Sub test

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Sub test

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> Harpoon 3 - Advanced Naval Warfare >> Sub test

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Sub test - 6/2/2009 12:23:14 PM

makobyte

Posts: 31
Joined: 4/21/2009
Status: offline

I created a simple scenario where two submarines, a Akula and a Virgina class met in the mid Atlantic.
Both submarines were at intermediate depth and at creep speed.
On my first test I never detected anything as either the Akula or the Virgina.
So I ran the test in the Editor with both sides showing.
The two boats passed within 5 miles of each other and never detected each other.
I tried to adjust the navigation so that they ran really close to each other.
The Virgina detected the Akula at 2 miles, but never got a solid track.
The Akula never detected the Virgina even at under 1 mile.
Considering that submarine passive sonars are superior to surface passive sonars; this basically means that in the game a advanced submarine at creep is virtually undetectable.
This also answers how a submarine could get into the middle of my task force even though there were hundreds of sonobouys in the water, helos, surface ships and even submerged submarines.

Post #: 1

Problem - 6/2/2009 7:17:31 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

Which database were you using? Each database has sonar set at a different sensitivity as well as idiosyncracies with acoustic levels.

Do you have the test file to share? The Support forum (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=301) accepts zip files. It is often easier to identify problems if a test case is available for examination.

This problem (which was thought to have been solved with patch 3.9.0) seems to have re-appeared:

Unknown Sub contacts not attacked

Unknown submarine contacts no longer attacked unless positively identified as hostile.

_____________________________

(in reply to makobyte)

Post #: 2

RE: Problem - 6/3/2009 10:04:10 AM

makobyte

Posts: 31
Joined: 4/21/2009
Status: offline

I used the PlayersDB.
I also noticed that, on one test where I ordered my sub to go active it did not attack the enemy sub until I forced it hostile.

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 3

Problem - 6/3/2009 10:11:53 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

I did a quick test with the two units you mentioned and did not get the same results. Here is an attached test file with one side for the Akula and one side for the Virginia. You can run it in the ScenEditor from either side. I find that the Virginia can detect the Akula from about 15nm most times, but the Akula needs to get much closer to the Virginia, usu. about 2nm or less.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2130451

The "Unknown Sub contacts not attacked" bug would most likely explain why the sub is not attacked until you declare it hostile.

_____________________________

(in reply to makobyte)

Post #: 4

RE: Problem - 6/3/2009 5:29:30 PM

makobyte

Posts: 31
Joined: 4/21/2009
Status: offline

Ok, I see why you had a different result.
I used the Virgina Blk III and the Akula RUS 99.
You used the Virgina 06:774 and the Akula RUS 85.
I did not know what the Virgina 06:774 was so I did not choose it.
According to the Database the Blk III appears to be a improved version of the Virgina.
One thing I did differently was to zig zag the subs so that they could use thier towed array, with the subs going nose to nose the towed array is blocked by the towing subs.

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 5

Problem - 6/3/2009 8:32:12 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: makobyte

One thing I did differently was to zig zag the subs so that they could use thier towed array, with the subs going nose to nose the towed array is blocked by the towing subs.

Zig-zag courses are good for helping you locate and classify a contact. The more cross-bearings you can generate towards the contact, the faster you will localize it. However, the towed-array sonar is set to work in all directions and is not affected by the sub. It is important to note that two subs approaching one another will generate the least amount of noise from the forward aspect.

One of the big problems in ANW is the Inability to attack unknown submarines

Unknown submarine contacts no longer attacked unless positively identified as hostile.

In H3, all unknown subs are attacked. This made the AI very, very aggressive. Now, in ANW, so long as your sub maintains creep speed, you are invulnerable due to this bug. You can penetrate pretty much any ship formation and kill the targets with newer/quieter subs because the AI simply won't fire on them.

If you play some of the ASW scenarios like, "Get the Tbilisi", you will see that the AI detects your subs just fine. This can be verified by saving the game and re-opening it for examination with the ScenEditor. You will see a virtual 'cloud' of helos and planes hovering around your sub(s). They just won't attack unless you fire first. This is ridiculous behaviour, IMO.

_____________________________

(in reply to makobyte)

Post #: 6

RE: Problem - 6/3/2009 10:00:24 PM

FreekS

Posts: 323
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Unknown submarine contacts no longer attacked unless positively identified as hostile.
[/blockquote]In H3, all unknown subs are attacked.� This made the AI very, very aggressive.� Now, in ANW, so long as your sub maintains creep speed, you are invulnerable due to this bug.� You can penetrate pretty much any ship formation and kill the targets with newer/quieter subs because the AI simply won't fire on them. �

If you play some of the ASW scenarios like, "Get the Tbilisi", you will see that the AI detects your subs just fine.� This can be verified by saving the game and re-opening it for examination with the ScenEditor. You will see a virtual 'cloud' of helos and planes hovering around your sub(s).� They just won't attack unless you fire first.� This is ridiculous behaviour, IMO.

Yes, I can confirm this. Many times playing ANW I've penetrated ship formations with subs like Victors and Oscars and not been attacked untill I fired. Saved games revealed that prior to me firing, the AI had helicopters exactly on my location but not attacking.

I agree with VCDH that this is due to the difficulty in classification. That may well be realistic. However as a game this is a big issue which has made many scens where player commands quiet subs and needs to attack convoys or SAGs basically unplayable.

No idea when the change in behaviour occured, but we've had this discussion before and in a prior ANW version the AI would attack all unknown subs. In 394 this has changed.

Regards.

Freek

_____________________________

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 7

Problem - 6/3/2009 10:16:48 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreekS

this is due to the difficulty in classification. That may well be realistic. However as a game this is a big issue which has made many scens where player commands quiet subs and needs to attack convoys or SAGs basically unplayable.

No idea when the change in behaviour occured, but we've had this discussion before and in a prior ANW version the AI would attack all unknown subs. In 394 this has changed.

The problem with classification is probably one big reason why all unknown sub contacts were attacked in H2/H3. Also, attacking unknown subsurface contacts was standard procedure in real conflicts, too, (i.e both WW2 and the Falklands). The amount of ordnance the RN expended on unknown contacts for not a single confirmed sub kill just reinforces the point. As well, sub force veterans can attest to the emphasis placed on de-confliction in modern warfare to ensure that blue-on-blue engagements are avoided at all costs. Again, this is just dumb AI behaviour in ANW, IMO.

_____________________________

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 8

RE: Problem - 6/6/2009 2:48:06 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

<<EDIT>> Again, this is just dumb AI behaviour in ANW, IMO.

Just to clarify this statement. There is NO AI - Artificial Intelligence as part of the simulation's coding. The "reactions" and behaviour exhibited by GE controlled units are a result of various sets of conditions being met. That is not the same as a decision making process or for that matter intelligence.

That being said, anybody considering the "numerous" possiblities that could exist in an ANW scenario would rapidly realise that the possibility also exists that a certain set of conditions may not be met under all circumstances. That and an inbuilt "noob" factor (additional random factors resolved during detection and combat resolution that are part of the coding) means that scens will probably not behaviour in exactly the same way each time they are run.

The current development being undertaken on ANW 3.10 will introduce the first limited mission scripting and secondary mission capability for units during play. Since the game has no AI the ability to script mission behaviour and then create chained/linked missions allows units to be assigned to multiple tasks that are completed in turn. Sequential or looped patrol missions, the possibilities are just being touched on and even without AI capabilty, the next update to the game will allow scenario designers to exhibit their own intelligence rather than rely on a non-existant code fragment.

Cheers

Darren

_____________________________

*******************************************
Editor HUD-II/HUD3 Harpoon Databases

http://www.taitennek.com/hud3-db/hud3-index.htm

Development Team H3ANW v3.8, v3.9, v3.10 & v3.10.1
*******************************************

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 9

RE: Problem - 6/6/2009 8:26:18 AM

FreekS

Posts: 323
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Bucks,

The mission scripting sounds like a good functionality to give the game some 'Intelligence'

I apologise for my use of the word 'AI'.

However I think the issue discussed above is that ANW "computer-player" used to attack submarines which it had detected but not classified, and now no longer does that. The "computer-player" now just follows those unknown sub contacts untill they declare themselves hostile (ususally by speeding up or by firing). Effectively this means that creeping subs are not attacked any more by "computer-player". That in turn means that in many scens using SSKs the human player controlling SSKs can win easily. This happens all the time and in many scens.

Freek

_____________________________

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 10

RE: Problem - 6/6/2009 9:13:46 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreekS

However I think the issue discussed above is that ANW "computer-player" used to attack submarines which it had detected but not classified, and now no longer does that. The "computer-player" now just follows those unknown sub contacts untill they declare themselves hostile (ususally by speeding up or by firing). Effectively this means that creeping subs are not attacked any more by "computer-player". That in turn means that in many scens using SSKs the human player controlling SSKs can win easily. This happens all the time and in many scens.

Freek

Freek,

May I ask you to check if the behaviour is influenced by unit mission assignment. I believe there was a change made a while back where the behaviour you're looking for was applied to units assigned to ASW Patrol missions. The point being that only units on ASW Patrol would automatically engage subs rather than every platform being prepared to go after any sub contact.

The intention was to allow specific units to observe the required behaviour while others would "hold fire" so as to avoid blue on blue incidents that can also be a part of unidentified contacts always being attacked, especially if Full Reality settings are implemented during play. This also impacts aircraft assigned to formation air patrols. Formation patrols inherit the parent group's mission profile so if your say Carrier Battle Group is assigned to a transit mission, the formation's ASW helos won't inherit the "shoot on sight" stance that an ASW patrol mission would since they are undertaking a transit within the scope of the ASW patrol zone they are responsible for.

Cheers

Darren

_____________________________

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 11

RE: Problem - 6/6/2009 9:27:38 AM

FreekS

Posts: 323
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Bucks,

Could be that this is the change thats causing the issues

Certainly the helo's on Formation Patrols (either buoy-droppers or dippers) no longer attack subs and neither do helo's on Substrike missions.

As you know, these are the normal way to defend a moving task force. ASW patrol missions are less usefull for that as the Patrol Zone stays in place while the TF moves.

I've not tested if ASW-patrol missions still attack subs

Freek

_____________________________

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 12

RE: Problem - 6/6/2009 5:18:38 PM

rsharp@advancedgamin

Posts: 430
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

Freek,

Let me know. I'm certainly willing to find the source of the change and either reverse it or tweak it to allow subs to be attacked.

Thanks,

_____________________________

Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 13

Problem - 6/6/2009 6:03:41 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bucks

May I ask you to check if the behaviour is influenced by unit mission assignment. I believe there was a change made a while back where the behaviour you're looking for was applied to units assigned to ASW Patrol missions. The point being that only units on ASW Patrol would automatically engage subs rather than every platform being prepared to go after any sub contact.

There is credence to this theory. I conducted a quick test between units on Transit mission and units on ASW Area Patrol mission as well as units on ASuW Area Patrol mission. The units on Transit mission and ASuW Area Patrol mission did as described; followed an unknown sub contact around endlessly without firing a shot. The units on ASW promptly opened fire and destroyed the unknown sub.

Unfortunately, explaining a bad behaviour does not solve it anymore than explaining the physical effects of bullet wounds on a human body saves a gunshot victim. All scenarios consist of a variety of different missions. Those missions are needed to operate in their own unique way in order for the scenario to run successfully. Otherwise, scenario writing boils down to:

1) Check for presence of a quiet submarine
2) If present, make all AI-controlled missions into ASW missions

That is currently the only way to ensure that player-controlled quiet submarines are attacked by the AI else the player creeps around and sinks all the AI-controlled units while wearing a cloak of invulnerability.

What is needed is for all the missions to enjoy the free-fire benefits that seem to pertain to the ASW area patrol mission when engaging unknown submarine contacts.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 14

RE: Problem - 6/7/2009 2:14:38 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Bucks,

Could be that this is the change thats causing the issues

Certainly the helo's on Formation Patrols (either buoy-droppers or dippers) no longer attack subs and neither do helo's on Substrike missions.

As you know, these are the normal way to defend a moving task force. ASW patrol missions are less usefull for that as the Patrol Zone stays in place while the TF moves.

I've not tested if ASW-patrol missions still attack subs

Freek

Freek,

I've just checked the Features, upgrades and fixes.rtf file found in the Manual Folder of the ANW installation. It lists the changes implemented in version 3.9.0+ of the simulation and here's confirmation of the change:

quote:

Simulation
� Passive Sonar classification times and probabilities updated to match paper rules v4.1
� Helicopters no longer excluded from VLow altitude
� ASW Patrol missions will now attack unidentified submarines in their area of interest

That confirms my belief that the change had been made. The basis for it was the inability of some ASW platforms from making a positive identification of the unidentified submarine contact. This would lead to a "no prosecution" situation that's being reported.

I agree Freek that, having the only mission profile to automatically attack subs set for ASW patrol is a little sub-standard from the point of recognised doctrine. Even though I've been known to move my ASW patrol mission reference points to keep the mission centred on my surface group. Unfortunately there's no automatic, "keep mission centred on group" option and it's a manual edit situation.

I think we might have to ask Russell nicely if he could look at implementing a solution that frees up the ASW Formation air patrol and ASW Strike mission to allow the auto attack of unidentified subs. I tend to agree with other mission types not using the auto attack feature, although I believe any ASW mission or ASW Formation Air Patrol should have this behaviour implemented.

Cheers

Darren

_____________________________

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 15

RE: Problem - 6/7/2009 8:06:08 AM

FreekS

Posts: 323
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Bucks,

What utter nonsense. A shipgroup on ASuW patrol (under 'computer control') should not attack subs penetrating its formation?
So basically with ANW it is now impossible for a shipgroup to carry out a Ground Strike or ASuW Patrol and defend itself against a submarine?
The changes being made are so ludicrous and basically make the game unplayable.

And 'ask Russell nicely'? Sorry but I think he should listen to players.

Freek

_____________________________

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 16

Problem - 6/7/2009 8:41:15 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreekS

A shipgroup on ASuW patrol (under 'computer control') should not attack subs penetrating its formation?

So basically with ANW it is now impossible for a shipgroup to carry out a Ground Strike or ASuW Patrol and defend itself against a submarine?

More than likely, those ships (i.e. Amphibs & merchants) are probably on a Transit, Support, or Plotted mission and thus will not fire on enemy subs approaching the group.

Mincing around and only enabling certain units within a group to fire on an unknown sub unit is just a recipe for disaster, IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreekS

The changes being made are so ludicrous and basically make the game unplayable.

+1

When people play H3 scenarios and then re-play the exact same scenarios in ANW, they are telling me that the AI is one tough SoB in H3 and practically non-existent in ANW. This is very telling on the state of the game.

_____________________________

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 17

RE: Problem - 6/7/2009 4:57:33 PM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Bucks,

What utter nonsense. A shipgroup on ASuW patrol (under 'computer control') should not attack subs penetrating its formation?
So basically with ANW it is now impossible for a shipgroup to carry out a Ground Strike or ASuW Patrol and defend itself against a submarine?
The changes being made are so ludicrous and basically make the game unplayable.

And 'ask Russell nicely'? Sorry but I think he should listen to players.

Freek

Nothing ludicrous about it. Your ASuW ship group has Helos? You assign them to my proposed changes and you have an ASW force component as part of your group. You're almost suggesting everything fires at everything all the time rather than quite specific force components being used to undertake differing roles within the overall mission.

What if you assigned a group of aircraft to carry HARMs and attack a SAM battery? You fire the HARMs from say 50nm but fail to silence all the radars then what? Rather than RTB and reload with stand off missiles you bore in on the target and strafe it with 20mm? You might complain when your strikers all die to the Manpads and light AAA surrounding the SAM battery target. I might say you should have reloaded and somebody else might use stand-off jammers to cut back the launch range of the SAM battery by reducing its ability to detect and subsequently illuminate targets - Gotta be able to "see" the target before you can cue the illuminator on to it.

Just because you have a particular doctrinal approach to this issue, doesn't it's right or the only way to achieve a given outcome. You'd almost be suggesting all navies operate identically and the outcome of a battle is always decided on tech level rather than Leadership, Morale, Training etc. Just because the simulation doesn't work the way you'd like it doesn't mean it's wrong. It might even be designed to look at doctrine and help train people in using the correct assets to complete their designated mission role.

quote:

What utter nonsense. A shipgroup on ASuW patrol (under 'computer control') should not attack subs penetrating its formation?

Sorry Freek, by that stage the whole shooting match is pretty much over. Short of having a secret teleportation machine I doubt there's going to be much you can do except prepare your damage control parties. Maybe firing a couple of Mk46's with their dinky 40kg warhead (contact fusing as well, so really limited damage compared to the hydrostatic effect a non contact warhead takes advantage of) might put a hesitant sub skipper off, but from years of being involved in this I haven't seen a sub pull back yet...

Cheers

Darren

_____________________________

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 18

RE: Problem - 6/7/2009 5:12:40 PM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum
When people play H3 scenarios and then re-play the exact same scenarios in ANW, they are telling me that the AI is one tough SoB in H3 and practically non-existent in ANW.� This is very telling on the state of the game.

So far Herman they seem to only tell you, where exactly we're not sure. Since the dissenters here seem of limited numbers, encouraging these "people" to comment here or contact Russell and I may provide further evidence of the supposed complaints and/or issues. Then we'd seriously look at the issues involved.

Again I'll state there is NO AI (Artificial Intelligence) contained in the coding. Simply sets of conditions or trigger points that cause the computer controlled units to react a certain way. I've even had comments that the current AO (Artificial Opponent) is much more realistic and not the Napoleonic, "line up and unload" we've been dealing with. I guess you don't want to help, everything becomes a finger pointing session with you guys rather than helping the effort.

As far as I'm concerned you would be better playing the versions of this game that contain the features you're looking for. There's no requirement to update and if you don't, then you can play H3 to your heart's content and leave the forum for dealing with the current version of the game. Do you still use a rotary dial telephone by any chance?

Cheers

Darren

_____________________________

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 19

RE: Problem - 6/7/2009 5:20:32 PM

FreekS

Posts: 323
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Darren,

Are you talking real life tactics or Harpoon? In Harpoon AI (sorry 'computer controlled') subs immediately go to flank and change course when a Mk46 is fired at them by a surface ship.
When I make a scen I create helo 'formation' patrols, and behind them sprint-drift or random ASW-capable ships, and behind them the HVUs. When the whole group is on Transit, ASuW or Ground Strike mission (because thats their primary mission) then neither the helo's nor the DDs or FFs will fire on subs. You say that is any navies doctrine?

In my opinion all 'computer controlled' planes or ships carrying ASW weapons should fire them on unknown submerged contacts on any mission. The 'computer' already is at a severe disadvantage as it can only follow the mission that the designer programmed for it.

I bet you that YOU as a human player drop torps on 'computer controlled' subs whenever you encounter them espaecially in the vicinity of your ships. No reason why the AI (sorry computer) should not do the same, as it has been doing for many years untill this latest change.

Freek

_____________________________

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 20

Problem - 6/7/2009 7:24:46 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bucks

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Bucks,

What utter nonsense. A shipgroup on ASuW patrol (under 'computer control') should not attack subs penetrating its formation?
So basically with ANW it is now impossible for a shipgroup to carry out a Ground Strike or ASuW Patrol and defend itself against a submarine?
The changes being made are so ludicrous and basically make the game unplayable.

Nothing ludicrous about it. Your ASuW ship group has Helos? You assign them to my proposed changes and you have an ASW force component as part of your group. You're almost suggesting everything fires at everything all the time rather than quite specific force components being used to undertake differing roles within the overall mission.

Sure it is ludicrous. You have a ship on ASuW Area Mission patrol and it doesn't have helos. So, a sub shows up on the doorstep of the ship and instead of firing on it, it just keeps sailing on and eats a torpedo before the sub moves in on the centre of the formation and kills the rest of the force (who won't fire back, either).

_____________________________

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 21

Problem - 6/7/2009 7:54:24 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bucks

So far Herman they seem to only tell you, where exactly we're not sure. Since the dissenters here seem of limited numbers, encouraging these "people" to comment here or contact Russell and I may provide further evidence of the supposed complaints and/or issues. Then we'd seriously look at the issues involved.

Again I'll state there is NO AI (Artificial Intelligence) contained in the coding. Simply sets of conditions or trigger points that cause the computer controlled units to react a certain way. I've even had comments that the current AO (Artificial Opponent) is much more realistic and not the Napoleonic, "line up and unload" we've been dealing with. I guess you don't want to help, everything becomes a finger pointing session with you guys rather than helping the effort.

I haven't seen any of those comments. Guess they didn't happen, either.

When I use the term AI, everyone over the age of 10 knows EXACTLY what I'm talking about and that I'm not suggesting Skynet-level intelligence. Of course, everyone else is free to describe it any way they like, too. Calling it a "Pre-programmed artificially intuitive codified opponent" seems to make some folks think that they appear smarter and self-important, but your mileage may vary.

But I am helping. I'm letting everyone know just how abysmally the AI performs in ANW. Of course, some users may thing that having a cloud of ASW helos following an unknown sub target like the Pied Piper is indicative of an intelligent function and fun game, but I would bet that many others do not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Do you still use a rotary dial telephone by any chance?

I most certainly do. You can't beat solid technology. Now, if only ANW had as much functional stability as a rotary phone, there would be no problems.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 22

RE: Problem - 6/8/2009 1:53:48 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Do you still use a rotary dial telephone by any chance?

I most certainly do. You can't beat solid technology. Now, if only ANW had as much functional stability as a rotary phone, there would be no problems.

I know you think that's funny, but you and you alone. Please place your head back up your anus and then the rest of us won't have to listen to you. To suggest you're a purile recalcitrant is hardly touching the surface, anyway back to attempting to unravel how you've made jammable binoculars...

Looks easy really and it's not the binoculars... It's the fact your jammers are sucking energy from the ether, rather than putting it out. Of course you'll blame documentation etc like you did with the AIP sub. How could I build them with no documentation and yet you were unable to? I mean face it, you built it, it didn't work and you blamed AGSI.

Much more to come.

Thanks

Darren

_____________________________

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 23

Problem - 6/8/2009 3:00:44 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Please place your head back up your anus and then the rest of us won't have to listen to you. To suggest you're a purile recalcitrant is hardly touching the surface, anyway back to attempting to unravel how you've made jammable binoculars...

Ah, back to the insults. We all know what happened the last time you tried this tact. No wonder the game is in its current state since anyone who points out that the Emperor has no clothes is immediately the target of personal attacks.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 24

RE: Problem - 6/8/2009 5:30:07 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

Ah, back to the insults. We all know what happened the last time you tried this tact. No wonder the game is in its current state since anyone who points out that the Emperor has no clothes is immediately the target of personal attacks.

Why? Because you asked for it.

Go on, run to Erik and tell him I called you names. You're what we call a "lagger" here in Australia, actually that's about the worst insult you can use against an Aussie. If I get banned again that's fine, I won't come back and you can have this all to yourself...

Anyone over 10 with a working knowledge of English knows I used the anatomical term and not something that could be contrused as an insult or expletive. The colloquial Australian English phrase would have been:

"He's got his head up his bum"

Usually used to describe someone who is ignorant of a situation or simply thinks he knows best regardless of the facts...

Until this simulation runs the way YOU want it, it's just never going to be right is it Mr Hum?

Darren Buckley

_____________________________

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 25

RE: Problem - 6/8/2009 6:09:03 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Darren,

Are you talking real life tactics or Harpoon? In Harpoon AI (sorry 'computer controlled') subs immediately go to flank and change course when a Mk46 is fired at them by a surface ship.
When I make a scen I create helo 'formation' patrols, and behind them sprint-drift or random ASW-capable ships, and behind them the HVUs. When the whole group is on Transit, ASuW or Ground Strike mission (because thats their primary mission) then neither the helo's nor the DDs or FFs will fire on subs. You say that is any navies doctrine?

In my opinion all 'computer controlled' planes or ships carrying ASW weapons should fire them on unknown submerged contacts on any mission. The 'computer' already is at a severe disadvantage as it can only follow the mission that the designer programmed for it.

I bet you that YOU as a human player drop torps on 'computer controlled' subs whenever you encounter them espaecially in the vicinity of your ships. No reason why the AI (sorry computer) should not do the same, as it has been doing for many years untill this latest change.

Freek

Freek,

You described this as a "latest change", and I'll admit I have no idea how many upgrades have taken place since July 27th, 2007 but that's when this was added to the coding.

Yep almost two years down the track and now we have a problem with it? Sorry mate this should have been apparent to people well before this if the change was made 23 months ago...

I'll have Don chasing me because of this but here's the Mantis entry for the change:

ID: 0002159

Category: [H3 ANW - H3Cx] Simulation
Severity: minor
Reproducibility: always
Date Submitted: 07-27-07 02:04
Last Update: 08-19-07 22:41

Reporter: ddearing
View Status: public
Assigned To: ddearing
Priority: normal
Resolution: fixed
Platform
Status: resolved
OS:
Projection none
OS Version:
ETA: none
Fixed in Version: 3.8.1 B7

Summary: 0002159: Changed ASW Patrol missions to enaged unidentified submarines

Description: Due to the difficulty of getting an exact ID on quiet subs, ASW Patrol missions will now treat unidentified submarines within their area of interest as hostile.
Steps To Reproduce:
Additional Information:

Database ANWDB

Looks to me like it was included as far back as 3.8.1, so I find it strange that it is now an issue where we'd not had any issues with it until now.

So rather than argue about it, why don't we look at having it fixed? I mean if it's taken 23 months to show its head maybe something else has happened that's having an effect on the way unidentified subs are prosecuted. In actual fact we're simply back to the point where we needed to add this modified coding so lets collect some data and examples and help the poor guy (yes just Russell) doing the coding get it right. Of course "right" may not be what everyone thinks is the way it should work.

I have to ask if once the hostile sub has fired, do your units under attack still, "do nothing"? Also if these complaints are based on using the PDB, as part of the Development Team and an interested observer can we take a look at the values that are being used in that Database? It may simply be yet another case of the DB having nothing but "assumed" PCS and Passive sonar input values to work with, which may in themselves be incorrect. I believe all Herman does is copy a similar platform, rather than individually calculate each platform or weapon's cross section values. IMHO that's a recipe for most of the issues.

Another interesting point is attacking subs from the rear aspect, if the sub has no TAS and therefore the rear 90 degrees may in fact represent a "blind spot" where an attack will not cause the sub to go to flank and run, it didn't hear the incomming torp so why would it run from nothing?

Lastly the issue of real life operations. Your surface group is ordered to move to Point X, according to higher command, you have a friendly sub in support. Therefore to avoid sinking your own sub, you're hoping he takes care of the bad guys. What happens when the bad guys take care of your mates in the sub first and you are operating unaware of this point? You detect a sub and simply fire on it? getting interesting with all of the possibilities now isn't it?

Cheers

Darren

_____________________________

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 26

Problem - 6/8/2009 8:11:54 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bucks

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Darren,

Are you talking real life tactics or Harpoon? In Harpoon AI (sorry 'computer controlled') subs immediately go to flank and change course when a Mk46 is fired at them by a surface ship.
When I make a scen I create helo 'formation' patrols, and behind them sprint-drift or random ASW-capable ships, and behind them the HVUs. When the whole group is on Transit, ASuW or Ground Strike mission (because thats their primary mission) then neither the helo's nor the DDs or FFs will fire on subs. You say that is any navies doctrine?

In my opinion all 'computer controlled' planes or ships carrying ASW weapons should fire them on unknown submerged contacts on any mission. The 'computer' already is at a severe disadvantage as it can only follow the mission that the designer programmed for it.

I bet you that YOU as a human player drop torps on 'computer controlled' subs whenever you encounter them espaecially in the vicinity of your ships. No reason why the AI (sorry computer) should not do the same, as it has been doing for many years untill this latest change.

Freek

Freek,

You described this as a "latest change", and I'll admit I have no idea how many upgrades have taken place since July 27th, 2007 but that's when this was added to the coding.

Yep almost two years down the track and now we have a problem with it? Sorry mate this should have been apparent to people well before this if the change was made 23 months ago...

Here's the Synopsis:

This atrocious behaviour was present when the game was released June 14, 2006.
A lukewarm half-measure was implemented with Patch 3.9.0 March 25, 2008.
AI units on ASW mission were permitted to fire. All other units remain impotent and unable to defend themselves against submarines.
This abominable behaviour persists to this day, June 8, 2009.
Quiet submarines remain virtually invulnerable when attacking AI units.

http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-05-29/

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 27

RE: Problem - 6/8/2009 8:42:57 AM

FreekS

Posts: 323
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

Bucks,

By all means lets get it fixed. I don't profess to know the root-cause, I'm only a scen designer and have never yet opened a DB editor.

The problem affects all quiet subs, usually as long as they creep they are not attacked even when perfectly localised (I checked saved games - plural - for that). sometimes when they speed up and always when they fire then the AI/computer player fires back. I think its a clear case of classification hostile being needed before the AI/computer player (can I shorten this to AI please?) fires.
Hermans timeline is correct (and so is his cartoon!).

The fact that it is taking 23 month, I would say is not my problem; I've been discussing other major issues with Rusty for a long time too.

Lets get it fixed!

I continue to believe that the AI should fire on all unknown sub contacts. If there is a friendly sub out there, then it is the job of the designer (not AI) to prevent blue on blue conflict by carefully routing groups around friendly sub patrols. I've been doing that for 5 years and it mirrors good practice in RL.

Freek

< Message edited by FreekS -- 6/8/2009 8:49:42 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 28

RE: Problem - 6/8/2009 1:00:55 PM

rsharp@advancedgamin

Posts: 430
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

Howdy,

First, a warning for Darren and Herman (in alphabetical order). In this thread and others, things are getting a bit testy and insults given. Please calm down and keep it to the issues.

Second, please keep some perspective. This video game covers a very complex subject and there is plenty of room for opposing opinions. Periodically an issue like this one pops up and people adopt the pose that the sky is falling. Maybe this was necessary in the past for an issue to get developer attention but I'm trying to show that it is no longer the loudest squeaking wheel that gets the attention. Each issue will be judged on its own merit and not the hysterics that follow.

Third, I believe not attacking unknown subsurface contacts does not make much sense for the Artificial Officer (AO). However, allowing room for other opinions is more important than choosing a winner. I'm going to make this configurable on a per-mission basis and that includes being able to configure the default behavior.

Finally, I'd like to thank everyone for continuing to bring these issues to the forums. I'm not going to offer a hundred small course corrections but I will expand the capabilities of the game. I can't do that without your input.

Thanks again,

< Message edited by rsharp@advancedgamin -- 6/8/2009 1:17:44 PM >

_____________________________

Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon

(in reply to FreekS)