Impact of strike logic (ANW 393)

Post bug reports, technical support request and store or installation issue reports here.

Moderator: Harpoon 3

User avatar
FreekS
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 7:50 pm

Impact of strike logic (ANW 393)

Post by FreekS »

Hi all,

This is one of what I would call 'high priority' 'undesired' behaviour by the AI.

I built a new scen in which missions have been programmed for the AI to perform a air strike from a US Carrier on a Russian Battlecruiser (Petr Vellikiy). PlayersDB was used and the scen was built in 3.6 SE.

I played 3 groups of 4 F/A-18E Super Hornets on three separate Specific Strike missions. The planes had mixed HARM/harpoon loadouts.
I usually use three missions set to launch at the same time to prevent the planes taking off the three groups of 4 with 12 minutes in between groups.
In 3.6 all 3 strike missions would launch at the same time and all 12 planes would arrive in Harm or Harpoon range at the same time.

Behaviour in 3.9.3:
One mission (4 F/A-18s) launch, fly to the target, fire their missiles, sometimes score some hits but the SAM defences get most.
Then when the first attack is over the next group launches. And when that attack is over the third mission launches. So ANW actually delays two missions to await outcome of the first mission, assuming (I guess) the first mission will sink the cruiser.

Result is an easy ride for the defences, and the 12 planes have no chance to seriously damage the battlecruiser.
In 3.6, the planes would all launch at the same time and launch missiles at the same time, doing a lot more damage.

Discussion
Obviously I'm aware this is a new 'feature' in ANW. However I question the quality of the implementation of the feature. I assume ANW does some sort of calculation to determine that only 4 hornets have enough Damagepoints on board (including gun!) to sink the cruiser. I would like to know if the cruisers defenses, let alone the defenses of any escorts (in this case there were none) are taken into account.
I'd also like to know if the 'Focused Strike' button in the ANW SE would make all planes launch at the same time (I suspect not as its purpose is to prevent the strikers firing on other targets than their mission dictates)

My suggestion would be twofold:
1. This 'feature' in my opinion is redundant as the Scen designer should do a calculation how many planes to assign to a strike mission. When I write a scen I would take into account the SAM defenses and the likelihood of CAP coverage to be overcome.
2. If in spite of the above the 'feature' has value to some designers, then could the parameters to determine the size of the actual strike package that launches be adjusted to have a more realistic chance of success of the strike.

Respectfully,

Freek

User avatar
hermanhum
Posts: 2209
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:48 am
Contact:

Problem

Post by hermanhum »

This catastrophic behaviour has already been reported and documented 01 Oct 2006, 03:55
All strikers fail to launch

All aircraft assigned to a strike mission fail to launch.
Since it hasn't been fixed in over two years, it looks like yet another case of "User Priority" not equating to "AGSI Priority". [:(]
rsharp@advancedgamin
Posts: 430
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:39 am
Contact:

RE: Problem

Post by rsharp@advancedgamin »

FreekS,

Thanks for bringing this back into the spotlight. I'll take a look at it.

Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon
Anonymous

RE: Problem

Post by Anonymous »

Hello,
ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

FreekS,

Thanks for bringing this back into the spotlight. I'll take a look at it.


Freek is right, this is an annoying behaviour, typically breaking classical Cold War scens with multiregimental Backfire raids.

It was IMO reported long ago by Ragnar Emsoy in his list as a main ANW issue; a game stopping problem regarding the type of scens described above.

High time to resolve it.

Regards,
Ralf
User avatar
hermanhum
Posts: 2209
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:48 am
Contact:

Problem

Post by hermanhum »

ORIGINAL: koelbach

It was IMO reported long ago by Ragnar Emsoy in his list as a main ANW issue; a game stopping problem regarding the type of scens described above.
This problem was first reported 01 Oct 2006, 03:55 on GameSquad.

Even though Ragnar's list incorporates most of the GameSquad findings, it did not even appear until December 20, 2006 and does not make any mention of this particular problem.
User avatar
FreekS
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 7:50 pm

RE: Problem

Post by FreekS »

OK, OK, I do not claim ownership of this bug ! [:)] I'm just another victim of it and I reported it again because this was such a simple example of how the AI chooses the worst attack logic. In other scens with multiregiment Tu22 attacks (such as Pacific Recon) it also appeared but to a far lesser extent (maybe because that attack was at a US CVBG). Thanks Ralf for support! Freek
User avatar
hermanhum
Posts: 2209
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:48 am
Contact:

Problem

Post by hermanhum »

ORIGINAL: FreekS

I'm just another victim of it and I reported it again because this was such a simple example of how the AI chooses the worst attack logic. In other scens with multiregiment Tu22 attacks (such as Pacific Recon) it also appeared but to a far lesser extent (maybe because that attack was at a US CVBG).
I find that the really odd thing about this behaviour is there doesn't seem to be any "rule". Some strikes will launch in their entirety while others seem to suffer from this problem. The logic does seem perplexing. [:(]
User avatar
FreekS
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 7:50 pm

RE: Problem

Post by FreekS »

Exactly, and thats why, while I'm certain it works OK in some situations, the fundamental choice should be to trust the Scenario Designer to get design strike packages right (taking into account SAM, CAP, target DP etc) and for the ANW logic to not then try to interfere.
 
I believe all designers spend a lot of time setting up strike missions and testing that they've assigned just enough to kill the target.
 
The interesting thing with this 'feature' is that while it may look like the AI is being more economical with strikers; in reality, the planes placed on missions by the designer that do not take off because of this 'feature' are not going to be doing anything else during the duration of the scen! I.e. they are wasted anyway, better for them to just execute their mission! I really see no benefit.
 
Also, there are good to place a larger number of strikers on a mission than necessary to kill the target; for example:
TARCAP: As there is no good way for a Air Patrol mission to be set so its fighters accompany a strike (and land once the strike is over), then I frequently use some strikers with mixed loadout (say AMRAAM and Harpoon), so the strike package has self defense capacity against CAP.
 
So I'd be interested in the logic for including this 'feature', and my vote would be to eliminate it altogether.
 
Freek 
rsharp@advancedgamin
Posts: 430
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:39 am
Contact:

RE: Problem

Post by rsharp@advancedgamin »

Freek,

I've found some suspects in this issue but I would need a good example to find a proper fix. Would you please send me your scenario you found this issue in?

Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon
User avatar
hermanhum
Posts: 2209
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:48 am
Contact:

Problem

Post by hermanhum »

It doesn't get any simpler than this:
All strikers fail to launch

All aircraft assigned to a strike mission fail to launch.
Although it's over 2 years old, Freek's scenario shows the same problem as the day it was originally discovered.
User avatar
noxious
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:07 am
Location: Montreal, Qc, Canuckistan

RE: Problem

Post by noxious »

herman, I think Russell is asking for a specific instance as this is not a 100% reproducible bug every time there is a launch.
Hence why he would like a save or scenario file
Be Kind. Everyone is fighting a hard battle.
User avatar
hermanhum
Posts: 2209
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:48 am
Contact:

Problem

Post by hermanhum »

It's 100% reproducible for me from the file posted Oct 2006. 

Are you having a replication problem with that test file?

User avatar
FreekS
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 7:50 pm

RE: Problem

Post by FreekS »

Gents Herman is right that the SpecOp scen is reproducible, I think 24 of 32 programmed strikers launch. However I'va also sent Russell my new scen as in it only 4 out of twelve seem to launch on a stronger target. I think Russell will have to vary test scens to figure out the actual logic used.
 
Freek
rsharp@advancedgamin
Posts: 430
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:39 am
Contact:

RE: Problem

Post by rsharp@advancedgamin »

Folks,

The issue Herman is referring to is most likely a separate but related issue. Airgroups currently have a maximum 24 count and this is an arbitrary number. I believe the reason behind it that the airplanes would not burn too much fuel while launching and forming up. At any rate, it will be user configurable in 3.10 by mission parameters.

Freek's issue is related to multiple strike missions targeting the same set of targets. Strike missions will not pursue targets pursued by other missions. The scenario he provided has 3 missions with 4 craft each. All three missions have the same target list. So if the targets were localized the missions would engage one target each. I had a few runs where two ships in the target list had been detected & localized and two missions launched. Otherwise, the norm was one ship localized and one mission attacking.

I tried a few variations a few times each. The better results seemed to be to assign all three airgroups to one mission. For this set of circumstances anyway. I'm not sure why three identical missions were created but I'm sure there is some reason.

Let me know what you think,
Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon
User avatar
FreekS
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 7:50 pm

RE: Problem

Post by FreekS »

Ok, Russell

I created 3 identical missions, because in the past (3.6) if you assigned 12 planes to a mission theyd take off in three groups of 4; with 12 min in between (the time for a group to launch). So in 3.6 creating 3 missions results in all 12 planes attacking at the same time.

I'll try assigning 12 planes to one mission in ANW, if I understand you correctly ANW will then launch them all at the same time (but 3.6 will not). So thanks a lot for the advise, I'll report back findings.

Freek
User avatar
FreekS
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 7:50 pm

RE: Problem

Post by FreekS »

Russell,

Made a quick testscen, put 24 hornets with three different loadouts on one strike mission targeting Petr Vellikiy. Good news is all planes launched from the start and all 24 attacked. However because the number of planes per loadout was different (4 harm, 8 Walley, 12 Harpoon) they attacked in three groups with about 80nm between groups.

By making the number of planes per loadout the same (8 each) they would all attack at the same time.

So you were right and its not the allocation of DPs to the target but the use of multiple missions that was the problem.

However, I do submit that the 3.6 method of basically creating one mission per 4 planes which would result in all groups launching at the same time is more flexible. Now I'm forced to make sure that I have equal number of planes of each loadout on the mission.

So I don't really see the benefit of the ANW situation where multiple missions with the same target will NOT launch at the same time but you can make one big mission with 24 planes. It seems to take away some of my flexibility of weapon mix for no benefit. But I guess it is a smaller problem now that I can at least make the strike work.

Freek
rsharp@advancedgamin
Posts: 430
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:39 am
Contact:

RE: Problem

Post by rsharp@advancedgamin »

I'll look into why loadouts impact aircraft launching in ANW. If I can make that more consistent then I think ANW will have a superior or at least equal solution. Further, I will consider an overkill/redudant mission parameter in 3.10 so you can have the 3.6 behavior on a per mission basis.

Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon
User avatar
FreekS
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 7:50 pm

RE: Problem

Post by FreekS »

Its pretty simple, as groups can only contain one loadout, several groups (in my testscen 3) start launching when the mission triggers. If there are only 4 hornets with Harm loadout, then when the 4 planes have formed up they depart on the mission, obviously if there are 8 planes with Walleay loadout then they take longer to form up and depart on the mission 12 min later (80nm).
 
Not sure it makes sense to change that logic; I always worry about undesired consequences.
 
I still think the 3.6 logic on balance makes most sense to me; and not only because there are so many scens out with duplicate or triplicate identical missions to control time on target.
 
Appreciate you looking at what can be done though.
 
Freek
User avatar
hermanhum
Posts: 2209
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:48 am
Contact:

Problem

Post by hermanhum »

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Airgroups currently have a maximum 24 count and this is an arbitrary number. I believe the reason behind it that the airplanes would not burn too much fuel while launching and forming up. At any rate, it will be user configurable in 3.10 by mission parameters.
Herein lies the fundamental problem. A number is arbitrarily introduced with no consideration for the consequences. The fact that this modus operandi is pretty much standard with AGSI is deeply disconcerting. It certainly appears as though the developers change things for no reason whatsoever except for the sake of change, itself.

There are lots of H2 and H3 scenarios that rely upon the unlimited nature of the strike missions. One prime example is the work by Klaus Behrmann. He has written over 60 positively splendid monster-sized scenarios and they are very economical. Often, one strike mission is all that is needed and then hundreds of air, ship, land, and sub units are added. This means that attacks can be launched from multiple axes all at the same time and coordinated according to the designer's timing. If the maximum count is going to be configurable in the future, the default needs to be infinite because that is the circumstance under which many scenarios have been/are being built.
ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Freek's issue is related to multiple strike missions targeting the same set of targets. Strike missions will not pursue targets pursued by other missions. The scenario he provided has 3 missions with 4 craft each. All three missions have the same target list. So if the targets were localized the missions would engage one target each. I had a few runs where two ships in the target list had been detected & localized and two missions launched. Otherwise, the norm was one ship localized and one mission attacking.

I tried a few variations a few times each. The better results seemed to be to assign all three airgroups to one mission. For this set of circumstances anyway. I'm not sure why three identical missions were created but I'm sure there is some reason.

Emphasis added by HH
This is a fundamental change in behaviour from H2 and H3. I think that the inability for more than one mission to launch against the same target to be wrong. In H3, the three distinctly individual missions with 4 aircraft each will launch at the same time and will appear over the target as a massive group of 12 strike aircraft. This is what the scenario authors intend to happen.

The proposed solution to place all 12 aircraft within the same strike mission is already an option open to scenario writers. However, in this particular case and circumstance, the author does not want to see a 'stream of strike groups' (3x groups of 4 planes attacking the target sequentially) and has deliberately set up the scenario in this manner. He wants the entire strike to arrive Time-over-Target (simultaneously). If he wanted to set up only one group as Rufford has suggested, that option is already open to him. He's actively investigated and rejected it because it does not meet his needs.

There are two problems being presented at this time and I think that they are being confused.

Problem 1:

Only 24 planes from any strike will launch.

Problem 2:

Strike missions will not pursue targets pursued by other missions.

These are separate problems. Each needs a solution in and of itself. The only possible solution for #1 is to remove the restriction. If 3.10 has it as an option, then the default must be unlimited because all scenarios built to date are made with this expectation.

Problem #2 is more daunting, but also needs the restriction to be removed for the same reasons.

I have attached a sample file. Run it in ANW SE from the Blue side with the Show All function activated.

The test scenario has 3x carriers each with a separate and individual strike allocated to the same single target.
Each carrier is attempting to launch 12 strike planes.
You will see that only a single carrier launches it's air wing at the target.

This is totally wrong behaviour. In H3, each of the three carriers would be launching their strikes at the same time. This is a necessary behaviour.
Attachments
1.zip
(47.43 KiB) Downloaded 2 times
User avatar
hermanhum
Posts: 2209
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:48 am
Contact:

Problem

Post by hermanhum »

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Made a quick testscen, put 24 hornets with three different loadouts on one strike mission targeting Petr Vellikiy. Good news is all planes launched from the start and all 24 attacked. However because the number of planes per loadout was different (4 harm, 8 Walley, 12 Harpoon) they attacked in three groups with about 80nm between groups.

By making the number of planes per loadout the same (8 each) they would all attack at the same time.
Basically, you are looking for a work-around solution when you shouldn't need to do so in the first place.

Having different loadouts will allow the strike groups to launch and arrive at the same time, but you are forced to select munitions that you might not want in the first place. If you wanted to arm all the planes with stand-off munitions in the first place, you are now forced to re-arm them with other weapons that may not be as lethal or effective such as rockets or iron bombs.

You can jigger the formations and I could mess with the database to get the desired results, but the fundamental question remains, "Why is this kind of jury-rigged process even necessary when previous behaviour already worked so well?"
Post Reply

Return to “Harpoon 3 ANW Support”