Engaging generic visual Contacts

[Euri]

Why the TACAI does not engage visual generic tank contacts until it has identified the particular type of the enemy unit? I refer to contact icons that are deep red (indicating the unit has indeed a visual on the target)/ 

[Euri]

I guess everyone thinks it is perfectly normal to look at an enemy tank and not shoot until I am certain about the exact type of it....Oh well...

[Machor]

Well, because 'contacts' are not spotted. The colour of the icon indicates the degree of certainty, not spotting. From page 38 of the manual:

"The opacity of a contact will tell you how confident your troops are that something is there: a very translucent contact is less certain than one that is fully opaque."

[MOS:96B2P]

On 10/24/2016 at 0:11 PM, Euri said:

Why the TACAI does not engage visual generic tank contacts until it has identified the particular type of the enemy unit? I refer to contact icons that are deep red (indicating the unit has indeed a visual on the target)/ 

If you are talking about Tentative Contacts (the ones with a ?) These contacts are for units that are not currently in sight.  They can be heard and/or they were spotted but now can no longer be seen.  

From Engine Manual v3.01 page 40: Unknown or previously spotted but now out of sight units, as well as pure sound contacts, are shown with a generic silhouette and a question mark.     

Unlike a human player the AI will not area fire at a tentative contact only confirmed contacts.  Like @Machor said the deep red just means it is a more certain tentative contact than a light red.  Example: This turn your troops think they heard heavy armor so the tentative contact is deep red.  Five turns from now, if the heavy armor is not heard again, the red tentative contact will get lighter and lighter.  The AI still can't shoot at it because they don't actually see it.

Hope that is what you were asking.    

[Muzzleflash1990]

I think Euri might be referring to the very first time you spot certain units. Before you get first ever proper contact marker for a unit (not seen before), you get a tentative contact.

As an example. Sometimes, especially in BS, I have noticed occasionally a position on the map (where nothing have been spotted before, tentatively or not) gets a contact mark. About 5s to 60s later it becomes a solid target with respect to the spotting unit, and the unit engages the contact. I always interpreted this delay as: the first very opaque question mark on the exact location, means "something" was detected there (something looks "off"); then the unit (e.g commander/squad leader) uses it optics to indeed confirm, that yes, that weird looking thing (that Private/Crew member Pyle detected with the naked eye) is indeed the corner of a vehicle; and time is spent determining whether the corner is to the "right" or the "left" with respect to observer position; finally the unit has enough information to conclude the actual position of the vehicle, the proper contact marker appears, and the unit can engage.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Muzzleflash1990

[Muzzleflash1990]

It only took two minutes of ingame time to find an example. Note that the unit in the video gets a tentative contact before a conclusive location and identification. In the video, I only select a few vehicles, but no other unit than the Khrizantema ever gets a spot on the vehicle.

 

[Euri]

The thing is that when the tentative marker is deep opaque red, there is always enemy there of the type shown on the generic marker. It is not probabilistic, it is 100% certainty. In this case in a hostile environment I would guess that the obvious choice is one to engage, not to wait until one has discerned the exact type of enemy. "There is something there across the enemy line! Fire". That is my point. 

[c3k]

Until the vehicle model appears in the game, none of your units has seen it. The "?" icons means that they THINK something may be there. They just don't KNOW it.

Engaging with precision munitions wouldn't make sense. Fire a missile..."over there". Huh? (This is the one advantage the human player has. If you see some infantry "?", you can plaster the area with arty.)

The "?" could be due to a fleeting thermal image. It could be due to a scout hearing an engine. Etc.

[Muzzleflash1990]

The tentative marker in my example would that be "deep opaque blue" or are you talking about something else. The moment I got that tentative marker, there was no doubt in my mind that an actual vehicle was there - although as c3k says, I doubt the crew was so sure. Had they fired on that marker they would have missed by 10-15 meters to the left (in fact after full spot, the missile you see in the video, missed anyway by 15cm (5.9 inches for you weirdos)).

But maybe you are talking about a different kind of marker.  If you are: what difficulty level are you playing at? Also, if you can get a screenshot, or a save game next time it happens.

[Jotte]

@c3k do the AI ( of both player and/or computer controled units) have a chance/risk of imagining things, ie think they have spotted something but in reality there is nothing there?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

When engaging targets, often you'll have enough information to tell you there is something worth a bullet, but not enough to reliably kill it.

CMBS represents this less as the spotter sees a tank, and is frantically flipping through Janes All the World's Armor or whatever to figure out if it's a T-90 OR T-72, and more the spotter sees the antennas and optics on the top of the target (or "something" on the thermals) and is resolving it into a shootable target.  

[MOS:96B2P]

5 hours ago, Euri said:

<Snip> the obvious choice is one to engage, not to wait until one has discerned the exact type of enemy. <Snip>  

The AI is not waiting to discern the exact type of enemy.  It is waiting for a direct target (spotted with LOF) instead of an area target.  When it gets a direct target (spotted with LOF) on the enemy unit the enemy unit is also exactly identified (realistically or not) at the same time.  

A  Human player can't directly target a tentative contact either.  Can't shoot what you can't see.  However a human player may area target in the general direction/area of the tentative contact.   

The AI will not area target in the direction/area of a tentative contact.  I don't know if this is a game programming/mechanics limitation or an intentional decision on the part of BFC.    

If you are saying it would be more realistic/better if the AI could area target in the direction/area of a tentative contact I would generally agree (everything has advantages and disadvantages).  But, for now anyways, the AI will not and our TACSOPs should take that into consideration.      

[Euri]

36 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

The AI is not waiting to discern the exact type of enemy.  It is waiting for a direct target (spotted with LOF) instead of an area target.  When it gets a direct target (spotted with LOF) on the enemy unit the enemy unit is also exactly identified (realistically or not) at the same time. .    

OK. This makes sense from an AI perspective

[Machor]

1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:

The AI will not area target in the direction/area of a tentative contact.  I don't know if this is a game programming/mechanics limitation or an intentional decision on the part of BFC.

There is a partial improvement to this on the way:

" * AI can now be ordered to perform Area Fire in its AI Plan.  This allows the AI to place fire on particular spots on the assumption that the enemy might be there.  Woodlines, reverse ridges, buildings, etc.  This is a compromise between the current system (absolutely no AI area fire) and everybody's fantasy system (the AI is smart enough to know when and where to apply Area Fire all on its own).  Preliminary results indicate that this will be a rather nasty surprise for single player types  "

 

[Muzzleflash1990]

I think that improvement may be most beneficial to machine guns and HE. Area firing with ATGM missiles and AP rounds sure sounds like waste and a way to run out of ammo quickly?

[Machor]

Area fire with HE will cause suppression. A human player could use area fire to suppress a suspected tank and simultaneously move something in for the kill. Not sure how it will work with the AI though.

[MOS:96B2P]

9 hours ago, Machor said:

There is a partial improvement to this on the way:

" * AI can now be ordered to perform Area Fire in its AI Plan.  This allows the AI to place fire on particular spots on the assumption that the enemy might be there.  Woodlines, reverse ridges, buildings, etc.  This is a compromise between the current system (absolutely no AI area fire) and everybody's fantasy system (the AI is smart enough to know when and where to apply Area Fire all on its own).  Preliminary results indicate that this will be a rather nasty surprise for single player types  "

 

Yes, this will be a nice improvement.  I'm looking forward to it.   Thanks for reminding me. 

[Michael Emrys]

5 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Yes, this will be a nice improvement.

In the long run I expect it will. But it might take considerable tweaking to get it to work without a proliferation of corner cases where it behaves in ways that players will complain about.

Michael