Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

[Logged] An interesting missile engagement w/Crossing Targets

 
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 >> [Logged] An interesting missile engagement w/Crossing Targets Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
[Logged] An interesting missile engagement w/Crossing T... - 2/13/2021 1:31:29 AM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1621
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: online
You might be interested in looking at this. Perhaps it works perfectly, or maybe it could be tweaked a little bit.

The Essex and her escorts are originally heading in a direction of about 230 degrees.
A Chinese TG (directly to the north) fires missiles at the Essex.
The Essex begins to turn to square up on the incoming missiles.
The incoming missiles originally appear as if they will miss the Essex and fly by, east of their targets.
Still, the Essex unloads a ton of SAMs at the incoming missiles.
Just before the incoming missiles fly by, they suddenly turn and head directly for the ships.
By making this maneuver, most of the SAMs are still in flight, but they are no longer heading toward the incoming missiles.
The originally-fired SAMs do try to make course directions, but they just can't get turned around on their new course fast enough.
The ships have to fire off all kinds of other SAMs at the incoming missiles that recently changed course.
It will become touchy, and you may lose a ship or two, depending on how lucky you are.

So, it it broken? It obviously works as it is designed right now. My only question is, should it work like this, or should it be tweaked somehow? The calculations would probably be immense because they would have to be constantly updated. It might be more work than you care to do.

I do believe that it works well enough, but it might be something that you want to review for the future.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Rory Noonan -- 2/15/2021 5:00:15 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: An interesting missile engagement w/Crossing Targets - 2/13/2021 1:14:52 PM   
Parel803

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 10/10/2019
From: Netherlands
Status: offline
I understand it's the game AI and innteresting. I think a poorly air defence, hoping for little different in the real life :-). The major air defenders are 5nm to the NW of the HVU's, with threat from the NE. There firing there SAM's towards the HVU's, not sure if they would like that.
In another scenario, I have to look back, my AD unit went on a 180 degrees course commpared to the HVU, leaving her vunerable. Despite the formation positions.
For me it's fine in the game, but agreeing on some tweaks. Not important but just my thought on naval AD.

with regards Gert-Jan

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 2
RE: An interesting missile engagement w/Crossing Targets - 2/13/2021 3:26:01 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1621
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: online
It was "interesting" to say the least.

I see what the SAMs had intended on doing when they were first launched---that being to intercept the missiles which appeared to be heading to the east of the formation. But, that last second change of direction really messed with their logic. It also tied up those directors as they had to continue to guide the SAMs out into oblivion.

It almost reminded me of weekend hunters with 15 guys shooting their shotguns into the air as one bird flies by. Pellets (or in this case SAMs) flying everywhere, and going into every direction.

Interestingly, sometimes the missiles are able to make it through to a ship, and other times they can't. Under normal circumstances, a ship grouping armed like that, should have been able to shoot down all 16 incoming missiles, I would imagine.

Like I said, perhaps it needs a little tweaking.

Doug

(in reply to Parel803)
Post #: 3
RE: An interesting missile engagement w/Crossing Targets - 2/15/2021 3:58:14 AM   
WSBot

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 1/17/2021
Status: offline
0014408

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 4
RE: An interesting missile engagement w/Crossing Targets - 2/15/2021 4:15:11 PM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 211
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline
In this situation, the best bet would be to take manual control of defence. A human might not engage the missiles until they were obviously heading in.
It makes sense that the AI engaged, but the offensive AI had an apparent advantage.
This may be desirable. SAMs, once launched, have only a limited ability to change direction due to their very high speed. The ability of a slow entity to outmanouver a fast, agile entity is not unique to this situation.

Out of interest - the ASM change in direction: was it caused by a planned dog-leg course, or was it due to a passive detection of the fleet?

In the latter case, the ASMs may never have turned if the fleet didnt engage the missiles in the first place, hence manual control a good option.

But not every time your fleet takes a hit is it a bug, last minute course changes are a good way to penetrate point defences IRL.

I have seen similar effects against "Sizzler"-type ASMs, that accelerate to 1900kts on the final run-in. The velocity change causes havoc with the defending SAMs as the intercept point moves rapidly, and the aftermath is often a "flower" of missed SAMs spraying outward from the fleet.

In the end, I can see several problems with telling the AI not to engage missiles unless targetted directly at you so its hard to see a solution other than taking manual control, or adjusting ammunition use expectations.

(in reply to WSBot)
Post #: 5
RE: An interesting missile engagement w/Crossing Targets - 2/15/2021 4:45:21 PM   
Parel803

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 10/10/2019
From: Netherlands
Status: offline
Interesting subject. I agree that it might be unwise to order the AI to only fire in direct inbound missiles on own unit. Depending on ranges of you're SAM, the AD units are also responible for defending the HVU's. By the time you fire and you're SAM is going towards the HVU (or another unit) you might have fired too late or you just couldn't. I don't known if that could harm another ship in the game though. Agreeing with the possibilities of missiles not laways and only coming innbound at one course.

with regards GJ

(in reply to p1t1o)
Post #: 6
RE: An interesting missile engagement w/Crossing Targets - 2/16/2021 1:10:08 AM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1621
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: online
The flip side to this conversation was something that I remember being brought up long ago with CMANO.

In a similar situation, the defending forces fired a ton of SAMs at incoming missiles that had absolutely NO CHANCE of hitting their intended targets. In fact, the SAMs often fired at the attacking missiles even AFTER they had already passed the ships by and they were continuing to move away from their targets. Some kind of tweak was applied, and the defending ships no longer fired wasted SAMs.

This situation is sort of the reverse. The defending ships ARE firing SAMs at incoming missiles, but they are calculating where the INTERCEPT is likely to take place IF the incoming missiles continue on their same initial course. (This is probably true with all missile intercept situations.) But, because the incoming missiles suddenly make a radical turn (approximately 60 degrees), the SAMs are having to make a U-turn left (greater than 180 degrees) in an attempt to catch up to the missiles that are already closer to their target. In essence, the SAMs have no chance.

Furthermore, since their weapons' directors are already occupied, they have to wait for that SAM to die out before a new one can be launched. By then, it is too late.

The only thing that saves this group is that it had other, shorter-ranged SAMs that could be fired. Playing it several times I either lost two ships or I lost none. I suppose that that is just luck.

In any case, this problem (if it is one) will be tricky, if the devs decide to do anything about it at all.

It was very interesting to watch, though. <lol> It looked like Opening Day of the amateur duck hunting season.

Doug

(in reply to Parel803)
Post #: 7
RE: An interesting missile engagement w/Crossing Targets - 2/16/2021 1:14:50 AM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1621
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: online
"the best bet would be to take manual control of defence"

True, but the problem with that is that you have to be able to have the AI do almost as good of a job of defending itself on its own as the human player can do, otherwise the game/simulation will be severely lacking. So, the game/sim must be balanced. You can't design it to be biased, otherwise it becomes merely a video game. This game is way too good for that.

Doug

(in reply to p1t1o)
Post #: 8
RE: An interesting missile engagement w/Crossing Targets - 2/17/2021 8:07:26 PM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 211
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

"the best bet would be to take manual control of defence"

True, but the problem with that is that you have to be able to have the AI do almost as good of a job of defending itself on its own as the human player can do


Cant disagree but that is no easy ask

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 9
RE: An interesting missile engagement w/Crossing Targets - 2/23/2021 7:32:56 AM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1621
Joined: 3/21/2014
Status: online
I just had this same issue with another scenario, so it is more prevalent than I thought. The example that I originally provided should be a sufficient example, and another would merely be duplicitous.

Doug

(in reply to p1t1o)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> [Logged] An interesting missile engagement w/Crossing Targets Page: [1]
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

0.188