Understanding TacAI Targeting Decisions

[SleeStac]

I'm a bit of a noob with CMBO and was playing a battle last night when one of my Vet tanks made a disconcerting targeting choice. The tank was a PzIVJ and had just crested a hill at the end of the last turn with another tank. A Firefly was on another hill maybe 350 meters away and at the start of the turn I ordered the Pz to target the Firefly. As the turn started a British inf squad appeared maybe 50 - 74 meters in front of the Pz and my tank retargeted the squad. This resulted in the untimely demise of the Pz. My question is: does anyone know how the computer prioritises targets and how or why it chooses to retarget enemies. Thanks in advance for responses.

[Redwolf]

The TacAI targetting is optimized for raising the number of postings on this forum.

[ May 15, 2002, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Cameroon]

What I've seen suggests that the AI can (and does) loose targetting that YOU assign if LOS to the targetted unit is poor. Though in this instance I hope it was fog that was causing low LOS

[Dirtweasle]

...or it could be that your tank was thinking it could be a AT team. Odd things will happen if you get your tanks too close to infantry.

[mike the wino2]

I think you guys are missing the obvious answer....our computers hate us and are secretly plotting to destroy mankind. Why else does my Tiger with perfect LOS on a Firefly suddenly retarget on a jeep? It is only with a cold, calculated hatred are such perverse acts committed.

BTW has anyone raised the Al Qaida/ Microsoft conspiracy theory?

[Schrullenhaft]

The way that the TacAI is programmed currently the infantry squad that was 50-75 meters away was seen as a higher priority threat than the Firefly that was 350m away. Basically for CMBO proximity raises the priority (though a Firefly would more likely be deadlier in your particular engagement). I don't know how CM's TacAI quantifies threats (especially multiple ones) or if it even can.

There's no easy solution for this problem in CMBO. The targetting preference was tweaked in one of the patches at one point to target any AT-capable infantry that was within range. Players were getting their AFVs whacked by AT-capable infantry and complaints were rising that they should be targetted if they were within range. So the decision was made to have AFVs target them as a priority if they got close enough. What that range is, I don't know. It may just shoot at any infantry in range that is detected as AT-capable as a priority rather than judging their lethality based on the detect AT asset's effective range. If it interests you, then you may want to check out the Readme file for the 1.12 patch for the 'fixes' that have been applied throughout CMBO's history (though it may not go into the level of detail that you're searching for).

CMBB has a partial solution to this problem with the Covered Arc command that can specify AFVs as the intended target (though this itself will also be an imperfect solution). So if you expect to engage AFVs in a certain area (and/or have your turret face in a particular direction) then the Covered Arc command may suffice. BTS will tell you that this won't solve all targetting issues, but it will be helpful for many people.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:

The way that the TacAI is programmed currently the infantry squad that was 50-75 meters away was seen as a higher priority threat than the Firefly that was 350m away. Basically for CMBO proximity raises the priority (though a Firefly would more likely be deadlier in your particular engagement). I don't know how CM's TacAI quantifies threats (especially multiple ones) or if it even can.

There's no easy solution for this problem in CMBO. The targetting preference was tweaked in one of the patches at one point to target any AT-capable infantry that was within range. Players were getting their AFVs whacked by AT-capable infantry and complaints were rising that they should be targetted if they were within range. So the decision was made to have AFVs target them as a priority if they got close enough. What that range is, I don't know. It may just shoot at any infantry in range that is detected as AT-capable as a priority rather than judging their lethality based on the detect AT asset's effective range. If it interests you, then you may want to check out the Readme file for the 1.12 patch for the 'fixes' that have been applied throughout CMBO's history (though it may not go into the level of detail that you're searching for).

CMBB has a partial solution to this problem with the Covered Arc command that can specify AFVs as the intended target (though this itself will also be an imperfect solution). So if you expect to engage AFVs in a certain area (and/or have your turret face in a particular direction) then the Covered Arc command may suffice. BTS will tell you that this won't solve all targetting issues, but it will be helpful for many people.

Would this also have not been a problem in real life, though? Unlucky tank commanders having to decide on the spur of the moment if a flash of light in the bushes meant a PIAT or bazooka team was targetting them, and whether or not to disengage an enemy tank further away?

Is this not purpose built fog of war?

As long as the tank picks one target and sticks with it - ie shoots at something rather than traversing, changing its mind, traversing back, then repeating until it gets blown up, I don't see how this can be characterized as a weakness. Humans make mistakes, right? And CM ostensibly portrays humans in high stress situations.

[Mr. Johnson--]

I don't let these questions bother me anymore. I simple play larger battles, and bring a platoon, or every available gun to that fight you discribed and make sure that enemy is very dead.

If your target needs one tank to do the job, bring a platoon, if the target needs a platoon, bring a company.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mr. Johnson--:

If your target needs one tank to do the job, bring a platoon, if the target needs a platoon, bring a company.

Truer words were never spoken. Amen.

Michael

[mike the wino2]

Mr Johnson is my prophet. Only he forgoes the minutia and distills a problem to the one true answer.

[SleeStac]

Thank you all for your responses, I particularly enjoyed the conspiracy theories. I have often thought I heard the quiet, metalic laughing of my computer just before some of my troops made a bone headed decision. Alas!

[chris talpas]

How about this for a solution:

If the tank has a hull machine gun (rather common), have this target the infantry to suppress them while the main gun continues to focus on the armour threat. I don't think this is possible right now since tanks only target one thing at a time (correct me if I'm wrong). I wonder how difficult it would be to reprogram tac AI to exhibit this type of behaviour?

Chris

[engy]

"Sleestac"...

This couldn't be a reference to that incredibly awful Saturday (or was it Sunday?) morning TV show with the crystals, the dinosaurs, and the slee-stac swamp monster things, could it? What was the name..."Lost in Time?" Ugh, it was soooo bad.

Apology #1: If I'm wrong with the reference, ignore me.

Apology #2: Sorry for sidetracking the thread. Carry on.

engy

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by chris talpas:

How about this for a solution:

If the tank has a hull machine gun (rather common), have this target the infantry to suppress them while the main gun continues to focus on the armour threat. I don't think this is possible right now since tanks only target one thing at a time (correct me if I'm wrong). I wonder how difficult it would be to reprogram tac AI to exhibit this type of behaviour?

Chris

In current CMBO, a hull machine gun seems to engage independently of the main gun (as opposed to a coax MG which only acts instead of the gun). But the hull MG doesn't fire often right now.

Guessing for program logic, it seems to me the coax MG uses the main MG routines, and the hull MG has its own routines, but much simpler, kinda only targets of very brief opportunities, and no real unit tracking.

I think your suggestion is probably the way to go, but I doubt Charles can invest the time to do a real unit target logic for the hull MG in time for CMBB. Doing this has a lot of further complications. If there is only one real targetting logic in a tank, you can turn the tank with it to keep it on target. For an independent hull MG logic you would have to coordicate two target priorities, plus the priority to turn the hull towards AT threats. So, actually coding this opens some can of worms, not too bad, but not really doable for CMBB, I guess.

Also, MGs in CMBO are very ineffective in stopping infantry rushed in the open anyway. And coding more useful hull MG logic only applies to a minority of vehicles, so other things may have priority. Although in my opinion it would be very worthwhile to have full hull MG usefulness, because it would adjust the realism of the SP gun versus full tank tradeoff in CMBO. Full tanks are very flexible and dangerous machines in reality, much more so than SP guns, StuGs or tank hunters, and CMBO blurs some of the advantages.