Monster Tanks Retreating #2 And Steve's List of Why the Tac AI tells tanks to retreat

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by PondScum:

Seanachai, you garrulous fool, stop bothering the natives and get back in the 'pool before you get banned.

Oh, and sending a turn wouldn't hurt either.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled bitch-fest.

They can't ban me! You can't ban someone who's only crime is to recognize human stupidity in all it's multitudinous and multiplicities of disguises, and call an ass an ass! Especially when I have no position to maintain, no axe to grind, nor any 'credentials' to trumpet.

Besides, after what seems like a near decade of posting in the Peng Challenge Thread, I feel better qualified than most to recognize complete and utter posturing ****e when I see it.

But your concern for my Forum presence does you credit. Do we hug, now, or do I simply tell you that you'll get a sodding turn when I feel like sending one to you, you pillock?

[ December 04, 2002, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Seanachai ]

[OGSF]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

Peng Challenge Thread

Ye bollocksed oop ye UBB laddie.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by OGSF:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Seanachai:

Peng Challenge Thread

Ye bollocksed oop ye UBB laddie.</font>

[Mikeydz]

Originally posted by redwolf:

In my opinion, the game should model "very soft" factors like crew screwups for everybody or nobody. [/QB]

Forgot to address this in my last post since this has been bugging me ever since this phrase appeared. You refer to the Tac-AI modeling screw-ups. Concerning the ISU-PzIV matchup, you refer to the retreating action as the screw-up in question. But as been pointed out, from a vechile survivability standpoint, a retreat (wether before, after, or while firing, seems to be the best choice It rarely if ever got knocked out when it chose to retreat, IIRC. You may be of the opinion that retreating is the wrong choice, but that doesn't make it a screw-up. In fact, I doubt that there is any code in the Tac-AI that intentionally causes a unit to perform an action that it knows will result in it's death.

Steve will need to verify this, but I would be shocked if it would be programed to do that. We player get our units in enough trouble without the AI lending a helping hand.

So I belive the characterization that the Tac-AI is in error.

[Tarquelne]

Where am I? "Monster Tanks"! Shi

[Mikeydz]

Originally posted by Mikeydz:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

In my opinion, the game should model "very soft" factors like crew screwups for everybody or nobody.

Forgot to address this in my last post since this has been bugging me ever since this phrase appeared. You refer to the Tac-AI modeling screw-ups. Concerning the ISU-PzIV matchup, you refer to the retreating action as the screw-up in question. But as been pointed out, from a vechile survivability standpoint, a retreat (wether before, after, or while firing, seems to be the best choice It rarely if ever got knocked out when it chose to retreat, IIRC. You may be of the opinion that retreating is the wrong choice, but that doesn't make it a screw-up. In fact, I doubt that there is any code in the Tac-AI that intentionally causes a unit to perform an action that it knows will result in it's death.

Steve will need to verify this, but I would be shocked if it would be programed to do that. We player get our units in enough trouble without the AI lending a helping hand.

So I belive the characterization that the Tac-AI "models screwups" is in error.[/QB]</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Mike,

Me: Incorrect. Some opinions are wrong and can be proven wrong.

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

Nope - if you can prove a statement wrong then it was an incorrect FACT.

An opinion is how someone interprets something, and interpretation (in the sense of opinions) cannot be argued.

Sorry, I don't buy this at all. Here is the word defined:

o·pin·ion - n.

1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).

2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.

Check out #1 in particular. It does not say that it can NOT be proven, just that it is stated without positive knowledge or proof. When someone says they think the TacAI is behaving incorrectly, they are voicing an OPINION. However, for that OPINION to have any worth they must show that there is a reasonable factual basis. Otherwise, what is the point of voicing the opinion in the first place?

Check out #2. A medical opinion is based on facts. Or at least it supposed to be. If that opinion can be proven incorrect due to a different examination of the facts, it does not negate it being an opinion. It is just that it is now possibly an opinion that is of no value because it is not factually correct. This is why people go for "second opinions".

Other definitions snipped as irrelevant.

Exactly - the FACTs are not open to interpretation.

Sure they are. This is why we have Historians, Lawyers, Doctors, Auto Mechanics, etc. Facts are almost always open to interpretation. And an interpretation of fact is... an opinion An opinion expressed which does not follow the facts closely or accurately enough is still an opinion. Just not one of much value.

And they are not OPINIONS - they are expressions of the facts as they exist in 2 differnet places.

Yeah, I'll give you this one. Poor example on my part.

Opinions never conflict when stated as opinions.

Eg:

Person 1: "My opinion is that ISU-122's are cowards in CMBB"

Person 2: "My opinion is that ISU-122's are fine in CMBB"

These 2 opinions do not contradict each other because they are held by 2 ppl seperately. There is no mutual ground betwen them, and, as opinions, their range is solely the person who holds them.

True, but the value of a statement such as this is to persuade someone else that the ISUs are either cowards or fine, depending on the presenter's point of view. And as such, they are presenting an opinion that is purporting some sort of statement about facts. One says that the facts point to the ISUs being cowards, the other says that thee facts point to them being fine. So what do we do? We argue about which facts are relevant and then we examine them to see which opinion is more in keeping with the findings. If the facts support one opinion more than the other, then it reduces the worth/value of the other opinion to the degree the facts support one and not the other. In some instances two very directly opposed opinions can actually stand equally after such examination. However, they are still just opinions because a person can choose which set of conclusions to buy into.

It is only when one or other person states that their opinion is a FACT that conflict occurs - this is implied when you try to force your opinion on someone else!!

Trying to do so implicitly means you are not holding forth an opinion any more, rather you are holding forth your beleif as a fact - a truth that brooks no other truth.

Well, then according to you when someone presents an opinion, as soon as it is challenged it is no longer an opinion. From that point on it is now a statement of fact. Since nearly all opinions are voiced in order to influence someone else's thinking, I don't see how your definition makes much sense.

well there ya'go then - you (and Redwolf too for that matter) are trying to argue that your opinions are FACTS, and they aren't.

No, I am trying to argue that my opinion is based on facts and Redwolf's is not. Or in some cases, my opinion is based on a better understanding of facts than Redwolf's. And yes, I think I have proved it. Redwolf held an OPINION that the ISU-122 was capable of going up against a PzIV at 500m without difficulty. After much arguing, he has admitted that his original OPINION was in error.

"If his opinion was "I am having problems learning how to deal with the TacAI and I don't think it is me", I would not say he is wrong to hold this opinion. Instead, I would try and help him change his opinion through discussion of how the game works."

that wouldn't be an opinion, that would be a statement of FACT!!!! rofl!! lol

Sorry - the irony is delicious!!

Ah, but you can only have irony if there is something ironic The opinion he expressed is part fact and part opinion. The first part of the fictional Redwolf comment:

"I am having problems learning how to deal with the TacAI" is very much a statement of fact. He says he is having problems with the TacAI. It could be that he isn't , but there is no reason to doubt this statement as anything but fact.

"and I don't think it is me" is an opinion which suggests, quite directly, that something else is at fault for his having problems. That something is identified by him as the TacAI, and specifically the TacAI's behavior in that given situation. This is an opinion.

Yep - well if you'er going to argue over opinions then there's little or no chance of any real conclusion.

You obviously would not have a good time being a philosopher, historian, medical researcher, etc. They argue over opinions all the time because facts are rarely agreed upon. The discussion of facts is a debate phrased and framed by opinions. As the debate goes on, opinions are classified as more or less factual than their competing opinions. In a successful debate, there is a conclusion of some sort, even if it is to state that there is no conclusion

That the ISU-122 has 75mm armour upper hull armourat 60 degree slope (or whatever) is a FACT

No, actually... this is just an opinion unless there is no disagreement. If someone says "I have a book here that says the armor was 76mm on thee upper hull" then there is doubt about the facts. Therefore, by default, at least one of these statements is an opinion that is not valid.

If neither side can conclusively prove/disprove their case (which is unfortunately common in historical research), then both are in theory questionable. Or, simply put, both become opinions.

However, if one "opinion" is based on 200 seperate pieces of evidence and the other only 2, obviously one opinion is worth more than the other. It could turn out that both are correct, but not as originally stated by either. It could be that two ISUs had 76mm due to Ivan falling asleap at the steel press. But overall, the one who states that the armor thickness is 75mm is more correct.

And BTW, armor thicknesses is something that is argued over constantly. Especially Soviet stuff since they had horrible quality control and were off by sometimes as much as 10mm from spec.

- that the KwK 75L48 can penetrate it using (some ammo) at 500m is a FACT

Which can be challenged by someone showing a real world example of this failing to happen. This might be explained by the armor actually being 76mm

- that the ISU should therefore retreat due to various well thought out inferences is OPINION.

Sure, this is indeed an OPINION. Just as someone saying that it shouldn't is also an OPINION. But when both parties are asked why they hold their opinions, and the first states that the ISU is vulnerable and the other one says it is not... they both can't be correct because the TacAI inherently can not behave both correctly and incorrectly. It can behave MOSTLY correct and a little bit WRONG, or vice versa... but when one pronuonces it "busted" they must show that it is vice versa or their opinion holds no worth.

Hehe... screws with your head, don't it?

[ December 04, 2002, 02:01 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mikeydz:

We player get our units in enough trouble without the AI lending a helping hand.

Exception: the dreaded Dance of Death.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

"and I don't think it is me" is an opinion...

Well, no, Steve. Actually that is a statement of fact—or at least a statement alleging to be fact. If he had said, "...it isn't me," THAT would be an opinion. As it is, the statement "...I don't think it's me..." is only telling you something about what he is thinking. So unless you have a way to read his mind, or have definite proof that he is a compulsive liar who never tells the truth, we have to take him at his word, i.e. he doesn't think its him. In just the same way, the statement, "It is my opinion that it is not me," is a factual statement about an opinion that he holds.

Never leave a nit unpicked.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Emrys had a cup of coffee.

[ December 04, 2002, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

...(N)o gun crew runs away in panic unless it is already being shot at (and almost always has taken a casualty or more). This is a limitation of heavy weapons crew coding held over from the early days of CMBO Alpha. We were trying to avoid the (then) infamous Steel Panthers problem of remanning guns. Unfortunately we went a bit overboard and couldn't change it by the time we figured that out.

Do you have time to explain to a newby what the "Steel Panthers" problem was? I would love to see remanning in CM...

...or would I?</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

Never leave a nit unpicked.

Especially if there is a Canadian aboot

You are, oddly enough, correct. But you get my point. The original way I intended to write that sentence was 1/2 and 1/2. Rephrased:

"I am having trouble dealing with the TacAI, and it isn't my fault"

This would be half statement of Fact ("I am having trouble dealing with the TacAI") and the other half Opinion ("and it isn't my fault"). I wouldn't challenge the first part, but should challenge the second. It is stated as if it is Fact, but is only an Opinion. An Opinion that can be proven to have less worth than the author would like others to believe.

Steve

[ December 04, 2002, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Tero]

After wading through all this I think one question was never asked:

How can the (I)SU (being a non-turreted assault gun) successfully use the manual Seek Hull Down command when I have read the Stug (being a non-turreted assault gun) essentially can not obtain a hull down position with the same efficiency (if at all) as its turreted brethren ?

All the examples have been about assault guns vs turreted tanks. What happens if the (I)SU is pitted against the Stug, or any of the open topped Jpz's ? Or the Stug (with a reasonable ROF which would by all accounts make it think it has a fighting chance against most comers) is pitted against the (I)SU, a T-34, or better yet a IS-2 ?

[Battlefront.com]

Mikey,

In fact, I doubt that there is any code in the Tac-AI that intentionally causes a unit to perform an action that it knows will result in it's death.

Steve will need to verify this, but I would be shocked if it would be programed to do that.

Correct. The TacAI in theory is always trying to do the correct thing. However, depending on the situation, unit Experience, and luck... the TacAI might "accidentally" choose the worse course of action, which then leads to death. To illustrate, the AI might calculate that there are four courses of action open to it:

1. Stay put.

2. Retreat out of LOS after firing off one shot.

3. Retreat out of LOS and fire a shot on the move, if possible.

4. Retreat out of LOS *NOW*

It will then figure out which of these options is best for the situation. It evaluates the given situation as best it can and ranks each on a Fuzzy scale of 0-10 (10 being the "best")

1. 2

2. 8

3. 5

4. 10

Now, the unit is a Regular which means it might be coded to have a 20% margin of "error". Toss in some randomness to some degree, and then the AI picks which is the choice it thinks it should take.

The numbers indicate that the AI would choose #4 most of the time, #2 some of the time, #3 rarely, and #1 hardly ever.

Basically, my simplified example would introduce a 20% chance of not picking the best pick, which is #4. If it indeed fails to pick this best choice, then it will try to pick the next best choice, #2. Again, it has a 20% chance of not picking it. If it fails again, then it tries to pick #3. Failing that, it picks #1, the absolute worst pick.

A Conscript might have a 50% chance of error, a Vet only 15%, Elite only 3%, etc.

Now, this is an extreme oversimplification of my understanding of how the TacAI works (I didn't code it, nor would I want to ), but I think you get the idea. The TacAI is built to assess the situation imperically, then judge the choices with various biases depending on the situation.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dorosh,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Never leave a nit unpicked.

Especially if there is a Canadian aboot </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Tero,

How can the (I)SU (being a non-turreted assault gun) successfully use the manual Seek Hull Down command when I have read the Stug (being a non-turreted assault gun) essentially can not obtain a hull down position with the same efficiency (if at all) as its turreted brethren ?

You mean in real life? Any vehicle can obtain "hull down" position. However, one that has its gun higher up off the ground, and can rotate independently of the hull, has more flexibility. Something like the Jagdtiger has its gun way off the ground compared to Hetzer. So there could very well be a situation where the JT could be hull down and Hetzer would just be staring at an obstruction.

CM's terrain fidelity is not refined enough to make this distinction in an exact way, but it is taken into account (roughly). The ISU is likely to find Hull Down in a slightly different spot (i.e. further back) than a StuG would.

All the examples have been about assault guns vs turreted tanks. What happens if the (I)SU is pitted against the Stug, or any of the open topped Jpz's ?

A turreted vehicle is assumed by the TacAI to be a bigger threat than a non-turreted vehicle. At least in so far as that aspect is concerned. Obviously an ISU-122 would find no threat in a turreted SdKfz 222 armored car but would find a good deal to worry about matched against a Jagdpanther. See below for more on this...

Or the Stug (with a reasonable ROF which would by all accounts make it think it has a fighting chance against most comers) is pitted against the (I)SU, a T-34, or better yet a IS-2 ?

RoF is only one of many factors considered. In this SPECIFIC set of circumstances, it appears to have been one of the major factors. Someone did put a T-34/85 up against the PzIV and found that it didn't retreat. Or something like that

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by tero:

...open topped Jpz's...

Were there any open-topped Jagdpanzers? I thought those were all classified as Panzerjägers, but I admit I could easily be mistaken on this.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Michael,

What does Dorosh have to do with this?

Whoops... 3am here and I am obviously getting tired. I thought Dorosh wrote the nitpick, not you

As for me, I'm at least 60 or 70 miles from the sovereign territory of Canada. How about you?

Close enough to make a beer run every once and a while!

WHADDAYA MEAN "oddly"???

Please see my first statement regarding Dorosh

'm nearly always right! I've got credentials! At least my mother thinks so...

Well, at least you have someone to back you up. Better than some!

With that we are in perfect agreement.

Now I can go to sleep happy

Steve

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You mean in real life?

In the game.

CM's terrain fidelity is not refined enough to make this distinction in an exact way, but it is taken into account (roughly).

Then the (sad ) truth is in the game the assault gun will never be able to truly take up a hull down position the way it would be able to IRL, compared to a turreted vehicle. Right ?

The ISU is likely to find Hull Down in a slightly different spot (i.e. further back) than a StuG would.

Sounds realistic. And of course the higher vehicles will be more exposed in shallower terrain than their lower counterparts.

A turreted vehicle is assumed by the TacAI to be a bigger threat than a non-turreted vehicle. At least in so far as that aspect is concerned.

I though it would have been interesting to pit that ISU against a Marder (perhaps it both facing towards the ISU and away from it) and see how it would have behaved, the Marder ROF being roughly equal to the PzKw-IV ROF.

RoF is only one of many factors considered. In this SPECIFIC set of circumstances, it appears to have been one of the major factors.

So I gathered.

Someone did put a T-34/85 up against the PzIV and found that it didn't retreat. Or something like that

That is not quite the same, now is it ?

[ December 04, 2002, 04:55 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Were there any open-topped Jagdpanzers? I thought those were all classified as Panzerjägers, but I admit I could easily be mistaken on this.

I used the generic term since for example the Jpz-I is technically speaking a Panzerjäger.

The only true Jagdpanzers I know of are the Jpz-IV series and the Jagdpanther and the Jagdtiger.

Anyways, AFAIK both Jadgpanzers and Panzerjägers are assaultguns as far as the game engine is concerned.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Michael,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What does Dorosh have to do with this?

Whoops... 3am here and I am obviously getting tired. I thought Dorosh wrote the nitpick, not you </font>

[The_Capt]

This thread (well two actually) have been the most fun I have seen on the forum in a long while.

This is better than a soap;

(opening music, shot of a dingy tar papershack)

redwolf, the rebel with a cause. Thrown out of other reform forums he decides to make a stand against the establishment. Oh ya..he gonna bring it all down!! But under it all lies the heart of a fragile little boy with a dark past. Can he come to terms with The Company? Can he find peace? He is the underdog and he loves it.

(authorative music, shot of huge mansion in best Dynasty tradition. Focus on steely eyes and perfect hair..DO NOT PAN DOWN! Role of bodyguard/driver to be played by Madmatt)

Steve, from a grass roots entrepreneur to multinational tycoon. He owns The Company and will make damn sure It stays in power where It belongs. But under the perfect hair and suit, he can still see the fighting spirit in redwolf, the same spirit which carried him so far. Can he crush it and not say goodbye to his old self forever? Is there room for absolute power and love?

(Mom's basement, complete with competing Star Trek and Heavy Metal Posters. Punk music)

Licensed Fool, the fifteen yr old shut in, who's social problems go much farther than simple bedwetting. He is a wildcard. Is he simply a rambling troll? Or maybe, just maybe, he is the genius he think he is. Touched by God a little too hard in the forehead. Can he overcome his madness and actually get a point out or will he drag us all into his burning house of cards?

(Banjo music and a pan shot of an old folks home in a swamp)

Seanachoo, will his viagra finally kick in? Will anyone care?

Stay tuned for more of "Monster Tanks Revealed"

(closing dramatic music)

[ December 04, 2002, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: The_Capt ]

[Andreas]

What about Cpt. Kloss? His contributions are sorely missed, and he could have a role too I am sure Maybe as the mad white-van driver masquerading as a shrink in the corner.

[Nolloff]

A bit too subtle imho. I rather see him stepping in Braindead-style (the film) during the happy end scene, yelling "The party is over, I kick ass for the Rodina" while the razor sharp blades of his never-retreating lawnmower start rotating. The blood, the gore, the ramming ........... A Master Goodale AAR would appear like a Michael Jackson "Thank you, I love you" message in comparison.

[ December 04, 2002, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: Nolloff ]

[Lindan]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

P.S. Speaking of Licensed Fool types... who here remembers the German reenactor who knew "everything" about German infantry but thought MG42s in Squads always had tripods and there was no such thing as Volksgrenadiers because Davis' Handbook on German Forces didn't mention them? This was the same book he told me that I should read so I could "learn something" Then he confused Volksgrenadiers with Volkssturm and really got the crowd going.

sounds like "MG Mnschaft" (or something like that). I really enjoyed his rants. Perhaps he'll reappear like GB did, hehe...