Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

[WAD] Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> [WAD] Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
[WAD] Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/22/2014 5:06:49 PM   
kaburke61

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline
Hey There,

I have seen this a few times. When I bring a sub up to periscope or surface depth, it doesn't seem
to start charging it's batteries.

In the included savefile, I'm referring to B-471 (Kilo-class).

Thanks for looking into this (maybe I'm doing something wrong?)

UPDATE: OK...it get more interesting. In about 2 hours, it starts charging. Does it take 2 hours to rig
for charging?


KevinB

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 1/29/2014 6:13:30 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Suface Depth - 1/22/2014 6:44:05 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3048
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline
I was wondering about this the other day when playing the Oyashio on Patrol (2014) scenario, but didn't have time to explore the issue.

BTW, what's the acoustic difference between running on diesel, AIP and battery in the game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kaburke61

Hey There,

I have seen this a few times. When I bring a sub up to periscope or surface depth, it doesn't seem
to start charging it's batteries.

In the included savefile, I'm referring to B-471 (Kilo-class).

Thanks for looking into this (maybe I'm doing something wrong?)

UPDATE: OK...it get more interesting. In about 2 hours, it starts charging. Does it take 2 hours to rig
for charging?


KevinB


(in reply to kaburke61)
Post #: 2
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/25/2014 12:39:25 AM   
kaburke61

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline
Uhhh, bump? (No comment from devs)

(in reply to kaburke61)
Post #: 3
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/25/2014 2:28:39 AM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 1818
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
Here's another example of a sub that won't recharge, to help with the troubleshooting. (B486)

I have a Foxtrot that's completely out of battery, but has plenty of diesel fuel. Fortunately, a Soviet surface group has come to his rescue to prevent prowling ASW aircraft from killing him off while he recharges. Except the sub refuses to start snorkelling. He's been at periscope depth for a couple of hours and still no luck.




While on the subject of the AI's prowling ASW aircraft, this turns out to be a great way to kill them off (so long as they're not toting ASMs). A surface group parks on top of a stationary sub which is at periscope depth. The ASW aircraft somehow detect the sub (in this case probably by ESM, as the sub's radar is turned on) and come in for a closer look, descending to try and find and engage the sub, at which point the ships cheerfully use the airplane for target practice. Despite the fact that the airplane must have detected the ships with ESM (all their radars are on), and then noticed the barrage of incoming flak that surrounds it, it never seems to take evasive action or avoid the area. It blithely flies in circles until it dies. Shouldn't the ASW aircraft's AI have some sort of logic to let it avoid hostile anti-aircraft concentrations like this?



(I've attached a zip with an example of each situation.)

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by AndrewJ -- 1/25/2014 3:30:14 AM >

(in reply to kaburke61)
Post #: 4
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/25/2014 3:21:15 AM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
Pretty sure we've got some logic that subs will dive if a MPA detected. That is not exactly wrong.

We'll take a look the rope a dope logic. Our AI is pretty good but far from perfect. Pointing out these cases does help us.Thanks for your time Andy

Mike

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 1/25/2014 4:21:51 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to AndrewJ)
Post #: 5
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/26/2014 4:12:37 AM   
kaburke61

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Pretty sure we've got some logic that subs will dive if a MPA detected. That is not exactly wrong.

We'll take a look the rope a dope logic. Our AI is pretty good but far from perfect. Pointing out these cases does help us.Thanks for your time Andy

Mike


LOL..and my example is invisible....never mind

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 6
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/26/2014 1:26:46 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
Definitely not. Your issue definitely exists and I've added it to our list. Sorry for not responding. 4 days was excessive but sometime we get busy.

_____________________________


(in reply to kaburke61)
Post #: 7
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/29/2014 5:11:31 PM   
Dimitris


Posts: 12063
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
Examined this.

The sub AI is behaving as instructed. Unless the battery is critically low, it is using the electric drive while also on periscope depth or surface, to avoid using the diesels and thus making much more noise.

We set this after user feedback that indicated that users did _NOT_ want their subs to snort unless they really had to, ie. unless the battery was low.

So, you got what you asked for.

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 1/29/2014 9:16:35 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 8
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/29/2014 7:33:05 PM   
Shemar

 

Posts: 205
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline
Is there a way to give us manual control over this?

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 9
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/29/2014 8:21:06 PM   
Dimitris


Posts: 12063
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
Sure there is. The important question is, is it worth it?

_____________________________


(in reply to Shemar)
Post #: 10
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/29/2014 8:44:07 PM   
Shemar

 

Posts: 205
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline
Haha! I am sure you have a billion things on your list and every one of us has different tastes and priorities.

Personally, almost every frustrating moment CMANO has given me (and don't get me wrong it has given me a lot more fun than frustration) was due to one AI behavior or another I could not override.

If you came up with a $30 'expansion' that allowed me to selectively turn off every AI behavior and override it with manual commands I would buy it in a second!

< Message edited by Shemar -- 1/29/2014 9:47:57 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 11
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/29/2014 9:43:31 PM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 1818
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Examined this.

The sub AI is behaving as instructed. Unless the battery is critically low... (snip)


I'm not sure I agree. Unless a completely flat battery and a motionless sub somehow don't count as critical, something sometimes isn't quite right in the AI.

(Pedal faster, you nekulturny kulaks, pedal faster! )

I definitely agree with the default behaviour that you don't turn on the diesels every time you pop up the scope to look around. But sometimes you need to quickly get the diesels going, whether the batteries are low or not. A manual override control would be an asset.

quote:

The important question is, is it worth it?


Yes, I think it is. Managing battery charge while keeping a low indiscretion rate in a hostile tactical environment is the primary operational constraint for diesel-electric subs. It's worth investing in player control capability for such fundamental decisions, especially as a given charge ratio may require completely opposite courses of action depending on the submarine's situation and the player's intentions.

Some sort of switch with the option Diesels: Off, Auto, On might be one way to handle it.

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 12
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/29/2014 11:31:19 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1329
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline
With the boat at full stop, why would the batteries charge? It's not like a submerged diesel submarine can remain at any depth with zero forward movement to put flow over the dive planes. However, the current situation levels the field for player and AI alike regarding snorkelling so my $0.02 CAD is in favour of the status quo.

-C

(in reply to AndrewJ)
Post #: 13
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/30/2014 12:29:23 PM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 503
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Examined this.

The sub AI is behaving as instructed. Unless the battery is critically low, it is using the electric drive while also on periscope depth or surface, to avoid using the diesels and thus making much more noise.

We set this after user feedback that indicated that users did _NOT_ want their subs to snort unless they really had to, ie. unless the battery was low.

So, you got what you asked for.

That's very understandable! However, ideally the AI behaviour should mirror what would happen in real life, and surely that's not what happens?

I'd have thought that subs would operate on diesels by default, but go quiet whenever they're in a hostile environment or on a distance-closing attack run. Certainly scenarios often place subs already in such situations, but maybe that highlights that the AI needs to decide the threat/opportunity level and act accordingly. That could be tricky to implement, as it depends on detecting enemies and judging their sensor abilities, otherwise using scenario-specific 'expected threat' knowledge. Indeed, attack runs may only be engaged if there's enough battery to do so.

Perhaps a manual override would be a good short-term solution, at least until the AI decision process can be finessed a bit more. I also agree that recharge should require movement.

< Message edited by guanotwozero -- 1/30/2014 1:30:38 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 14
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/30/2014 4:59:03 PM   
kaburke61

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Examined this.

The sub AI is behaving as instructed. Unless the battery is critically low, it is using the electric drive while also on periscope depth or surface, to avoid using the diesels and thus making much more noise.

We set this after user feedback that indicated that users did _NOT_ want their subs to snort unless they really had to, ie. unless the battery was low.

So, you got what you asked for.


LOL...."I" didn't ask for this (the ability to decide would be what "I" would have picked). But OK....Thanks for looking at it.

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 15
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/30/2014 5:22:54 PM   
Dimitris


Posts: 12063
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
Any volunteer committing himself that he will step up to troubleshoot each and every single bug that will pop up as a result of adding such a switch?

Let's see some hands now.

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 1/30/2014 6:23:49 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to kaburke61)
Post #: 16
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/30/2014 6:35:49 PM   
Shemar

 

Posts: 205
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Any volunteer committing himself that he will step up to troubleshoot each and every single bug that will pop up as a result of adding such a switch?

Let's see some hands now.


I am not sure if this is serious or you are messing with us, but I will happily beta test any 'give more control to the player' feature you wish to implement.

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 17
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/30/2014 6:50:38 PM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 503
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Any volunteer committing himself that he will step up to troubleshoot each and every single bug that will pop up as a result of adding such a switch?

Let's see some hands now.

Well, if you're seriously asking, I'm up for helping too!

Bear in mind all we can do is beta-test or confirm what someone else has reported by testing their savefile, unless we get a version of the game that can generate relevant diagnostic information. I'm assuming sources will stay off-limits

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 18
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/30/2014 8:57:25 PM   
kaburke61

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Any volunteer committing himself that he will step up to troubleshoot each and every single bug that will pop up as a result of adding such a switch?

Let's see some hands now.


Geez, no need getting testy. I had a simple enough question, which you answered (sorta, with attitude). The reason
one would like some control is to have the batteries "topped up" before an engagement (which was just the kind of
thing I think I was trying to do before engaging a target). Having your batteries mostly discharged AND THEN
getting in a furball certainly can't go well....

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 19
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/31/2014 3:29:12 AM   
AndrewJ

 

Posts: 1818
Joined: 1/5/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Any volunteer committing himself that he will step up to troubleshoot each and every single bug that will pop up as a result of adding such a switch?

Let's see some hands now.


If there's a practical way for a non-programmer to help test this sort of thing I would be glad to do so.

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 20
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/31/2014 1:05:40 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3048
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline
I thought earlier discussion was that folks wanted to stay on electric engines for a little while after they surfaced before switching to diesels? This lets a player pop up to periscope depth for a quiet looksie and then dip back down without turning on the diesel trip hammers or, if they stay there for a few minutes, the assumption would be they intend to go to diesels to charge.

< Message edited by Primarchx -- 1/31/2014 2:06:25 PM >

(in reply to AndrewJ)
Post #: 21
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/31/2014 7:11:02 PM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 503
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline
I reckon part of the problem is that we'd like to use our subs differently depending if we're close to enemies or not. I don't mean only detected enemies, but ones we suspect might be in the area and that we're trying to find. Batteries near to enemies, diesels/recharge elsewhere. If the AI could determine that and act accordingly, then we wouldn't need any manual override.

I've suggested a possible approach to this here.

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 22
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/31/2014 8:44:03 PM   
Shemar

 

Posts: 205
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: guanotwozero

I reckon part of the problem is that we'd like to use our subs differently depending if we're close to enemies or not. I don't mean only detected enemies, but ones we suspect might be in the area and that we're trying to find. Batteries near to enemies, diesels/recharge elsewhere. If the AI could determine that and act accordingly, then we wouldn't need any manual override.

I've suggested a possible approach to this here.


The problem with AI override is that it will never comply to every player's way of doing things because there is only one AI algorithm and about as many opinions about how the AI should behave as players

The problem with this specific game is that while I suspect it would be a lot easier for the devs to give player control rather than program a good AI, working on a good player side AI also improves the computer opponent AI and that is why, I suspect, the devs prefer to work on and inprove their AI rather than just give us overrides. If we had override on everything they would hardly ever get any feedback or testing on how good the AI truely is.

(in reply to guanotwozero)
Post #: 23
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 1/31/2014 8:56:58 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
Part of the issue is our beta testers helped make a decision that impacted this early on. Now we have a second group that wants something else.

Definitely on our list to discuss this weekend. We know its important to you guys.

Mike



_____________________________


(in reply to Shemar)
Post #: 24
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 2/1/2014 2:04:24 PM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 503
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shemar
The problem with AI override is that it will never comply to every player's way of doing things because there is only one AI algorithm and about as many opinions about how the AI should behave as players

The problem with this specific game is that while I suspect it would be a lot easier for the devs to give player control rather than program a good AI, working on a good player side AI also improves the computer opponent AI and that is why, I suspect, the devs prefer to work on and inprove their AI rather than just give us overrides. If we had override on everything they would hardly ever get any feedback or testing on how good the AI truely is.

Well, I don't think that the AI should necessarily be limited to one course of action.

It's perfectly fine to at least discourage micromanagement, so as to keep a level playing field between player and enemy AI. That's part of the spirit of the game. However, there could be a range of actions that can be configured by the player, and which enact automatically once configured. To keep that level playing field, such actions must also be available to the enemy AI, as well as an acceptable judgement/decision logic that can decide which to perform in what circumstances. I reckon that last part is by far the trickiest to implement.

For example, here, one action 'profile' would be to run on batteries until a charge threshold, then recharge on diesels. Another profile would be to run on diesels until close to enemies, then use batteries. Call those profiles A and B. These two are mutually exclusive, so a player configuration would be to choose A OR B. Once set, that behaviour is automatic, so no micromanagement required.

However, how would the enemy AI decide between A OR B? I think to figure that out, we'd have to get to the bottom of why would humans choose it - what factors would be taken into account.

Further to that, there could be additional configuration options, such as 'spy' or 'hunt'. The former would avoid combat and maximise observation, the latter engages where possible. Call them X & Y. These are mutually exclusive, but are both compatible with A & B.

Thus our config option now becomes ((A OR B) AND (X OR Y)), making it even harder for the AI. And that's just 2 groups of 2 options - we'd likely want more, though we could probably narrow it down to a most useful subset.

Maybe we need to hammer out just what behaviours we DO want, and be precise about WHEN we want them, so as to work out the decisions required if the AI is to mirror them. If any part comes down to pure player preference instead of decision-based logic, then that part could be a random factor for the AI. The human touch!

< Message edited by guanotwozero -- 2/1/2014 3:15:29 PM >

(in reply to Shemar)
Post #: 25
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 2/1/2014 2:59:45 PM   
Shemar

 

Posts: 205
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Well, I don't think that the AI should necessarily be limited to one course of action.

Of course it is. Any computer program is limited to a single responce under a specific set of circumstances*


quote:

It's perfectly fine to at least discourage micromanagement, so as to keep a level playing field between player and enemy AI. That's part of the spirit of the game.

Each person looks for different things. Personally I find the above statement in direct conflict with what I am looking for in this game. To me it reads "since the opponent AI is dumb, let's force the player to endure the same dumb AI on his own units". It is much better to achieve play balance by giving the computer opponent numerical or sitiational advantages (like time limits on the player), than to force him endure watching his units blunder into destruction.

quote:

To keep that level playing field, such actions must also be available to the enemy AI, as well as an acceptable judgement/decision logic that can decide which to perform in what circumstances. I reckon that last part is by far the trickiest to implement.

I would say impossible to implement. Computer AI only survives the scrutiny of human logic when hidden behind fog of war. Once fully exposed to the player's view no computer AI will ever be able to behave in a way that is not frustratig to the player, at least as long as we don't have a whole different computer technology. CMANO, like Harpoon before it, avoids the worst part of computer AI deficiency by breaking it down to relatively simple missions and putting the burden of giving some semblance of realistic reactions on the scenario designer.

quote:

For example, here, one action 'profile' would be to run on batteries until a charge threshold, then recharge on diesels. Another profile would be to run on diesels until close to enemies, then use batteries. Call those profiles A and B. These two are mutually exclusive, so a player configuration would be to choose A OR B. Once set, that behaviour is automatic, so no micromanagement required.

As an example of how quickly this breaks down is tha fact that the definition of "close to enemies" can be interpreted a hundrded different ways. Does the enemy have maritime patrol aircraft? Helos? Then immediately the definition of "close" as a matter of distance changes. Add to that the fact that while the computer has a strict model of uncertainly as to the position of enemy units, the player has a much wider and very subjective way of determining where he thinks enemy units are. So it is effectively impossible to program the AI to "run on diesels until close to enemies" because the AI has no way of determining what the player considers "close to the enemy" and it is therefore doomed to not act the way the player wishes.

quote:

However, how would the enemy AI decide between A OR B? I think to figure that out, we'd have to get to the bottom of why would humans choose it - what factors would be taken into account.

Further to that, there could be additional configuration options, such as 'spy' or 'hunt'. The former would avoid combat and maximise observation, the latter engages where possible. Call them X & Y. These are mutually exclusive, but are both compatible with A & B.

Thus our config option now becomes ((A OR B) AND (X OR Y)), making it even harder for the AI. And that's just 2 groups of 2 options - we'd likely want more, though we could probably narrow it down to a most useful subset.

All that is a huge amount of programmig work and even bigger amout of troubleshooting and beta testing. And it can all be simply avoided by a checkbox in the speed and altitude screen. Scenario designers can be given the same control over AI units so the can truely adapt the computer AI tot he scenario circumstances in a way generic AI never will.

quote:

Maybe we need to hammer out just what behaviours we DO want, and be precise about WHEN we want them, so as to work out the decisions required if the AI is to mirror them.

That is impossible to 'hammer out' as the different circumstances would take pages upon pages and include things like "how much time do I have left", "how close am I to winning the scenario", "what are the scenario objectives" as well as pure player preference in tactics.

quote:

If any part comes down to pure player preference instead of decision-based logic, then that part could be a random factor for the AI.

In what world would the problem of "The AI is acting dumb" be solved by "instead of the AI acting dumb in a consistent way let's make it act dumb in a random way".
_____
* Unless you make the AI randomply pick from a set of possible responses, but that is a horrible idea for player side AI (great for computer AI though).

(in reply to guanotwozero)
Post #: 26
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 2/1/2014 4:52:57 PM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 503
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shemar
quote:

Well, I don't think that the AI should necessarily be limited to one course of action.
Of course it is. Any computer program is limited to a single responce under a specific set of circumstances*

Yeah, but that means different courses of action, each of which is determined by circumstances. The circumstances can be reduced to a bit pattern representing game state, and any decision to pursue a course of action is a function of that bit pattern. Combinations/sequences of actions included.


quote:

quote:

It's perfectly fine to at least discourage micromanagement, so as to keep a level playing field between player and enemy AI. That's part of the spirit of the game.

Each person looks for different things. Personally I find the above statement in direct conflict with what I am looking for in this game. To me it reads "since the opponent AI is dumb, let's force the player to endure the same dumb AI on his own units". It is much better to achieve play balance by giving the computer opponent numerical or sitiational advantages (like time limits on the player), than to force him endure watching his units blunder into destruction.

As it's unrealistic to assume the devs will produce a HAL-like AI, there has to be an achievable approach. If you want to micromanage to the extent where you maintain an advantage over enemy AI, sure, that's your call. I'd prefer the playing field to be as level as possible, while still allowing as much scope as possible for player 'command level' decisions. I don't like the idea of AI 'cheating' as so many games do, thus the decision trees have to be comparable to what a human can do. My perception is that CMANO aspires to minimise micromanagement by automating such behaviour as much as possible. The challenge is to make that automation as realistic as possible.

Yep, these are our subjective opinions on what the game should be, but player feedback's good, right?

quote:

quote:

To keep that level playing field, such actions must also be available to the enemy AI, as well as an acceptable judgement/decision logic that can decide which to perform in what circumstances. I reckon that last part is by far the trickiest to implement.
I would say impossible to implement. Computer AI only survives the scrutiny of human logic when hidden behind fog of war. Once fully exposed to the player's view no computer AI will ever be able to behave in a way that is not frustratig to the player, at least as long as we don't have a whole different computer technology. CMANO, like Harpoon before it, avoids the worst part of computer AI deficiency by breaking it down to relatively simple missions and putting the burden of giving some semblance of realistic reactions on the scenario designer.

I agree, but still a useful level of decision processing could be achieved if enough factors are taken into account. I reckon that's part of the challenge of finessing the AI - adding more factors to the decision process so as to produce a more sophisticated result. It will never achieve human-level performance, but clever design means it shouldn't have to, to result in a challenging game. Good scenario design will be important.


quote:

quote:

For example, here, one action 'profile' would be to run on batteries until a charge threshold...
As an example of how quickly this breaks down is tha fact that the definition of "close to enemies" can be interpreted a hundrded different ways. Does the enemy have maritime patrol aircraft? Helos? Then immediately the definition of "close" as a matter of distance changes. Add to that the fact that while the computer has a strict model of uncertainly as to the position of enemy units, the player has a much wider and very subjective way of determining where he thinks enemy units are. So it is effectively impossible to program the AI to "run on diesels until close to enemies" because the AI has no way of determining what the player considers "close to the enemy" and it is therefore doomed to not act the way the player wishes.

Sure, I only gave those examples as they've already been discussed, without going into any detail of how they'd be implemented. Any 'profile' would consist of many behaviour components, each of which would be determined by game state, preference settings and decision logic. That's what I mean by hammering out what we want our units to do when acting automatically, so as to decide what would those components be, and what would determine their enactment.

EDIT ===

BTW I did suggest a means of judging being "close to the enemy" here.


quote:

quote:

However, how would the enemy AI decide between A OR B?...
All that is a huge amount of programmig work and even bigger amout of troubleshooting and beta testing. And it can all be simply avoided by a checkbox in the speed and altitude screen. Scenario designers can be given the same control over AI units so the can truely adapt the computer AI tot he scenario circumstances in a way generic AI never will.

I agree it could be a lot of work - that's why narrowing it down to a useful subset is important. Then the relevant player preferences could be implemented, including via checkboxes. If the AI is to compete realistically, then its decision trees should be able to choose the same preferences by some means, including by scenario design.

quote:

quote:

Maybe we need to hammer out just what behaviours we DO want, and be precise about WHEN we want them, so as to work out the decisions required if the AI is to mirror them.
That is impossible to 'hammer out' as the different circumstances would take pages upon pages and include things like "how much time do I have left", "how close am I to winning the scenario", "what are the scenario objectives" as well as pure player preference in tactics.

I still think we could reduce it to a useful subset, though that would mean rejecting factors we judge to be least important. And yes, that is subjective, but that's where the idea of player feedback would matter. Ultimately, though, it's the devs' call, and their guidance would be crucial.

Any improvement over the current 'single course of action regardless' would be a plus.


quote:

quote:

If any part comes down to pure player preference instead of decision-based logic, then that part could be a random factor for the AI.
In what world would the problem of "The AI is acting dumb" be solved by "instead of the AI acting dumb in a consistent way let's make it act dumb in a random way".
_____
* Unless you make the AI randomply pick from a set of possible responses, but that is a horrible idea for player side AI (great for computer AI though).

That's not what I mean. If certain player decisions cannot be reduced to determinism/rationalism, then they're effectively random, even if weighted. "I'll send this patrol over the sea, because I like the colour blue." If the computer does the same, then it's no different. Dumb? Maybe, but that's humans for ya. In any case, our world is regarded as non-deterministic, if the scientific consensus on quantum mechanics is to be accepted. Probabilistic decisions could be useful and realistic.


FWIW I think this particular sub issue would make a good test case for trying to achieve a better automated result. If that could be achieved here, then so too for any other area where the automation could be improved. But until that happens, manual override might be the best short-term fix.

< Message edited by guanotwozero -- 2/1/2014 6:32:07 PM >

(in reply to Shemar)
Post #: 27
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 2/1/2014 6:35:37 PM   
Shemar

 

Posts: 205
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: guanotwozero

Yeah, but that means different courses of action, each of which is determined by circumstances. The circumstances can be reduced to a bit pattern representing game state, and any decision to pursue a course of action is a function of that bit pattern. Combinations/sequences of actions included.


My point is that in any specific situation the AI can only have one response whereas each player will have their own response. It is therefore impossible for the AI to comply with all player wishes as those are often conflicting. There cannot be a consensus on how the AI should handle this (or any other issue) because that would imply we all play exactly the same way and use exactly the same tactics. In every possible situation where I would want my sub to snorkel and you would want it to stay on battery (for example), the AI will have 50% failure in doing what we want it to do, no matter how good it is.

Maybe I want to use my sub as bait so that a lurking fighter blasts out of the sky the enemy helo that goes after it or as a distraction so another sub approaching from the opposite direction can get through unnoticed. How can the AI possibly account for that, when every reasonable ROE would tell it to stay on battery?

< Message edited by Shemar -- 2/1/2014 7:40:51 PM >

(in reply to guanotwozero)
Post #: 28
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 2/1/2014 9:22:32 PM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 503
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shemar
My point is that in any specific situation the AI can only have one response whereas each player will have their own response. It is therefore impossible for the AI to comply with all player wishes as those are often conflicting. There cannot be a consensus on how the AI should handle this (or any other issue) because that would imply we all play exactly the same way and use exactly the same tactics. In every possible situation where I would want my sub to snorkel and you would want it to stay on battery (for example), the AI will have 50% failure in doing what we want it to do, no matter how good it is.

Maybe I want to use my sub as bait so that a lurking fighter blasts out of the sky the enemy helo that goes after it or as a distraction so another sub approaching from the opposite direction can get through unnoticed. How can the AI possibly account for that, when every reasonable ROE would tell it to stay on battery?

I'm not sure what you mean: do you mean the AI determining behaviour of player units?

If so, those would be set by preferences anyway i.e. I could set my subs to run on battery as part of a profile, you set yours to snorkel. Such behaviour would be automated, so doesn't really involve AI. Even getting our units to respond to gamestate is deterministic, such as the existing hierarchy of tasks. Strike can be temporarily overridden by Refuel, which can be overridden by Engage Defensive. If we want it to be different, we change the preferences. I could set my sub to dive deep if threatened, you to attack. There's no requirement for the AI to 'succeed' just for our preferences to be enacted.


Or do you mean the enemy AI? How it would choose to play its units, given the same set of circumstances? That's not the same as having to "comply with all player wishes", as it's doing its own thing. How it chooses its own thing is certainly important, and maybe needs more discussion. How it would choose to snorkel, run battery or whetever.

In any case, enemy AI choices, including responses to player behaviour, need not be deterministic. Choices could be weighted, depending on gamestate, and a response chosen by probability based on that weighting. Thus we can't say it's limited to one response. Potentially that could be extended to including AI 'generals', each of whom would have a different bias in how they weight things. Reckless warlords or cautious commanders - pseudo-personalities in terms of gameplay. Even without such generals, an unpredictable nature of enemy response would still be a plus.

The AI could (and maybe does) include a more extensive task hierarchy, such as 'metagoals' subdivided into smaller tasks. These could include tactics like baiting and ambushing. As the tasks succeed or fail, the goal hierarchy will evolve. Again, the decision mechanism to manage these goals could include unique game-instance bias and probability.

But sure, we can't expect the enemy AI to ever be as 'wise' as humans. Your trap will likely work. The best we can hope for is that when you down the first, the AI will alter its goals so as to recognise that threat and not be suckered in again.

(in reply to Shemar)
Post #: 29
RE: Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth - 2/2/2014 3:02:07 PM   
Shemar

 

Posts: 205
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: guanotwozero

I'm not sure what you mean: do you mean the AI determining behaviour of player units?

Player units

quote:

If so, those would be set by preferences anyway i.e. I could set my subs to run on battery as part of a profile, you set yours to snorkel. Such behaviour would be automated, so doesn't really involve AI. Even getting our units to respond to gamestate is deterministic, such as the existing hierarchy of tasks. Strike can be temporarily overridden by Refuel, which can be overridden by Engage Defensive. If we want it to be different, we change the preferences. I could set my sub to dive deep if threatened, you to attack. There's no requirement for the AI to 'succeed' just for our preferences to be enacted.

Maybe if you saw my play style you would understand how out of touch with how I play this solution is. I do not use any missions (except ASW patrols) I micromanage everything, take offs and landings, weapon targetting and releases, routes, speeds and altitudes, I conduct aerial combat by keeping tight control of every single aircraft and spend much more time paused giving orders than with the clock running. So while I don't mind Ai assistance as long as I can turn it off (all AI options are off by default when I play) any AI behavior that overrides my own commands or is out of my control is by default in conflict with how I like to play the game.

More to the point, the reason I play this way is that the number of factors that go into every single decision, including somethng as 'simple' as snorkel or battery, is not only orders of magnitude more than what any AI could take into account but often includes information, desires and motivation the AI cannot possibly have. It is therefore utterly impossible to make AI that I would not want to override on occasion and probably quite often, even if you were programming the AI specifically to cater to my own desires and play style.

As for enemy AI, I do not consider that to be my problem. I know for a fact enemy AI is usually a blundering fool, but fortunately limited intelligence and fog of war hide most of that. Computer game AI is closer to running around like a headless chicken than human controlled behavior, once fully exposed. For example in just the last scenario I played, 7 F-16s and Mirage 1s were killed without offering any resistance, just loitering over their airfield while a strike force of 9 Phantom IIs and Mirage F1s also died at the hands of 4 Harriers without firing a single missile in defense. So my opinion is clearly that priority should be given to make the AI at least effectively defend itself, rather than try to second guess whether I want my sub to snorkel or not.

(in reply to guanotwozero)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> [WAD] Subs not recharging at Periscope/Surface Depth Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.230