Airplane Defense Logic

Post bug reports and ask for game support here.

Moderator: MOD_Command

DWReese
Posts: 1879
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

Airplane Defense Logic

Post by DWReese »

I'm a little perplexed by this situation that I believe should be tweaked:

I have an attacking aircraft leaving Base A and attacking Base B. In the path is an unobserved SAM unit. The plane proceeds, then passes the SAM unit before the SAM begins firing. Keep in mind that the attacking aircraft has already passed the SAM. But, because the SAM is faster, and it is coming from behind the aircraft, the aircraft starts maneuvering. The standard evasion procedures call for the aircraft to turn back toward the SAM. So, the aircraft, instead of moving further away from the SAM, is actually moving TOWARD the SAM. The first missile misses, but it is followed by a second, a third, a fourth.... Each time, the aircraft turns into the SAM, and each time the aircraft gets a little closer to the SAM. I believe that this is unrealistic.

I do believe that I could turn "evasive action" off, but that might cause the aircraft to be shot down.

So, what I am proposing is that the logic be modified so that a targeted aircraft doesn't repeatedly turn and put itself in greater danger.

Has anyone else ever noticed this? Does anyone even care? <lol>

Doug
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by Sardaukar »

A/C behaviour like that has been around since CMANO, that is, evading towards threat. They should always evade away if possible.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
BrianinMinnie
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 3:12 pm

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by BrianinMinnie »

DW I agree

I can't tell you how many times Ive watched a aircraft near the edge of a SAM's engagement zone, after beaming a missile, turn back towards the danger zone.
after each successful evasion, getting closer and closer to the the site, until finally being engaged by the short range SAM's nearby.

It's especially tough when a LO aircraft could just beam, stay at altitude, and turn away from the threat, it would survive easily. instead it dives into the low altitude engagement area and turns back towards the threat to finally be picked off.

I don't know logic but It would be great if evasion logic would take into account the SAM type (or types known SAM's in the area) and maintain altitude and distance for max survival.
I too when using the F35 for attack sometimes turn evasive off and let its LO keep it safe while i steer it on its best course to live. its hard to do when there's a lot of action to be done elsewhere.

Brian
DWReese
Posts: 1879
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by DWReese »

I am aware that this behavior has been around since CMANO. I have been perplexed by it for that long as well.

For example, in the scenario "Operation Opera", the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactors, the Israeli F-16s race into Iraq with the mission of killing the reactors. Most of the SAMs are really old. Some have 0 percent chance of hitting the F-16. Almost all have less than 6 percent chance of getting a hit. In fact, most have somewhere between 1-3 percent chance of hitting anything. So, it would appear that the F-16 should pin its ears back, head straight for the target, release its bombs, and head home. Instead, at the first sign of a SAM, the F-16 begins evading. (I realize that I can turn it off, but you would think that the computer could do some extra calculating to determine if it would be a good idea.) So, as an endless number of SAMs are fired, the F-16 keeps turning away from the target, and evades missiles that have little to no chance of hitting anything. The longer that the F-16 stays in SAM territory, the greater the chance that one of these SAMs will get a dice roll of 1, and actually hit the F-16.

Continuing with the scenario, the SA-6s are a real threat to the F-16. Unlike the other SAMs, the SA-6 has a really decent chance of scoring a hit. So, the automatic evasion is actually needed when the SA-6 is around, but not the others.

But, right now, it's an all or nothing thing. You either turn it on so that you can possibly evade the SA-6, but you will also waste all of your effort running from all of the rest of the SAMs, OR you turn it off, thereby ignoring the other SAMs (they weren't going to hit you) but make yourself at risk to the SA-6 wherever it is.

What I would like to see is some kind of risk meter. This would tell the plane that if the risk is less than X-percent, then do not evade, but if the risk is greater than this, then do evade.

Think of the WWII movies. Flak is everywhere. Well, if Flak was everywhere the B-17s would constantly be turning around evading and they would never reach their target with so many attacks occurring. In real life, they raced forward.

In this scenario, I used just two F-16s, turned off the automatic evasion, and raced toward the target. I killed both reactors, but was ultimately killed by the SA-6s because I wasn't evading. So, it would be nice if you could do whichever was needed to accomplish your mission and survive. Evade the SA-6s, but ignore the others and hope and pray for your safety.

It's just a thought.

Doug
DWReese
Posts: 1879
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by DWReese »

I don't know logic but It would be great if evasion logic would take into account the SAM type (or types known SAM's in the area) and maintain altitude and distance for max survival.
instead it dives into the low altitude engagement area and turns back towards the threat to finally be picked off.

You said that much better than I did.

That's exactly what I would like to see as well. I don't want to lose the option of turning it on or off. Certainly, there are times for each. But, I would like an option to handle both at the same time. I just want the logic to be a little more "logical." <lol> Turning back towards the target (danger area) after you have released your weapons is not generally thought to be very logical.


User avatar
kevinkins
Posts: 2232
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:54 am

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by kevinkins »

Well the AI in this game will always be lacking ... and why players will always be asking for multiplayer. It's starting to get ridiculous that I can't battle my buddies in a friendly game of CMO. It will be 2020 in a few days. Get it done.

Kevin
“The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice.”
&#8213; Alfred Thayer Mahan

User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by Sardaukar »

There was this:

https://baloogancampaign.com/command-pl ... t-command/

IIRC, Baloogan is now one of the Devs or something like that. [8D]
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
DWReese
Posts: 1879
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by DWReese »

I just played a version of Operation Opera on CMANO and CMO. (Both acted the same, in case you were wondering.)

Instead of using all of the planes, I only sent two F-16s.

If I selected AUTOMATIC EVASION ON, the planes are constantly dodging and turning away from their target, evading SAMs (many of which only have a 1 percent (or even less) chance of hitting them. Eventually, they start to run out of fuel without ever shooting at their target.

If I selected AUTOMATIC EVASION OFF, the F-16s charge into the attack, and destroy the enemy targets. The numerous SAMs all fired at the F-16s usually miss. The only real threat, as I mentioned before, is the SA-6. If the SAM is close enough, and EVASION is set to OFF, then the F-16 will have to pray a lot, because it will likely be blown out of the sky.

After the bombing attack, I did try it by turning the EVASION to ON, and the plane never made it back to base. It constantly turned into all of the SAMs which were behind it, consistently moving back toward the previous target and away from its own base. Eventually, it is either shot down, or runs out of fuel due to all of the maneuvers.

The only way to make it back to the base is to leave the EVASION OFF, and risk that the SA-6 doesn't get you, or that the fighters don't eventually catch up to you.

So, this is a programming area concerning logic that could be looked at a little closer. It would be nice if a threat scale could be created to let the player know if it should risk it and charge in, or when it should evade.

Just a thought.
ParachuteProne
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:35 pm

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by ParachuteProne »

I agree , aircraft near the edge of SAM range get sucked into the center of an enemy task group
DWReese
Posts: 1879
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by DWReese »

I wanted to add one more thing to my scenario analysis. In the last game, I sent four F-16s. They were set to NOT EVADE because they would never reach the target otherwise. To give you an idea, Iraq fired 76 SAMs at the four F-16s. Of those fired, 32 were SA-3s, and two were SA-2s (the attackers were below 1000 feet so they could not be shot at by the SA-2s). The SA-3s and SA-2s are old and usually have a 1 percent chance of hitting the F-16. The Iraqis also fired 41 SA-6s, which are an actual credible threat. Each of the F-16s have 5 Chaff Salvos which are pretty decent at spoofing the SAMs.

One problem is that the F-16s use most of their chaff salvos on the SA-2s and SA-3s, which have little chance to hit the F-16. So, when the SA-6s start coming in, the F-16 is out of chaff salvos.

So, it would be nice, in situations like this, to evaluate your threat and determine what threat level each represents and how you want to approach it.

Again, this is just a thought. The REAL PROBLEM is that the attacking planes keep turning BACK INTO the targets, and NOT AWAY from them as they are trying to depart the area. With so many SAMs, they never make it to the target is you have EVADE ON, and they can't ever leave. If you turn EVADE OFF, then they will eventually be defenseless because they will have run out of chaff, and they make little attempt to get out of the way.

Hopefully, the logic will improve.
Technopiper
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:27 am

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by Technopiper »

ORIGINAL: kevinkins

Well the AI in this game will always be lacking ... and why players will always be asking for multiplayer. It's starting to get ridiculous that I can't battle my buddies in a friendly game of CMO. It will be 2020 in a few days. Get it done.

Kevin
But AI is still essential in multiplay. Aircraft follow doctrines, not human micro-inputs. I would argue that a better AI is even more needed in multiplay if it is to be WEGO, since you are totally dependent on AI during the execution phase. Improving the AI should be top priority above everything else.
Wasicun
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:37 pm
Location: Verona, Italy

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by Wasicun »

+1

Come on guys... time for multiplayer
serjames
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:48 am

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by serjames »

I'm not really sure how this thread is relevant for a Multiplayer proposal? What the OP is describing are the low level AI mechanics that define the defence routines played out by the aircraft in question when under SAM attack. Another RL player would have no influence on this mechanic unless, your intention would be to have players start steering Aircraft one by one? That's a different game :-)

I think it's important this AI issue is properly recognised and not convoluted with a MP vs SP discussion. It's bugged me from Day one. Along with the "Dives on a ground target then circles for 20 minutes before firing guns because the elevation is too low" issue.
Rory Noonan
Posts: 2419
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:53 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by Rory Noonan »

ORIGINAL: DWReese

I wanted to add one more thing to my scenario analysis. In the last game, I sent four F-16s. They were set to NOT EVADE because they would never reach the target otherwise. To give you an idea, Iraq fired 76 SAMs at the four F-16s. Of those fired, 32 were SA-3s, and two were SA-2s (the attackers were below 1000 feet so they could not be shot at by the SA-2s). The SA-3s and SA-2s are old and usually have a 1 percent chance of hitting the F-16. The Iraqis also fired 41 SA-6s, which are an actual credible threat. Each of the F-16s have 5 Chaff Salvos which are pretty decent at spoofing the SAMs.

One problem is that the F-16s use most of their chaff salvos on the SA-2s and SA-3s, which have little chance to hit the F-16. So, when the SA-6s start coming in, the F-16 is out of chaff salvos.

So, it would be nice, in situations like this, to evaluate your threat and determine what threat level each represents and how you want to approach it.

Again, this is just a thought. The REAL PROBLEM is that the attacking planes keep turning BACK INTO the targets, and NOT AWAY from them as they are trying to depart the area. With so many SAMs, they never make it to the target is you have EVADE ON, and they can't ever leave. If you turn EVADE OFF, then they will eventually be defenseless because they will have run out of chaff, and they make little attempt to get out of the way.

Hopefully, the logic will improve.

I understand that situations like this can be frustrating. There are some broader considerations here however.

Command models combat from 1946 through to 2025+ and it is no exaggeration to say that a lot has changed in that time frame. The DB3k alone has over 60,000 records, each of which have on average a dozen data points. To come up with AI behaviour that uniquely considers the exact circumstances of each entity in that database and makes a tailored solution to each situation is not within the realms of possibility for any dev team.

Beyond that, while it is frustrating to watch one of your AI pilots turn the wrong way and dump chaff against an SA-2 when there are SA-10's nearby, this is not at all unrealistic. Pilots are people, they make mistakes (especially under pressure), and they will react to the thing that is the biggest threat to them at that precise moment. While we as the player have the big picture of the SA-10 system sitting off to the North, our pilot is looking at the SA-2 that is rapidly closing with his aircraft and would be absolutely crazy not to evade and use chaff in response. The specific situation you describe of relatively high end aircraft being forced into the envolope of more capable shorter range air defenses by the use of less capable but longer ranged air defences is actually a well documented and well advised tactic.

At an abstracted, 1 missile vs 1 aircraft with 1 threat vector level, I am still not entirely sure that hard coding a turn away from the threat vector is the best option. This is not how evasion is handled IRL as far as I am aware, it is much more a function of optimising geometry to the incoming missile now and dealing with follow-up shots if they happen. If someone can provide a good IFTT summary that covers bases more effectively than the current AI implementation I will be extremely excited to put it forward for implementation.
Image
DWReese
Posts: 1879
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by DWReese »

Apache,

Thanks for responding.

You make very good points that the simulation covers a huge era of combat that is vastly different from the beginning to the end. I hadn't really considered that.

That being said, I do realize that turning is a method that planes apparently use to avoid missiles, but I find it odd that the evasion decision to constantly back TOWARD the SAM, instead of away from it. Is that what really happens in aerial combat? I don't know. Perhaps it is. If there is no actual training method to turn back TOWARD the SAM, then perhaps it might be better decision to try to turn AWAY from it? In other words, maybe it's better to continue to go further away, rather than closer.

I don't have a solution (other than what I loosely proposed), but I do ask that you (devs) at least consider that it is something that you could look at a little closer.

Thanks
Rory Noonan
Posts: 2419
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:53 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by Rory Noonan »

There's documented tactics from the Vietnam era of turning into the approach vector of incoming SAMs. It drastically reduces their ability to manoeuvre for a hit.
Image
AndrewJ
Posts: 2383
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 12:47 pm

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by AndrewJ »

This article (posted by Randomizer in another thread), is about SAM suppression in Iraq. https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/21-years-later-the-first-shots-of-the-second-gulf-war/

In this case, when allied aircraft were fired on by SA-3s it seems they did use the 'turn away and flee' method.

"Assuming that the SAM battery was close to Mosul (because that’s where they always were), Bat “dragged out,” which is airman parlance for running away bravely. He guessed right — by the time the missiles blasted off their launch rails, we were nose down with the afterburners in full grunt, punching through the sound barrier in the opposite direction from the missile battery. I never saw the missiles launch, and the collection of non-standard, overly excited radio calls from unmolested aircraft were no help. “Launch, SAM launch!” “Where?” “Your two o’clock.” From my vantage point, turned around looking between our twin tails, the launch location was obscured by the fuselage. By the time I saw the missiles in flight, they probably didn’t have the energy to catch us, and the pair detonated above us and well behind. "
c3k
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:06 pm

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by c3k »

Turning towards the missile is a well-known tactic...but it's not the ONLY tactic, neither is it ALWAYS the RIGHT tactic.

Engagement range, known threats (whether identified or just suspected to be in-theater), visual acquisition, performance envelopes (altitude, drag factors, range, etc.), "Flak traps", etc., all -should- play a role.

I cannot imagine how complex that would be to program.

Instead, how about a "preferred evasion" toggle? Standard is what we have now. "Flee" would be dive, burners, extend away. "Flee" would revert to normal once the missile comes within a certain range (where it's obvious the missile is about to catch up and engage/fuse).

DWReese
Posts: 1879
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Miami, Florida

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by DWReese »

The worst part of this "turn toward the SAM" method is the fact that the plane KEEPS turning toward the SAM with each successive attack. So, instead of getting further away, it keeps increasing its threat percentage by getting closer, not further away.
Technopiper
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:27 am

RE: Airplane Defense Logic

Post by Technopiper »

ORIGINAL: DWReese
The worst part of this "turn toward the SAM" method is the fact that the plane KEEPS turning toward the SAM with each successive attack. So, instead of getting further away, it keeps increasing its threat percentage by getting closer, not further away.

That is the essential gist of the original post and let's not lose focus on that.
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”