Setting the AI to fire at NEZ - a massive disadvantage

[SchDerGrosse]

I have only checked a few maps in the editor as I wanted to avoid spoilers regarding the force composition/allocation in the different scenarios, but as far as I see, all enemy planes are now set to fire their missiles at the given weapon's NEZ range.

I dont think this is a particulary good decision because firing from NEZ is a massive overkill as one can achieve good results from firing WRA 25%-35% distances (or even more in case of certain weapon systems).

(see Tcao's excellent chart here: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/down ... id=1167840)

This means that the AI is practically gimped by forcing it to shoot from point blank, while the player can experiment with firing from much longer ranges.

Take the Pl-12, the workhorse of the Chinese air force for example. This missile used to be semi competitive with its pre-patch 50 nm range. Now it has a NEZ range of about 3.4 nms, resulting in the AI losing each and every fight if the player is willing to engage further than their own missiles' NEZ range, regardless of the weapon used.

Really takes away from the enjoyment.

[thewood1]

Didn't we already have this discussion in one of your threads on the exact same topic?

As I said in that thread, I'm not seeing a massive change in scenario outcomes with the change. I think its much better than the default fire at max range. I have yet to play a scenario, pre-tiny, where the designer made significant adjustments to WRA on fighters and SAMs. I play a lot of scenarios and find the NEZ changes much better than default long-range shots.

[SchDerGrosse]

Didn't we already have this discussion in one of your threads on the exact same topic?

Our discussion was about whether the new update broke scenario balance or not, in this topic I am merely suggesting that the AI can be made more competitive with letting it fire from longer (not max) ranges.

As I said in that thread, I'm not seeing a massive change in scenario outcomes with the change. I think its much better than the default fire at max range. I have yet to play a scenario, pre-tiny, where the designer made significant adjustments to WRA on fighters and SAMs.

I totally agree that the default "fire from max range is" is no longer a viable option. But I think the devs chose the overly cautious route by lettting the AI to only fire from NEZ.

As you can see from the table presented by Tcao, theres a LOT of viable "wiggle room" between NEZ and max range. An option that the player can and will exploit, while the AI is stuck with the guaranteed point blank kill at NEZ.

I play a lot of scenarios and find the NEZ changes much better than default long-range shots.

I havent tested the new system that much. Whats your expereince? Cause at first glance it seems to me that if I am willing to fiddle with the WRA (lets say between 25 and 40%) and accept that I dont always hit my target, I can ALWAYS keep the enemy at arms length and if I have enough ordenance allocated to me I will win each and every air to air engagement by simply outranging the AI.

I might be wrong, thats why I am asking whether my assessment is correct.

[SchDerGrosse]

This is what I am talking about.

Take a look at this simple scenario.

We have 3 J-10s attacking F-16s. One J-10 is set to fire at NEZ, one is 25% WRA (12nm) and the last one is set to fire at 15 nm.

The result:
- the NEZ J-10 fires at around 3,4 nm and hits;
- the 25% WRA J-10 fires at 12 nm and hits;
- the 15 nm J-10 fires at (you guessed it) 15 nm and hits.

This is but a single test, cabable to prove nothing, but it is a good indicator that the AI can be made much more competetive if the scenario designers actually experimented with WRA settings rather just flicking everything to NEZ.

[thewood1]

My experience, as I already stated several time, including this thread, is the scenarios I have played have shown almost no difference. In fact, I have found them a little more challenging because the AI no longer fires off all of its missiles wastefully.

I actually listed a bunch of scenarios I played in one of the other threads. I'm probably up over 50 scenarios and I look specifically for that issue. Nothing noted.

[SchDerGrosse]

Do take a look at the scenario I made. Takes you like 5 minutes.

If I let the AI fire at NEZ, those PL-12s will have an abysmal range of 3,4 nms.

If I tweak the WRA settings I can have a missile that is consistently capable of hitting targets at 12 or even 15 nms.

Dont tell me that doesnt make a difference.

At NEZ range the AI will be at a serious disadvantage. Because I, the player wont be firing from NEZ, I will take my chances and take shots from WRA 25-35% range. This means that I might waste a few missiles, but the computer cant touch my stuff.

[thewood1]

Anyone can come up with a contrived scenario that makes any feature look broken. Show me in a real and fully developed scenario where the NEZ approach breaks existing/legacy scenarios. If you are in CMO just to have a couple fighters go against a couple other fighters and that's it, you're in the wrong game.

[thewood1]

I would also like to point out that some players become very myopic in this specific issue. I see a lot of testing on 4th and 5th gen against 4th and 5th gen fighters and some of the most modern weapons. What about against gen 1-3 fighters, bombers, recon, transport? What about with an AIM-9B, an AA-2, an AIM-7E? What about years from 1948 to 2005? Do you want all of those thousands of combinations to have tailored WRA? What about 1 on 2, 2 on 6, etc. thrown into the mix? Now you might have tens of thousands of combinations. You can throw in closing speeds and altitude along with orientation.

[SchDerGrosse]

Anyone can come up with a contrived scenario that makes any feature look broken. Show me in a real and fully developed scenario where the NEZ approach breaks existing/legacy scenarios. If you are in CMO just to have a couple fighters go against a couple other fighters and that's it, you're in the wrong game.

I set up a mission and proved that with some tweaking, scenario designers could make the AI much more dangerous to the player. Whos talking about scenarios being broken? Noone.

As for a more complex approach, take the Chains of War campaign for example. The majority of the A-A missiles used by the Chinese in those scenarios is the PL-12. Back in the day the PL-12 was semi-competitive with its 50nm range. Most of the time I was able to outrange it, but some careless unit placement or oversight from the player or the enemy attacking en masse could result in losses.

Now that the AI is only firing from point blank (i.e. from around 3,4 nms) I highly doubt that anything rocking the PL-12 poses any threat in that campaign.

[thewood1]

And THAT is exactly my point...scenario designers. Its their responsibility to use that testing data. Buts not just about unit on unit. Its whats the objective of the units. Its been talked about ad nauseum. Are they going for attrition, protecting a local AWACS, escorting transports, escorting bombers, etc. The 15-20% applies to head on peer forces. But is the objective to kill, force back, force deviation, slow down, etc.? Is the 15-20% a compromise for the AI? Or is it designed for a very specific action. Does it only apply in certain parameters like I listed? Are you saying in your test that its for all AI WRAs? Or is it only for a contrived scenario for head on peer forces?

[DaveFromCTX]

Need more threads/ discussions like this. Sometimes this site feels dead for hours at a time. Love the passion.

[thewood1]

Has anyone run tests on NEZ for maneuvering large bombers? Transport? AWACS? Is it still 20%? I assume longer? But is it full range? Is it 80% Or does the NEZ cover it? If you are getting better kill rations at 20% for AAM in 4/5 gen vs 4/5 gen, the question should not be about very specific scenarios aren't working, but might be that assumptions in the NEZ calc aren't correct. I don't know. What I do suspect is we are splitting hairs and trying to focus on one VERY specific and contrived scenario that has little context to the full game will cause more problems than it solves. On new scenarios, its up to the scenario designer to pick the right doctrine for AI and missions. In legacy scenarios, its either long range or DLZ shots or NEZ. Otherwise you can't account for all the possible situations and engagements.

I personally think that too many people focus on ultra-modern US-EU focused scenarios and try to drive the devs' focus on that. And that leads to decisions that end up focusing dev efforts on that very narrow slice of the game. This is an extreme version of that. A great example of that is the freak out over AIM-120 ranges and the shock that the Russians just might possibly have had superior capabilities.

[thewood1]

Need more threads/ discussions like this. Sometimes this site feels dead for hours at a time. Love the passion.

Don't encourage us.

[blu3s]

Yes, all scenario I made, I choose carefully the WRA for simulate the doctrine that suits each side. There was a poll where the devs ask the default setting and NEZ was the winner. So is more a scen design that any other thing.

[thewood1]

I think part of the issue is that scenarios older than 5-6 years didn't even have the option for WRA. It was all long-ranged shots. And it was easy to trick an AI opponent into blowing through large amounts of AAMs and SAMs. Now in a lot of scenarios, the AI fighters have a slightly better fighting chance.

[morphin]

Maybe the LUA Script posted here is one part of a solution to an better WRA:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4#p5075334

What do you think?
Andy

[blu3s]

Hi, this is a good script when you was looking for:

and the WRAs of all BVR weapons on all sides will be set to a value that takes into account the enemy's most dangerous AA weapon

And could do the trick in many scenarios, in some it will be better than default NEZ and others don't.

Each scenario, each operation and each mission is a world that will need specific rules. It is true that the vast majority of scenarios have assigned WRA's by default, before with the maximum range and now with NEZ. In my opinion it is better NEZ than maximum range with these new mechanics but in a more general way a default WRA between 25% and 50% for AMRAAMs would have been better. It must be emphasized to the creators of the scenarios to assign their WRA's appropriately.

Anyway if someone has an old scenario in which you want to change these values and you are a little lost you can write me by PM and I will be happy to help you.

[Dimitris]

We asked the community, at the time shortly before Tiny's release, which setting they preferred. The community overwhelmingly opted for NEZ by default.

[blu3s]

There was a poll where the devs ask the default setting and NEZ was the winner. So is more a scen design that any other thing.

Yes, I said there, nothing to object about this, although I don't know if democracy in this case was very convenient

[BDukes]

If you know the baseline setting you can always ride the line against the AI. This includes the democratically elected setting I think designers varying the AI settings a bit could help. Just don't go to the edges of the bell curve.

I'll be configuring and maintaining my own scenarios. This solves lots of problems it seems.

M