Re-Targeting by TacAI(Cont'd)

[Zackary]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the circumstances under which the TacAI DOES disregard a player's deliberate targeting commands, and when the TacAI SHOULD disregard deliberate targeting commands.

This topic has been discussed to some extent in two other threads:

(1) "Just a spectator," started by Fred, and locked (due to size) on 11/3/99 at 6:37 p.m. The URL to this discussion is http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001204.html

(2) "Disappointed in CM Demo," started by Hagen, and locked (due to size) on 11/3/99 at 4:06 p.m. The URL to this discussion is: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001137.html

Both of the discussions were locked just as I thought the discussion on this topic was beginning to get productive. This thread is intended as a continuation of the relevant portion of those two threads and not as a place to repeat everything that has already been written. If you are new to this topic, please read those threads before posting here. (That's why I provided the details that will enable you to quickly find them.)

As a side note, when Steve locked the "Just a spectator" thread, he gave a link to a thread that he indicated continued the discussion on a few of the points in that thread. I followed the link and it does not appear to be a continuation of the re-targeting discussion. (I mention this to save you the trouble of following that link if you are going back to reread those threads.)

------------------

Zackary

[Zackary]

I will start this thread by re-posting the last substantive post on the re-targeting issue that appeared in the "Just a spectator" thread. (Ok, so it happens to be mine!) The thread was locked just after I posted it, so there was no opportunity for discussion of it. Here it is:

First and most fundamentally, we need to have an understanding of the level of command being simulated. We are all agreed (I think!) that CM attempts to allow the player to simulate more than simply a company or battalian commander. Is the game designed to allow the player to simulate ALL levels of command from team leader to squad leader to platoon leader to company commander to battalian commander? If so, then the purpose of the TacAI is primarily limited to carrying the units through the 60 second period when the player cannot micromanage. On the other hand, is the game designed to simulate only platoon leader and higher level command? If so, then the purpose of the TacAI is to determine how squads and teams will carry out the platoon leaders' general orders. If the player fills the shoes of all levels of command (i.e., down to team leader), then the orders being overridden are the orders of the team leader. If the player is (at his lowest incarnation) a platoon leader, then the orders being overridden are external to the team/squad. In my mind, this is a HUGE difference. If I am the team or squad leader

and I ORDER my team or squad (coincidentally, in perfect symbiosis with my

platoon/company/battalian incarnation) to target a particular unit or area, it should be an incredibly rare circumstance that the order is ignored. In my view, the only circumstances justifying a change would be

a direct threat to my team/squad or destruction or disappearance of the target. In other words, my order should NEVER otherwise be disregared for a "juicier" target. If I am (at my lowest level) only a platoon leader, then my squad should have more latitude to disregard the corporate

plan, so to speak, dependent on a number of factors, including, among other things, the team/squad leader's traits, command and control, and unit quality. Because I have always thought of myself in CM as being all the team/squad/platoon/company leaders rolled up into one (unrealistic as it must be), I express my displeasure with re-targeting (except in the rare circumstances identified above). If BTS clearly states the lowest level of command being filled by the player is the platoon leader, we clear up much of this debate (and not only on this topic, but on several others as well). If BTS states that we also represent team/squad leaders, then I think Kraut and others, including myself, have a virtually irrefutable argument that re-targeting should be reduced (regardless of whether player targeting decisions evidence poor tactics, etc., etc., etc...). (Nothing about this would change the fact that if a player does not issue specific targeting commands, the TacAI will continue to target the highest and best default priorities.)

Second, Fionn and others have made statements and declarations about when the TacAI will re-target based on their own observations, BUT, BTS has never really explained the circumstances under which the TacAI is allowed to disregard targeting orders, other than making general statements about self-preservation and juicier opportunity targets. If we had a better understanding of the guts of the TacAI's decision-making process (i.e., the mathematical formula), we would be better able to understand and then either accept or debate the re-targeting decisions. Please Note: I am NOT criticizing Fionn, BTS, or others. I appreciate the time and input they have provided in this and other threads. I am merely pointing out that for purposes of the debate, we really have nothing firm to go on. We are all just talking about our individual anecdotal observations (though some obviously have many more such observations under their belt (Fionn .

The third thing I wanted to include in this post is really a question to BTS: Do the teams/squads have any memory of the player's targeting order? I suspect not, but would be pleased to hear otherwise. I mention it for this reason: If a unit can "remember" that you told it to target a particular squad, then when the target-squad disappears behind cover (perhaps because suppressed or perhaps because it is moving) but reappears from behind the cover in 2-30 seconds (or whatever), the player's team/squad may acquire a different target, but would return to the deliberately targeted unit when it reappears. If this type of "memory" can be readily programmed (though I doubt it would be quick and easy enough for CM 1.0), it might be a decent compromise of some of the issues raised.

Thanks to all who have contributed to discussions of this issue. I have not

intended to offend anyone (either here or in my other posts). My apologies if I have done so inadvertently.

------------------

Zackary

[Fionn]

Well let me just interject with some reasons WHY some of us think that it is simply a matter of people getting used to the game.

1. One person sent me a file in which one of his infantry squads fired while the enemy was fire away and revealed his ambush. Complaint: AI disregarded ambush marker.

Solution: Simple. Remember to TARGET the ambush marker.

2. MG wouldn't fire at unit which is targetted.

Solution: Enemy unit was not in LOS of MG.

Now, I've seen many people simply forget to check things thoroughly before saying its a bug. I have no problem with this since once I explain it 90% of them say "OOPS !! " and fully admit they made a mistake and go on playing.

Scott Clinton showed one example which really does appear to be a bug but that's the only one so far HENCE my contention that this isn't the issue everyone makes it out to be.

BTW instead of writing long posts here it is MUCH more effective to simply email the autosave and let me check it out... I can tell if its a bug or an error very simply and it cuts out a lot of unecessary posting to the forum.

FWIW I'm getting close to a dozen autosaves a day now with "bugs" and "AI errors" and so far only one, Scott's, has shown any targeting error whatsoever although one did show a movement bug that was known by the testers...

Point is that about 5% of reports (roughly) are actually showing a bug. I think that's indicative of how much of this ENTIRE issue is simply due to non-familiarity with the game hence my REPEATED (but seemingly ignored) pleas to give it time.. If it still seems wrong in a week then come back and post in ardour but until then get more experience and you'll see the problems dissapear.

Anyways, that's just my opinion.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Scott Clinton]

"Scott Clinton showed one example which really does appear

to be a bug but that's the only one so far HENCE my contention

that this isn't the issue everyone makes it out to be."

I would further like to point out this has happened in ONLY one circumstance in ONE game and could possibly be just a minor tweak needed. And if Steve & Charles come back and say "NO, it should work that way, the unit made a judgement call because..." I don't think I could argue too much with them…well, maybe a little

Frankly, for the last 18 months or so this game has been on my "Maybe" list for one and only one reason: Unit AI. I was VERY skeptical of the AI because of what I have seen in other games. AI is a real bitch to program folks. The unit AI is critical in CM IMO because of the turn system CM uses (which I love btw). IF the AI is EVEN slightly sub-par it would kill the entire game as units flounder around during replay and you have no ability to 'fix' them.

Thankfully the unit AI is so far above that which I have seen in other games the best us 'grumblers' can do is one or two isolated occurrences. As a software developer, I just wish I knew more about how the AI works and why the other companies AI's suck so badly by comparison!

------------------

The Grumbling Grognard

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks Scott BTW Fionn, did you send Scott's problem off to Charles?

Also note that we have tweaked some more stuff. The logic isn't the problem, it is the "weights" that sometimes are off.

Zackary, the reason why we CAN'T give specifics about retargeting is because... well... look how many circumstances there are to cover here The TacAI looks at range, threat, target type, cover, etc. vs. what it is doing at that very moment. We can't give you a formula because it is far too complex. That is why it is so rich in possible behavior. If it were a simple x + y = z it would be explainable, but would suck from a gamer's standpoint, trust me

The flaw in your logic that a unit should *never* jump to a juicier target is that this is far too ridged and unrealistic. Say you decide to have your MMG target a distant mortar just to keep their heads down. The chance of causing damage is very low, but you figure why the Hell not, the MMG has nothing better to do for that turn. So that is what you do, and the turn starts to play out. In the 2nd second of the turn an enemy truck comes out of nowhere and drives 5m in front of your MMG. Er, what do you think would realistically happen? What would you REALLY want to have happen in the game? Have the MMG keep plucking away at that mortar 1000m away and ignore the truck? I don't know about you, but I WANT THAT TRUCK DEAD!!! If I fear giving targeting orders because it is going to lock them into 60 seconds of blind stupidity, I will most likely put my fist through my monitor in frustration and cease giving my guys ANY targeting orders out of fear that they are going to blow some unforeseen circumstance. In other words, having über human targeting is a BAD idea, both in terms of realism and in terms of playability.

So the real question is, "does the TacAI make real errors"? That is always a question we wanted asked. When we find circumstances that look like a tweak would fix, we tweak. When it is in fact something that should have happend, then we don't tweak. Also remember that we have decrased the overall chance that a unit will switch off a human target since the demo was released. Not a lot mind you, as most poeple (including out testers) feel that it is pretty darned good right where it is now.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-04-99).]

[Zackary]

Thank you to Fionn for the email exchange (which was a little more helpful than the BB post) and thank you to Steve for the reply. Obviously, I am not getting all the answers I am looking for, but I appreciate your time and attention. I will get some more playing time under my belt (if I can get my wife to put the rolling pin down) and see what I can see.

------------------

Zackary

[guachi]

I have a case of unit insubordination to report.

In Last Defense, my Tiger drove all the way across the map to the hill on the other side.

I was 35m away from a mortar team that was shelling a halftrack. I wanted to blow the mortar up to save my halftrack. There was no other unit within 300m. My Tiger was pointed at the mortar team. Nothing was targeting the Tiger (like there was anything that could hurt it, anyway) The Tiger was unbuttoned.

I hit go. The turn started and the Tiger immediately started rotating its turret to target a fleeing infantry squad hundreds of meters away. And I do mean immediately. As soon as the turn started the red targeting line vanished.

I targeted the mortar again next turn. Same thing. Halfway through the third turn the Tiger decides that maybe shooting the mortar would be a good idea. It blows it away with one shot. Of course, by that time my halftrack was destroyed.

No LOS problem. It couln't have been that because when the Tiger finally did decide to shell the mortar, neither had moved for five minutes. The Tiger had been sitting there earlier waiting for the sound contact to turn into a real target. As far as I could tell, it was the Tiger that identified the unit as a mortar in the first place.

No other threat. The mortar team was seven times closer than the nearest observable unit.

Same Tiger different game. The Hellcats appear and my Tiger is about 100m away. The Tiger and a StuG fire smoke and back away. Next turn begins and only one Hellcat remains. I order the Tiger and StuG which was about 100m away to hunt forward through the smoke. I figure that the Hellcat can't get both of them. The Tiger can't see the Hellcat so it can't target it, but I can see it. What does the Tiger do? It hunts forward but decides to target an infantry squad 250m away. I know the Tiger couldn't see the Hellcat but it acted like the Hellcat no longer existed because it couldn't see it. Result- the Tiger exits the smoke with its turret turned ninety degrees the wrong way. Thankfully, the Hellcat wsa equally stupid and decided to turn its turret and shoot at a SS squad 400m away. What resulted was a race between the Tiger and Hellcat to see who could swivel its turret fast enough. The Hellcat won and the result was a dead Tiger.

I replayed the turn and did a 'gamey' thing. I did an area target in front of the Tiger to make sure the Tiger didn't swivel it's turret. Result - instant insubordination. Didn't fire a shot, didn't even move its turret in the right direction. Result - dead Tiger.

Jason

[Beamup]

I'd like to respond a little bit to this discussion. First of all, a couple days ago I was among those saying the AI needed tweaking on this issue, due to some experiences I'd had with the demo. Ever since, the problem has not recurred. (I still think a situation I had with the sharpshooter was a genuine glitch, but have thus far been unable to replicate it.) A few thoughts I have had since then:

1. Close-assault units absolutely MUST switch targets fast, due to the fluid nature of their situation. No problem here.

2. Support units, OTOH, should be under much closer control (this is also more accurate, I believe). But, if the support units are in proper support positions (i.e. in no imminent danger of being attacked), they do in fact keep with your orders - at least since I got better at the game.

3. Net result - the AI seems to work fine. If you pay attention to what you're doing, and your orders are appropriate, it appears to work.

4. On a less related topic, I have a problem with how to get my troops to do a certain thing. Specific example: Riesberg as Axis. Now, most of my infantry are SMGs, so are ineffective except at close range. So, what I want to happen is for them to hide and hold fire until the Americans get within 60-80m, then have everybody open up at once, hopefully cutting a platoon or more to shreds. "Hide" doesn't work, they open up at about 150m, which is really too far for an SMG. Disturbingly, it's also the range where my rifle squads in Last Defense open up from "Hide." "Ambush," OTOH, is the command that's closer to what I want. BUT, ambush has too small an area... I need this to happen on a wide front. When I tried using ambush to do this, the Americans waltzed right past the markers(about 50m away from them) into the houses before my guys fired, the one time I have cursed the discipline of Veterans. Any suggestions?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jason, thanks for the very specific examples. That is what we need to see. Duly noted and forwarded on to Charles.

Beamup, we have tweaked the "Hide" function to keep guys hiding more than they are.

Steve

[Hunter]

Fire Discipline - Yes it is sometimes annoying.....</P>

Company Commander, 3rd Battalion (in the last defence) gathers his support weapons crew and NCOs together to brief them on the upcoming defensive battle</P>

Thankyou gentlemen for responding to my warning order. We have a situation here...</P>

Situation: Enemy Forces: The Germans will be coming in with tanks and infantry combined. We expect some armoured infantry, and we expect that the Halftracks will be coming in real close...</P>

Mission: The mission for the support weapons (this means you!) is to destroy the attacking halftracks. I say again, the mission for the support weapons is to destroy the attacking halftracks. </P>

Execution: General Outline: Don't open fire until the enemy is within 400m. The killing zones are here, here and here. (Points to mudmap)</P>

Command and Signal: I will be remaining here to supervise the firing of the 0.50 Cal. etc, etc</P>

Do you have any questions?</P>

Silence.</P>

I have some questions for you. What is the primary target that the guns are to engage? You...Gunner..</P>

The Halftracks, Sir!</P>

That will be all gentlemen. Good luck...now to your posts</P>

The battle commences....</P>

German armoured vehicles emerge from the distant woods. Infantry seems to be infiltrating along the flanks. Finally, german halftracks emerge and move to within effective firing range, say 400m.</P>

Company Commander watches anxiously, then announces the order. There, that halftrack (he points along the barrel of the 0.50 Cal HMG), take it out now!</P>

The gunners respond..</P>

(Gun team turns the barrel 450 mils left and engages a fairly non-threatening german infantry team which is about to be anihilated by rifle teams in the area)</P>

Commander: "What the @#%*" </P>

ps: Nice to see that a 'tweak' has been applied </P>

[Guest JonS]

I've noticed that the 60mm mortars don't appear 'juicy' to the Germans also. Playing Reis and defending it was getting toward the endgame, and the US were assaulting down the left (pond) side of the road. Suddenly from behind one of the first row of houses pops a mortar crew c/w mortar(what they were doing there leading an assault anyway is a seperate issue... ). Now the fighting was confused, but the assault wasn't that heavy yet, but everyone just ignored the mortar and left it to wander around hither and yon. I *think* it was ignored because it wasn't percieved as a threat - no small arms, and likely out of ammo by this stage. Fair enough, maybe, but it was a bit surreal to watch these guys lead a parallel-universe kind of life for a couple of turns.

JonS

Ps eventually my guys ran out of targets and creamed them Took a while to get round to it though ?:|

------------------

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[guachi]

Steve,

I think I should also have mentioned that the mortar was in scattered trees with something like 10 or 15 % exposure and the fleeing squad it targeted was in the open with something like 50% exposure.

I've noticed that the TacAI will willingly target at units in the open. Almost always this is a good idea because you can rack up major kills this way. I love it when the computer targets units fleeing in the open and they get mowed down.

Unfortunately, the computer can't read my mind and know why I'm targeting an otherwise harmless unit. And, ultimately, I can't fault the computer for not being a mind reader.

Jason