Shipborne AEW a/c compromise position?

[p1t1o]

For example, lets say I have a small fleet and the enemy has a small fleet, and neither of us have sensor contact on the other yet, neither of us are emitting anything. Now I launch a helicopter or plane with a surface surveillance radar which switches on at launch. The enemy fleet is in such a position that it is able to pick up the search radar on its ESM sensors.

Is the enemy fleet AI capable of using that information to assume the position of my fleet and investigate further?

(I know I can use the emissions-only-on-station option and have him patrol at a stand-off, this is just a hypothetical)

And as an additional related question I just thought of - does the AI launch bearing-only attacks when it only has ambiguous targeting data?

[wild_Willie2]

Well, I have seen AI controlled air react to radar contacts, but I have never seen AI controlled fleet units react to a helicopter surface radar signal.

[thewood1]

I think you can do at least through LUA, but I do think you could set the AI up to investigate the contact, but it won't make the assumption that a surface group is nearby. Even as a human player, in many scenarios it is not a good idea to just light off missiles at any contact.

[p1t1o]

The BOL question was just an aside, i probably wouldn't loose a salvo just at a helo contact, but I might investigate the area further for surface contacts, maybe vector my own chopper to scout the area.

Its one of the few mechanics which seems to broach the reality barrier - if you are a human playing against the AI, then there is no necessity to, say in the example of Hawkeye AEW a/c from a carrier group, keeping its radar off until it gets to a stand-off location. You may as well leave its radar on permanently. This is probably not what you would do in reality.

Make sense?

[thewood1]

Again, you can set the a patrol to investigate, but with little control of it getting distracted. LUA would probably provide the solution.

One thing I am not sure you can do in LUA is ID specific sensors. If you could, you can look at the intel and tell AI patrols to investigate or attack any unit that emits specific radars.

[Yokes]

I don't think you even need Lua.

Couldn't you set up a patrol mission for a helicopter, set it inactive, and have it enabled when it detects the helicopter from the other side? I *think* none of that requires Lua.

With Lua you can also have that same detection event trigger the surface group to change missions to a patrol or strike mission. Then you can use a "unit X destroyed" trigger to change the mission back to a transit mission. Etc. (I love Lua...)

Yokes

[thewood1]

Yeah, but do you want to investigate any helicopter? And it might be a plane.

[Tomcat84]

Regardless of where the unit turns on it's radar, the moment it does can cause an AI response even without any event editor input, just by their ESm picking up the radar causing a response. I believe in brass drum as long as you were radars off you'd be fine at first but if you lot up your E-2 it would start drawing Iranian fighters that wanted to investigate the raw ESM contact.

But a lot depends on how the scenario designer has constructed his AI.

[Stevechase]

I think you guys are missing the ops' point. Please forgive my bluntness here I respect you guys and your knowledge but you guys jump to LUA and event editors to quickly on many questions asked here and miss the real question. He is not asking if the flexibility is within the game to model such and such, he is asking does the games basic AI have the ability to intelligently evaluate ESMs. More specifically can the AI deduce that a helo emitting over ocean means there is a surface vessel somewhere close and does it then try to deduce a location for that surface vessels And I believe the answer is no.


after reading this in the thread it sounds pissier than I would like. To be sure you guys know your stuff and are far more knowledgeable than I. Just sayin I think a lot of times when it comes to questions about what the game can and can't do we are too quick to answer a problem with scripts and events when maybe the AI itself could be improved. I like the abilities given with scripts and event editors and know that they have their place. Maybe I will become more accepting as my experience increases. I guess I fear we are heading to a game where everything is scripted and their is less and less real AI decision making behind the scenes.

[thewood1]

OK, won't bother answering next time.

btw, if it was that simple, that is what we would have suggested. Sorry if that was assumed. I mean, we don't come in with the goal of creating the most difficult solution.

So tell me what solution is simpler than what was suggested?

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: p1t1o

For example, lets say I have a small fleet and the enemy has a small fleet, and neither of us have sensor contact on the other yet, neither of us are emitting anything. Now I launch a helicopter or plane with a surface surveillance radar which switches on at launch. The enemy fleet is in such a position that it is able to pick up the search radar on its ESM sensors.

Is the enemy fleet AI capable of using that information to assume the position of my fleet and investigate further?

(I know I can use the emissions-only-on-station option and have him patrol at a stand-off, this is just a hypothetical)

And as an additional related question I just thought of - does the AI launch bearing-only attacks when it only has ambiguous targeting data?

No not on its own although if the detector is assigned to a mission that leads to further investigation or and identification then it can lead to an attack. You can also do things like set zones and things like that to change postures which can trigger strike missions etc.

I realize what you're asking but a human assumption (even a good one) is not easy to program.

Example 1:

AI detects a helo for whatever reason comes it to a conclusion its a "The battle group" and launches all backfires for what turns out to be a frigate.

Example 2:

Dbag the player orbits his hawkeye 500nm away knowing full well that an AI assumption will launch a Backfire Raid. He leverages this to wipe out all backfires in all scenarios every time he plays...

Do you see the problems for us when we do things like that?

Instead we've added a ton AI tools to help you create a range of AI responses as best we can and we hope to add more as we learn about how you guys play and fight.

Thanks!

Mike

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Stevechase

I think you guys are missing the ops' point. Please forgive my bluntness here I respect you guys and your knowledge but you guys jump to LUA and event editors to quickly on many questions asked here and miss the real question. He is not asking if the flexibility is within the game to model such and such, he is asking does the games basic AI have the ability to intelligently evaluate ESMs. More specifically can the AI deduce that a helo emitting over ocean means there is a surface vessel somewhere close and does it then try to deduce a location for that surface vessels And I believe the answer is no.


after reading this in the thread it sounds pissier than I would like. To be sure you guys know your stuff and are far more knowledgeable than I. Just sayin I think a lot of times when it comes to questions about what the game can and can't do we are too quick to answer a problem with scripts and events when maybe the AI itself could be improved. I like the abilities given with scripts and event editors and know that they have their place. Maybe I will become more accepting as my experience increases. I guess I fear we are heading to a game where everything is scripted and their is less and less real AI decision making behind the scenes.

Lua and the Event Editors are just tools to add more variability to the AI and narratives of scenarios.

All games with AI opponents have scripted AI's. Could you explain in detail what you're thinking about?

We offer editors and players more behaviors so there is a greater range of behaviors. I'm not sure what exactly what your issue is with that.

Mike

[Stevechase]

Hi thewood, You see you have kind of validated my point. There was never a solution sought. The question seems to have been does the AI have the ability to do something. And not "how do you MAKE the game function a certain way. Your solution is probably spot on when it comes to making the game produce a certain result. I was trying to say that jumping straight to discussions about scripts misses the point of his post. That point being that the AI, by itself, was not able to do what was asked. And then from that, the point I was trying to make is, would it be better to make the AI stronger (for lack of a better word) and better able to respond per real life or just intervene as designers and make the game do what we want with scripts. Say for example you just wanted to setup a quick game for yourself to play against the AI. Could you just place the AI units and expect it to respond in a realistic way to your moves and give you a decent fight without heavy reliance on scripts or events. Not saying heavy scripting and such is bad, far from it. I am just saying that as time goes on I am hoping that with the use of and improvement of scripting, events, and such the basic AI will also get attention.

My post did come off snide for that I hope you will accept my apology. And for the record I am not saying you or anyone should not "bother answering next time". With all honesty if it came to advice about the game, scen design, or even game play, I would take yours over mine probably any day.

[Noldofinwe]

Not to pick one or the other side, but what I think that Stevechase means is that Combat has tactical level AI, the scenario editor determines the strategy used by the AI. I think Stevechase wnats a strategic level AI where the scenario editor just gives out goals, like defend this airport, or find a carrier battlegroup and the AI makes his own strategic plan how it handles this aka, the AI thinks up his own missions based on the resources it has and where it thinks threats. This allows for some more emergent behaviour. If you think of a strike plan the mission editor hadn't thought of, the strategic level AI can adapt to that, the current AI can not.

[thewood1]

For nGod's sake, next time I can just say no...single word that won't force anyone to break out the compiler. Again, I don't you answering the question.

[Stevechase]

Not to pick one or the other side, but what I think that Stevechase means is that Combat has tactical level AI, the scenario editor determines the strategy used by the AI. I think Stevechase wnats a strategic level AI where the scenario editor just gives out goals, like defend this airport, or find a carrier battlegroup and the AI makes his own strategic plan how it handles this aka, the AI thinks up his own missions based on the resources it has and where it thinks threats. This allows for some more emergent behaviour. If you think of a strike plan the mission editor hadn't thought of, the strategic level AI can adapt to that, the current AI can not.

Why couldn't I say it like that? You hit the nail on the head. And I don't want to poo poo the scripts. I am thankful the devs have given them to us and hope they continue to expand. They don't need me to tell them, but they have delivered and continue to tweak the best game on my HD's (of more than 60 games) But I would love to see what Noldofinwe just described. Hey, I maybe the only one if so I guess I will have to do without that but that doesn't mean I'll quit enjoying this great game. Anyway good luck to all of you.

[thewood1]

So when someone asks if something can be done or not, if this was your forum, you wouldn't allow anyone to say that it can be done in a mission or LUA? I find it rather bizarre that someone has a problem with using the tools that the devs put in specifically to address more detailed tactical issues for the AI.

Missions are a core part of this game. If someone wants to avoid using them as a solution, I am not sure what more to say. The AI isn't built to handle every situation and probably shouldn't. LUA is a little more complex, but it is always a potential solution.

But my bigger problem is you don't think missions and LUA should be offered as solutions. I have to assume the OP has the intelligence that if someone offers missions or LUA as the only way they now how to do it, that the responder doesn't know a way for the AI to do it any other way. If someone has a better way of doing it, they can put their own suggestions up, as was done.

I also assume that it doesn't mean the devs won't look at it and think its a good idea to make a feature organic. We have seen the mission planner grow because of that. I am at a real loss as what you think people should do. ou would rather give just a no and then let the OP figure it out on their own. Again, a bizarre way to use a community to help people.

[Stevechase]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: Stevechase

I think you guys are missing the ops' point. Please forgive my bluntness here I respect you guys and your knowledge but you guys jump to LUA and event editors to quickly on many questions asked here and miss the real question. He is not asking if the flexibility is within the game to model such and such, he is asking does the games basic AI have the ability to intelligently evaluate ESMs. More specifically can the AI deduce that a helo emitting over ocean means there is a surface vessel somewhere close and does it then try to deduce a location for that surface vessels And I believe the answer is no.


after reading this in the thread it sounds pissier than I would like. To be sure you guys know your stuff and are far more knowledgeable than I. Just sayin I think a lot of times when it comes to questions about what the game can and can't do we are too quick to answer a problem with scripts and events when maybe the AI itself could be improved. I like the abilities given with scripts and event editors and know that they have their place. Maybe I will become more accepting as my experience increases. I guess I fear we are heading to a game where everything is scripted and their is less and less real AI decision making behind the scenes.

Lua and the Event Editors are just tools to add more variability to the AI and narratives of scenarios.

All games with AI opponents have scripted AI's. Could you explain in detail what you're thinking about?

We offer editors and players more behaviors so there is a greater range of behaviors. I'm not sure what exactly what your issue is with that.

Mike

Mike. I understand what you are saying. I am thankful you guys added them. My issue is not with having them in the game, but rather with over relying on them for the majority of AI tasks. Noldofinwe accurately explained what I meant. Not trying to say he agrees with me he just did a bangup job conveying it. What do you think about it.

[Stevechase]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

So when someone asks if something can be done or not, if this was your forum, you wouldn't allow anyone to say that it can be done in a mission or LUA? I find it rather bizarre that someone has a problem with using the tools that the devs put in specifically to address more detailed tactical issues for the AI.

Missions are a core part of this game. If someone wants to avoid using them as a solution, I am not sure what more to say. The AI isn't built to handle every situation and probably shouldn't. LUA is a little more complex, but it is always a potential solution.

But my bigger problem is you don't think missions and LUA should be offered as solutions. I have to assume the OP has the intelligence that if someone offers missions or LUA as the only way they now how to do it, that the responder doesn't know a way for the AI to do it any other way. If someone has a better way of doing it, they can put their own suggestions up, as was done.

I also assume that it doesn't mean the devs won't look at it and think its a good idea to make a feature organic. We have seen the mission planner grow because of that. I am at a real loss as what you think people should do. ou would rather give just a no and then let the OP figure it out on their own. Again, a bizarre way to use a community to help people.

Did someone hack my computer and cause it to post things totally different on your screen than what I actually typed. I never said any of those things. Are you reading any of the posts including the op. Here is the op question:

Is the enemy fleet AI capable of using that information to assume the position of my fleet and investigate further?

He never asked you how do you get it to happen but does it happen on its own. "Is the enemy AI CAPABLE?" That was his question. The answer is no. Now maybe you assumed he wanted advice about how to script it into the game but nowhere does he ask that at all. But you went into an explanation about how to MAKE it happen in-spite of the AI capability your explanation is probably 100% correct. You were being helpful. I get that. I am glad there are people like you on this forum with that kind of knowledge and willing to share it and help others. I simply said you missed the point of his post and I tried to expand that point and pose what I thought would be a thoughtful question about basic organic AI ability vs scripting. You then mis read or mis interpreted every thing I said. In all seriousness, go back and honestly read my posts. I never said or implied any of those things you said.

I am trying really, REALLY hard not to be a smart @$$, help me out.

[thewood1]

Try harder