-05-29/

Bucks,

By all means lets get it fixed. I don't profess to know the root-cause, I'm only a scen designer and have never yet opened a DB editor.

The problem affects all quiet subs, usually as long as they creep they are not attacked even when perfectly localised (I checked saved games - plural - for that). sometimes when they speed up and always when they fire then the AI/computer player fires back. I think its a clear case of classification hostile being needed before the AI/computer player (can I shorten this to AI please?) fires.
Hermans timeline is correct (and so is his cartoon!).

The fact that it is taking 23 month, I would say is not my problem; I've been discussing other major issues with Rusty for a long time too.

Lets get it fixed!

I continue to believe that the AI should fire on all unknown sub contacts. If there is a friendly sub out there, then it is the job of the designer (not AI) to prevent blue on blue conflict by carefully routing groups around friendly sub patrols. I've been doing that for 5 years and it mirrors good practice in RL.

Freek

Howdy,

First, a warning for Darren and Herman (in alphabetical order). In this thread and others, things are getting a bit testy and insults given. Please calm down and keep it to the issues.

Second, please keep some perspective. This video game covers a very complex subject and there is plenty of room for opposing opinions. Periodically an issue like this one pops up and people adopt the pose that the sky is falling. Maybe this was necessary in the past for an issue to get developer attention but I'm trying to show that it is no longer the loudest squeaking wheel that gets the attention. Each issue will be judged on its own merit and not the hysterics that follow.

Third, I believe not attacking unknown subsurface contacts does not make much sense for the Artificial Officer (AO). However, allowing room for other opinions is more important than choosing a winner. I'm going to make this configurable on a per-mission basis and that includes being able to configure the default behavior.

Finally, I'd like to thank everyone for continuing to bring these issues to the forums. I'm not going to offer a hundred small course corrections but I will expand the capabilities of the game. I can't do that without your input.

Thanks again,

Subs not getting engaged by the AI is a game-killer.  In game terms, the "sky has fallen" due to this and other issues of the same severity that makes ANW unplayable.

The List of Known ANW Issues has already been posted. 

I believe that the proverbial ball is in your court, now.