Setting the AI to fire at NEZ - a massive disadvantage

[thewood1]

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

This is what I do. I spend more time than I should adjusting WRAs for both sides in any scenario I play.

[Pygmalion]

We've been discussing this problem internally and may have a solution.

Our starting point was: "What if we randomize the WRA-range settings for non-player sides at startup so that the player is uncertain at what range the enemy will fire?" But this still created a problem wherein crafty players could, after a few engagements, discover the randomly-generated WRA range and adjust their tactics accordingly.

So we further developed the idea, proposing a setting that would bind AI WRA to a general value, e.g. "Aggressive," "Normal," "Conservative," or "Random." Rather than setting range to a specific value, this would affect the mean probability of ranges at which AI shooters would independently elect to fire. So, for example, if set to "Normal," most units will fire at 40-60% range; some will fire at 25-30%, or 70-80%; and a small minority of exceptional outliers will hold fire until their target has entered the NEZ (Iceman) or panic and fire at max range (Cougar).

This could be further tied to proficiency: the better the pilots, the more consistent their behavior (e.g. less chance of outliers due to better training). In other words (and somewhat oxymoronically), well-trained units would be more average: to continue the example from above, a squadron of Ace pilots set to "Normal" would be much more likely to fire at a range of 40-60% (or whatever the "average" range value is for their selected aggression level). Since the scenario designer sets aggression, that "average" range would presumably be set to a mostly-tactically-appropriate level; pilots who stick to that range should be okay more so than pilots who freak out and wait too long or fire too early.

This way, even if one could eventually determine a general pattern of behavior ("Hmm, the enemy is very aggressive...") there will always be exceptions and you can't take anything for granted in an engagement. This would go a long way towards mitigating the meta-strategy of discovering and avoiding the AI's set WRA-range and "dancing" around its limits.

Of course, this would be an optional setting, and mission designers could mix-and-match using inheritance to specify random/non-random WRA-ranges for specific units/elements/etc.

Thoughts/feedback?

[morphin]

I think the Better_BVR script from musurca is a good starting point. Overall a dynamic adapted WRA should be a goal for the AI Side.
As Soon as the enemy AC is identified the WRA should be adapted to reflect the potential enemy AA missiles. Then the WRA should have some varations (in Relationship to education level more variations) .

The scenario designer may could also specify an agressiv-Level that also change the base WRA.
So i think that is a really interesting topic with room for much improving

[BDukes]

I think the Better_BVR script from musurca is a good starting point. Overall a dynamic adapted WRA should be a goal for the AI Side.
As Soon as the enemy AC is identified the WRA should be adapted to reflect the potential enemy AA missiles. Then the WRA should have some varations (in Relationship to education level more variations) .

The scenario designer may could also specify an agressiv-Level that also change the base WRA.
So i think that is a really interesting topic with room for much improving

Agreed. It was clearly better than the NEZ.

M

[BDukes]

We've been discussing this problem internally and may have a solution.

Sounds great.

Mike

[thewood1]

"This could be further tied to proficiency"

I played with a lua script to do this a while ago. It sort of worked, but started becoming so complex that it was almost impossible to maintain across scenarios. But that by itself would be a good add to the game.

[TempestII]

We've been discussing this problem internally and may have a solution.

Our starting point was: "What if we randomize the WRA-range settings for non-player sides at startup so that the player is uncertain at what range the enemy will fire?" But this still created a problem wherein crafty players could, after a few engagements, discover the randomly-generated WRA range and adjust their tactics accordingly.

So we further developed the idea, proposing a setting that would bind AI WRA to a general value, e.g. "Aggressive," "Normal," "Conservative," or "Random." Rather than setting range to a specific value, this would affect the mean probability of ranges at which AI shooters would independently elect to fire. So, for example, if set to "Normal," most units will fire at 40-60% range; some will fire at 25-30%, or 70-80%; and a small minority of exceptional outliers will hold fire until their target has entered the NEZ (Iceman) or panic and fire at max range (Cougar).

This could be further tied to proficiency: the better the pilots, the more consistent their behavior (e.g. less chance of outliers due to better training). In other words (and somewhat oxymoronically), well-trained units would be more average: to continue the example from above, a squadron of Ace pilots set to "Normal" would be much more likely to fire at a range of 40-60% (or whatever the "average" range value is for their selected aggression level). Since the scenario designer sets aggression, that "average" range would presumably be set to a mostly-tactically-appropriate level; pilots who stick to that range should be okay more so than pilots who freak out and wait too long or fire too early.

This way, even if one could eventually determine a general pattern of behavior ("Hmm, the enemy is very aggressive...") there will always be exceptions and you can't take anything for granted in an engagement. This would go a long way towards mitigating the meta-strategy of discovering and avoiding the AI's set WRA-range and "dancing" around its limits.

Of course, this would be an optional setting, and mission designers could mix-and-match using inheritance to specify random/non-random WRA-ranges for specific units/elements/etc.

Thoughts/feedback?

Sounds like a great solution to the current situation - random enough that it should prevent "gaming" the WRA, but controllable enough that it helps scenario designers plan accordingly.

[blu3s]

We've been discussing this problem internally and may have a solution.
...
Thoughts/feedback?

It's good to find a solution for all those scenarios where a WRA has not been implemented and the method you propose to model different behaviors, and link the "randomness" to proficiency seems right, although I think it would include some more "intelligence" i.e. 40% range for a 20nmi range missile is not the same as for a 120nmi range missile. Or if the AI occupies the role of defender, it would not behave the same as if it is the attacker. I would emphasize that the WRA is a fundamental thing to work with for scenario builders.

I do not know if the feedback received from the PRO side can be useful to find a generic solution.

Thanks for your commitment

[mikerohan]

We've been discussing this problem internally and may have a solution.

[...]

Thoughts/feedback?

+1
I think it would be a great improvement for those scenarios where the designer has not selected a specific WRA.

[SeaQueen]

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

Apparently the community consists of overwhelmingly awful tacticians. I say keep it there. It'll make it easier for good tacticians to abuse them and then ask, "What did you learn today?" after they've been swatted down handily by aircraft that range them unexpectedly.

The real answer is that there's no "one size fits all" WRA answer. There isn't a "good" default. There's trade offs. That's why fighter pilots talk about engagement timelines.

If I can shoot the threat before he sees me, then I'll get as close as I can but not so close that he can see me. If I can't avoid detection, but I can shoot the threat before he can shoot at me, then I'll adjust my tactics, and get as close as I can, but shoot at a distance that is beyond what he's able to shoot at. If I have to engage a threat that can always shoot me before I can shoot him, then I'll avoid shooting at him, and try to bait him into shooting enough of his missiles that I can engage with favorable odds. That's why being able to adjust the WRA is important. It's one of the more important knobs we have for controlling the air to air fight. People who think that there's a simple answer to this stuff are basically baby seals waiting to be clubbed.

And I'm okay with that.

I'll figure out what distance I need to shoot at based on the aircraft I've got, the threat he's likely to encounter, the weapons I'm armed with, and the weapons they're armed with.

[SeaQueen]

Thoughts/feedback?

It's kind of a game-y solution in the face of uncertainty. Without going into every single scenario and studying them to say, "In scenario A, the F-4s should shoot their AIM-7s at 60% max range, but in scenario B they do better at 80%," it's probably as good as any. If it were me, making these decisions I'd just use a blanket 2/3 or 3/4 max range to start with and then give people the disclaimer that AI behavior does not, and is not intended to reflect any sort of "optimized" behavior (optmized for what, anyhow?).

Variables that players should understand before adjusting the WRA settings include the scenario objectives, the threat your side faces, the level of risk you are able to take in that scenario (e,g, are you trying to minimize losses, maximize enemy attrition, or is it something in between?). This stuff quickly devolves into "it depends," conversations, shooting down one's watch and talking with one's hands. Aside from extensive jet nerding there's not much you can do.

[blu3s]

The real answer is that there's no "one size fits all" WRA answer. There isn't a "good" default. There's trade offs. That's why fighter pilots talk about engagement timelines.

If I can shoot the threat before he sees me, then I'll get as close as I can but not so close that he can see me. If I can't avoid detection, but I can shoot the threat before he can shoot at me, then I'll adjust my tactics, and get as close as I can, but shoot at a distance that is beyond what he's able to shoot at. If I have to engage a threat that can always shoot me before I can shoot him, then I'll avoid shooting at him, and try to bait him into shooting enough of his missiles that I can engage with favorable odds.

I'll figure out what distance I need to shoot at based on the aircraft I've got, the threat he's likely to encounter, the weapons I'm armed with, and the weapons they're armed with.

I agree with you, in the end the WRA is about simulating doctrines, tactics and ultimately the individual behavior of a pilot.

But you have to find a "default" value that can be applied quickly to all those scenarios that don't have the WRA change from default. And finding an algorithm that can take into account all those issues I think is the point.

When I refer to a default value, I mean an algorithm/script in lua that allows to quickly take into account all the variables you mention and that can be applied automatically to each scenario without having to waste time in each scenario.

[thewood1]

I think most of the debate was around whether default WRAs for the AI are better being max shots or NEZ shots. In newer scenarios, the designer should set a proper WRA. But the real debate is legacy scenarios. The devs chose to change all to NEZ from max. I don't think there's a single person in this thread that doesn't think you have to set WRAs. Its about what the AI is set for.

[SeaQueen]

60% max. You're welcome.

I think most of the debate was around whether default WRAs for the AI are better being max shots or NEZ shots. In newer scenarios, the designer should set a proper WRA. But the real debate is legacy scenarios. The devs chose to change all to NEZ from max. I don't think there's a single person in this thread that doesn't think you have to set WRAs. Its about what the AI is set for.

[tylerblakebrandon]

While I agree with everything SeaQueen has said I think the solution proposed by Pygmalion is pretty good as a base default.

[Naeradan]

We've been discussing this problem internally and may have a solution.
[snip]

I'll add my voice to the choir: that would be beautiful, since it would cover all bases.
Scenario designers would have guidelines and an easy shortcut for a side 'doctrine' if they woulnd't want to to fiddle too much.
The many (most of them?) legacy scenarios which realistically won't be touched for years by their original authors could have a better default then all NEZ. (what would that be? Normal? Random? New thread needed! )
Normal players would be hopefully happy for the increased variability and probably realism.
Players who gets their hands dirty could easily tweak a scenario, without 'spoiling' too much, since that would be a single setting to change.

Is this solution actually scheduled or is it still a low priority/TBD thing?

[SchDerGrosse]

Iam prepared to face a massive amount of pushback form some of my fellow communinity members here on the forums, but I can confidently say, that after playing some 30 hrs of the paid CMO content with the new missile mechanics and NEZ, the game feels considerably easier.

In air to air combat the AI simply does not pose any challange. I think I have only ever been fired upon if I i was careless and let my aircraft to wander into extremely close ranges to the enemy.

The same goes for SAMs, the once dreaded S-300 and S-400 batteries now only cover like half of their original protected area, allowing me to manouver more freely in the airspace.

I dont think I have lost more then a few air to air engagements, regardless of the platform used, and all of the losses stemmed from me being careless.

And it all comes down to the fact that the AI is using NEZ (i.e. shoot only from point blank range) while I am willing spend ordenance and firem from 25-35% ranges. Yea I might miss a few of my shots but I this way I can ensure the enemy cant touch me at all.

I believe the current default WRA settings take away a great deal of the enjoyment of what this otherwise incredible game could offer.

A real shame, and I do sincerely hope that the dynamic WRA system gets implemented soon as I am halfway tempted to just put down the game for a while and see if things get better.

[thewood1]

What I still find odd, and no one seems to have addressed, is that no one was complaining about the default previously being a WRA of max range. And that WRA setting is at least as disadvantageous as NEZ for the AI. Were you on the verge of quitting then? You must have played for years with the AI wasting AAMs and SAMs on scenarios where the designer left it at default max range. Now suddenly its a rage quit? I still have yet to find a legacy scenario where default WRAs went from max to NEZ and it had a material impact.

And don't twist this around to me saying you should use NEZ all the time as was done previously. Scenario designers should pay more attention to them. I'm talking about the default in legacy scenarios switching from max to NEZ.

[mikerohan]

What I still find odd, and no one seems to have addressed, is that no one was complaining about the default previously being a WRA of max range. And that WRA setting is at least as disadvantageous as NEZ for the AI.
[...]

Probably because "max range" was the "first" default... Nothing to compare against... And I'm not taking sides... I also feel that "max range" and NEZ play differently but do not affect the final outcome of the scenarios (legacy ones...). I haven't played with 30% as default...
People tend to "complain" when there are changes. Any change. Some people have good arguments and other are just bothered by the change itself. Again, not saying that this is the case, just trying to point why there was less complaining before the change.

Dynamic WRA sounds great though.

[...]
Scenario designers should pay more attention to them. I'm talking about the default in legacy scenarios switching from max to NEZ.

Here I mostly agree, but I think that there are different categories of scenarios:
- Created by the community, but long time ago... Here a decision has been taken by the maintainer. I'm grateful both to the creator and to the maintainer. If a new decision is taken, so be it. If I feel like something is not right I can always rebuild the scenario myself and try it out.
- New ones created by the community. Yes, please, pay more attention to the WRA. On the other hand I play scenarios and I do not create them, so please take this as a suggestion. I'm not demanding. I'm glad that there are hundreds of scenarios to choose from.
- Base scenarios (including LIVE and SHOWCASE). Here the devs could "upgrade" them with more attention to detail, so they really become a SHOWCASE of the changes and the new capabilities. Pick 5 of them and use different WRAs for different planes or missions (not just the same setting for all elements of one side), connect missions with the new tools (simultaneous strikes, for example)... Hey! for the price of a LIVE scenario, I'm willing to re-buy an updated version and compare it with the PRE-TINY one.

In fact, I feel that still there are no "official" scenarios that take advantage of the new capabilities (other than the new missile dynamics). I DO take advantage when I use things like the Flight Planner or the ATO. But still feels like there is no AI side that is using the new features.

Maybe for the next SHOWCASE?

Cheers!

[thewood1]

"Probably because "max range" was the "first" default... Nothing to compare against"

In the end, thats what I'm talking about. I think its a little over the top the threaten to quit the game because something changed, yet you can't show that the change had any real impact. How long would you have to play the game and come to the conclusion you want to quit it if no NEZ capability ever showed up?

And also, the dynamic WRA doesn't seem important enough for anyone to bother putting it into the request forum...I mean thread.

I also think part of the NEZ rage is conflated with the significant changes in in AAM physics. Again, I have not seen any scenarios with material impact from the changes. But destroying myths around people's favorite weapons is always difficult.