H3ANW Auto-Defense Behavior

[ChopperDave]

I am starting this topic under its own subject heading. I started it on the Maxis site, and it kind of accidentally got started here under ‘Expendable Conscript.’ I have recopied some of the posts below. Just for your information, on Maxis I am Flunkie, on GameSquad I am ChopperDave.

From Maxis

Flunkie
I'm using H3ANW v.3.8.0 RC11, DB2000, and scenarios written for v.3.6.3.
I am also using the original DB and original scenarios on the CD that came with v.3.7.0.

In both cases above, in every scenario I've played, at some point, the game starts to partially play itself. Task force radars and aircraft radars come on and they start firing missiles at various threats, enemy missiles or aircraft. I don't believe they have ever fired at an enemy land based unit. They have fired on my own tomahawks when these were identified as vampires. They sometimes fire at identified enemy aircraft when they are just out of range.

Is anyone else having this problem with v.3.8.0.? I would like to hear both yes and no answers, and of course, any solution to the problem.

Note: All my Staff Handles options are off.


TimOusley
Yep, I've had the same problem. In particular, the Return to Yankee Station and Okinawa scenarios. It also happens a lot when I have amended a scenario in SE and then play it in regular mode...all my default settings have changed, and sometimes the game will attack blue vampires. I've noticed another strange behavior in these scenarios also...when I really unload on a red surface group, for some reason just before the missiles hit home, the surface group starts launching torpedoes in addition to their point defenses. I don't know WHAT the heck that's all about or what causes it. More than once, playing on EASY to see maybe why this is happening, red side has sunk their own submarine, although this may be happening because of the dice roll and the AI is having trouble with their detections. And finally, I'm getting messages from air groups on AAW missions just before they bingo out and head for home, that the air group has no orders. Then they instantly disband the group and head home individually, which is normal behavior. In previous versions I got no such 'no orders' message.
This is not a priority 1 issue but it's a little annoying.
You might check your formation editor and see if this behavior stops if you remove all aircraft from the formation and handle your BG pickets and screens manually.



Flunkie
For Tim

You seem to be haveing more problems than I am having. Soon after it starts playing by itself, doing things that I would not do, doing them less effectively that I would do, in an order that I would not do, less efficiently than I would do, I quit the game.

I do consider it a major issue though. Although the game does not takeover playing by itself completely, to me its enough to make the game unplayable. I didn't purchase the game to watch two computer opponents play against each other. (Thats a little bit of an exaggeration.)

I only use the formation editor to form up the ships and sometimes for helicopter ASW zones.

Thank you for your response Tim. I was beginning to think I was the only one with this problem.

I hope they get this problem fixed very very soon. Even if they have to put out a patch just for it.


Flunkie
I am now hearing that this may be a 'feature' of the game. Gees, I hope not. It sure makes a mess of defense most of the time. It has save a plane or two for me when I didn't notice what was going on, but its just not worth it. I can do a far better job and I would like to play the game myself. Not watch the computer play against itself.


Flunkie
After a few days of trying to find out about what I thought was a bug, I find that it is a 'feature' built into H3.

My ship and aircraft radars come on by themselves and automatically fire at incoming threats.

Is there any way to make this stop?


Sirius
You can always use the weapons tight flag in the pref setup pull down


Flunkie
I had been trying to find an answer to what I thought was a bug for several days. This automatic behavior where my ships and aircraft radars come on and missiles are fired at enemy aircraft and incoming missiles. From some of the answers I was getting I came to the conclusion that this was a built-in defensive 'feature' of the game and not a bug.

But, you are bringing up a question here. And I am again wondering if I have a bug or not.

I had played Harpoon AE for 10 years or whatever, and since way back when, I have always played with weapons tight. With weapons tight, nothing ever fired on its own, no matter how big the threat. If I remember correctly, when you played with weapons free the behavior was something like this:
Your aircraft and ships would fire at identified enemy aircraft.
Your aircraft and ships would fire at incoming missiles, perhaps identified or not.
Your ships would fire at identified enemy ships and boats when in range.
Your ships would fire at identified enemy land bases when in range.

Since I have been playing H3ANW v.3.8.0 (this did not happen with v.3.7) I have noticed, in all scenarios and the 3 DBs I have tried, the following:
My ship and aircraft radars come on and my aircraft fire at identified enemy aircraft.
My ship and aircraft fire at identified incoming missiles.
I believe my ships have fired harpoons at enemy boats.

About the only difference is that I have not seen my ships fire at enemy land bases.
It would seem that there is little to no deference between weapons tight and weapons free. So why have the weapons tight setting (which I much prefer) at all, which brings up the question of whether this is a bug or not.

I should say that I have perhaps noticed a difference with weapons tight in that the threat must be more immediate in most cases before weapons will be fired as opposed to if weapons were free.

For Sirius
I have always played with weapons tight and this does not help with v.3.8. Is it supposed to? I am now playing with all my Staff Handles off and this does not help either.



VCDH
ooooookay....

So....you don't want your ships to be able to defend themselves?

I am at a little bit of a loss here to understand what you are trying to say.

Regarding your weapons problem, units that are plotted manually will turn on their radars if a threat is detected via ESM. If you assign units to a mission and set the sensors of that mission ot passive then it will be enforced. The idea around plotted units turning on their sensors is the dictium 'it's better to see something coming than not'.

In short the plotted platforms are practicing due diligence.

You also have to understand the mission set up structure. Patrol missions will ID a target before attacking (just like real life). If it's a total war situtation then you can declare the target hostile and be done with it. Strike missions assume that you want the target dead, otherwise it wouldn't be part of the mission.

If you are trying to micromanage then that's you're right, but that really wasn't what the game was designed to do. The problem is that it's easier for the player to become overloaded if you micromanage everything.

Hopefully this answers your question.

Later
D


FreekS
I experience the same behaviour as Flunkie.
I also tend to micromanage and use Plotted mission and weapons tight.

I prefer the 3.6 behaviour where the weapons tight means tight over the ANW behaviour where even on weapons tight shots can be fired by my units on plotted mission.

Just my preference


VCDH
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that we have, and will continue to be, in transition regarding mission behavior until we reach TNH. The ultimate incarnation of our plan is to have the AI create missoins, on it's own, in response to a tactical situtation that it analyzes of it's own accord. Therefore you are going to see a shift in the 3.6 'command style, do this because I say' kind of mission behavior in favor of a more conservative 'preservation of my units is the best method of accomplishing my tasks' sort of mission style. This especially applies to plotted units where it is expected that the user will (depending on the size of the scenario) be overloaded.

The plain facts are that we did not expect, nor wanted to, make everyone happy with the way missions are done in the current incarnation. The game simply isn't meant to be played the way v3.6 was. If we had plotted units keeping their sensors off all the time, we would instead see a complaint about how units are being lost without warning (you'd get even less warning at night, remember that HMS Sheffield had only a few seconds warning of her Exocet). A prudent CO (I've been the XO of many ships) will take every step he deems necessary to protect his ship, his people and accomplish the task given to him.

So, if you want ships to observe a specific sensor setting, put the ship on a mission and set the sensors the way you want it. Plotted missions give the AI more latitude than specific mission types do.

Later
D



Flunkie
For VCDH
You sound official. As though you are connected with Maxis. Is that so? (not rhetorical) While I very much appreciate help and suggestions from other players, it is also nice to hear something 'official.' I was beginning to wonder if Maxis had any official support for Harpoon. I couldn't find it.

I will write as though you are someone official. And thank you for your response by the way.

(I am adding this note here because I have read some of what I have written below and it sounds to much as though I am complaining. Well, I may be complaining just a little, but mainly I am just trying to let you know what is happening. And I am adding a few thoughts and opinions.)

Ooooookay.... No, I don't want my ships defending themselves. At least not without my permission. And not in the way they are doing so. I’ll try to explain below. And you are correct. I do micromanage the game. I have posted a few times, apparently not here though, that I launch every plane, place every plane, fly every plane, fire every missile, drop every bomb, shoot every torpedo, place every sonobouy, and everything else, by hand. I never use a mission or patrol. The simple fact is that the computer AI does not do half as good a job at this as I can do. And you are correct that this can be a little overwhelming, and tedious, but I much prefer it this way, as opposed to losing many aircraft that I would not otherwise lose. I started a poll on HHQ asking how others play the game and the considerable majority of people seem to play mostly by hand.

Since I have had some difficulty in playing the game, I may not be fully versed in the effects of this self-defense behavior, but this is what I have noticed.

This automatic defensive behavior is less effective, less efficient, wasteful of munitions, and a considerably lesser defense than what I can achieve. And it interferes with me mounting a better defense.

This behavior is less effective than what I can do. If you have, say, a group of 10 missiles coming in at you, right on top of each other, appearing as one missile, my ships will automatically fire at them in a large group of missiles, two outgoing for each incoming, and achieve a hit rate of 4 to 8 strikes. Whereas I, using methods I have learned from experience, can fire only 10 missiles and achieve a hit rate of 6 to 10 on the incoming 10.

This makes the self-defense behavior less efficient and wasteful. In the end, it fires from 1.5 to 3 times as many missiles as I would, to achieve the same effect.

It fires large groups of missiles causing a ship to be ‘engaged’ unnecessarily, and less able to defend against strong threats coming at you. This is the opposite of the intended effect of the defensive behavior.

It fires at threats in an order that I would not do, and from ships that I would not use, leaving others open for attack. Again making it more difficult to defend.

It confuses the screen with large numbers of missiles that are difficult to determine what they are being fired at. This confusion also makes it difficult to determine what has not been fired at. Again making it more difficult to defend.

I have played a scenario where my task force begins very near many enemy units. The enemy began firing at me almost immediately. Ordinarily, this would have been only a moderately difficult situation had it not been for the interference of the automatic defensive behavior. Only through very difficult work and constant checking of what was happening, tediously trying to keep track of things, and some luck, was I able to defend myself without loss. I nearly lost two ships.

I must say that on two occasions the defense has saved a plane for me. But, on several occasions it has made defense of my task force more difficult. I would rather lose a plane or two, than lose any potion of my TF because of interference by the game itself. (That would really be bad. So far it hasn’t happened, though has come close.)

If I may, I would disagree with your opinion of how the game was designed to be played. I have played Harpoon AE for many years and some version before that. It seems to me that the game was designed to be played in a wide variety of ways. From those who wanted to play it using mostly missions and patrols, to those who wanted to do everything by hand, and anything in-between. With this flexibility of game play, Harpoon gained a large and loyal group of followers. Many people, perhaps most, play the game with weapons tight. This automatic defensive behavior comes very close to nullifying the weapons tight setting, and is a major change in the way the game is played. I can think of many-a-time when I have passed up firing on an enemy in order to save my weapons for a more important target, or, to use what I considered a better platform to fire from. This automatic firing of weapons has on a few occasions already, robbed me of my freedom of choice. And I am sure others, with better imaginations, can think of many other situations where they would not want this automatic firing of weapons to occur.

I understand from your post that the game is in transition, and I am quite sure there are many things to consider. And, I understand that not everyone can be pleased. Perhaps not even me. But, I hope you strongly consider the major change in the game when you even partially remove the weapons tight feature. Would it be reasonably easy to implement three settings? Weapons tight, automatic defense, and weapons free?

Even if the auto-defense could do as good a job, or better than I, I am not sure that I would want this. It might be nice to have the three options above and play with auto-defense when things were ‘to large’ to watch over easily, and then switch to weapons tight if things got hectic and I could do a better job. Or, to play with weapons tight, and switch to auto-defense if there were situations where it could be helpful. But if I had to make a choice, I much prefer the weapons tight to the current auto-defense. (Actually, having three choices sounds pretty good.)

I guess I should state here how important I think this matter is. For me, this auto-defense comes very close to making the game unplayable. There are several reasons for this. One is that the auto-defense plays inadequately enough that it will cause me to lose ships through no fault of my own, and causes the defense of my ships to be much more difficult in intense situations. Also, in some situations, it virtually takes over the game and I am reduced to being a spectator watching two computer opponents play against each other. It also in some situations, in small ways, takes away my freedom of choice in how to play the game.

For new Harpoon players, who have not played Harpoon differently, this may not be so bad. But for longtime players, many of us may not find this undefeatable feature enjoyable.

Boy this post is long. Sorry. I even left things out. And, if you are an official person, you have answered may question that this is now a ‘feature’ of the game and not a bug. I hope this post has given you some things to consider, and that you might try to ‘please’ those of us who play with weapons tight. Try the three settings choices.



VCDH

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flunkie
You sound official. As though you are connected with Maxis. Is that so? (not rhetorical) While I very much appreciate help and suggestions from other players, it is also nice to hear something 'official.' I was beginning to wonder if Maxis had any official support for Harpoon. I couldn't find it.

VCDH
I work for AGSI, the developers of Harpoon. Matrix distributes the game for us. So yeah, I guess you could say I'm official.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flunkie
Ooooookay.... No, I don't want my ships defending themselves. At least not without my permission. And not in the way they are doing so. I’ll try to explain below. And you are correct. I do micromanage the game. I have posted a few times, apparently not here though, that I launch every plane, place every plane, fly every plane, fire every missile, drop every bomb, shoot every torpedo, place every sonobouy, and everything else, by hand. I never use a mission or patrol. The simple fact is that the computer AI does not do half as good a job at this as I can do. And you are correct that this can be a little overwhelming, and tedious, but I much prefer it this way, as opposed to losing many aircraft that I would not otherwise lose. I started a poll on HHQ asking how others play the game and the considerable majority of people seem to play mostly by hand.

Since I have had some difficulty in playing the game, I may not be fully versed in the effects of this self-defense behavior, but this is what I have noticed.

VCDH
I think it's safe to say that a large majority of players micromanage things in the game to a varying number of degrees. I am hardly one to tell you how to play the game. I will tell you how combat in the game is resolved to help you understand.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flunkie
This automatic defensive behavior is less effective, less efficient, wasteful of munitions, and a considerably lesser defense than what I can achieve. And it interferes with me mounting a better defense.

This behavior is less effective than what I can do. If you have, say, a group of 10 missiles coming in at you, right on top of each other, appearing as one missile, my ships will automatically fire at them in a large group of missiles, two outgoing for each incoming, and achieve a hit rate of 4 to 8 strikes. Whereas I, using methods I have learned from experience, can fire only 10 missiles and achieve a hit rate of 6 to 10 on the incoming 10.

This makes the self-defense behavior less efficient and wasteful. In the end, it fires from 1.5 to 3 times as many missiles as I would, to achieve the same effect.

VCDH
I'm sorry to say that this isn't how combat is resolved in the game. When you give the order to engage you are basically letting the game engine fire missiles on your command. The resolution of the engagement (i.e. the hit or miss) is totally out of the players hands. It takes place upon intercept of the target and only then will it take into account the various EW factors such has jammers and decoys. While I have no doubt that you are getting more hits using manual weapon control, your results are more from luck than anything else.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flunkie
It fires large groups of missiles causing a ship to be ‘engaged’ unnecessarily, and less able to defend against strong threats coming at you. This is the opposite of the intended effect of the defensive behavior.

It fires at threats in an order that I would not do, and from ships that I would not use, leaving others open for attack. Again making it more difficult to defend.

It confuses the screen with large numbers of missiles that are difficult to determine what they are being fired at. This confusion also makes it difficult to determine what has not been fired at. Again making it more difficult to defend.

VCDH
This is why we have the automation set up in the first place. We also have the formation editor set up to put ships in the postions that you like. There is an old dictium 'No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy'. I would also like to point out that there is also a finite number of missiles that can be directed by each platform at any one time. The AI is set up to engage a target with 2 weapons each.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flunkie
I have played a scenario where my task force begins very near many enemy units. The enemy began firing at me almost immediately. Ordinarily, this would have been only a moderately difficult situation had it not been for the interference of the automatic defensive behavior. Only through very difficult work and constant checking of what was happening, tediously trying to keep track of things, and some luck, was I able to defend myself without loss. I nearly lost two ships.

I must say that on two occasions the defense has saved a plane for me. But, on several occasions it has made defense of my task force more difficult. I would rather lose a plane or two, than lose any potion of my TF because of interference by the game itself. (That would really be bad. So far it hasn’t happened, though has come close.)

VCDH
Perfection is a sad state of affairs found only in fiction. If you aim is to prevent the loss of any of your platforms in a scenario then success will elude you for the majority of your playing experiance. Sometimes peeople make mistakes, sometimes the other side gets lucky, sometimes **** happens. Saved games can help you with alot of that but that doesn't really change the fact that some things you simply won't have control over.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flunkie
I understand from your post that the game is in transition, and I am quite sure there are many things to consider. And, I understand that not everyone can be pleased. Perhaps not even me. But, I hope you strongly consider the major change in the game when you even partially remove the weapons tight feature. Would it be reasonably easy to implement three settings? Weapons tight, automatic defense, and weapons free?

VCDH
While we appreciate your thoughts on the matter the fact remains that the game is way too far along for any kind of major changes at this point. I too have had reservations about some missiles that are being engaged but to change anything this close to the release of v3.8 could (and probably would) throw things out of whack. We simply are too close for any further delays. In fact, major AI changes probably won't be coming for quite some time yet. We have discussed a system like this at an earlier (March or April IIRC) and decided that it would be too much work for too little gain at this time.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flunkie
Boy this post is long. Sorry. I even left things out. And, if you are an official person, you have answered may question that this is now a ‘feature’ of the game and not a bug. I hope this post has given you some things to consider, and that you might try to ‘please’ those of us who play with weapons tight. Try the three settings choices.

VCDH
I don't have a timeline for change, but we are not beginning the first (baby) steps towards a new UI. Once we get our Pro update complete we'll be back to working on ANW. We're going to start adding features in the next version that will be selected with the assistance of the C3 group. I don't have anything else to add except perhaps to say 'hang in there'. I'm certain that you won't be disappointed.

Later
D


Jpkoester1
Hello Flunkie,

I have taken a look at the issue you describe and have also talked to some people on the AGSI side. First of all it is correct that the behaviour now differs from previous versions. During the discussion with the AGSI guys I found out that the terms "weapons tight" and "weapons free" have a very specific meaning in the armed forces.

Weapons Hold
A weapon control order imposing a status whereby weapons systems may only be fired in self-defense or in response to a formal order.
Weapons Tight
In air defense, a weapon control order imposing a status whereby weapons systems may be fired only at targets recognized as hostile. (Err on the side of caution)
Weapons Free
A weapon control order imposing a status whereby weapons systems may be fired at any target not positively recognized as friendly.

As you can see "weapons tight" basically means fire if unit is positively identified as an enemy and even the "weapons hold" which is much stricter allows units to fire in self-defense. This means that the change actually brought the game behaviour closer to the formal definition of the ROE settings although "weapons tight" and "weapons free" are both still stricter in H3 than the real world.

Nevertheless, AGSI does realize, that manual control is important to many people, so I guess that some adjustments to the ROE settings will be made (My personal favorit would be implementing an additional "weapons hold" setting that gives full manual control). However, some other big issues like strike mission behaviour currently have top priority, so we'll see how far progress is and how much can be pushed into the next release.

Hope this clears up some of the reasoning behind all this.



Jeff Gilbert
JP,
Thanks for the update information.
Much appreciated ... I shall hold out my hopes for a "Weapons Super Tight" setting but understand completely that the developers have bigger fish to fry right now.


From GameSquad

FreekS

You responded to one of my posts on Maxis site about stopping the automatic defensive behavior. One of the Maxis people, I think, responded that you can try putting your ships on a mission. You may want to go back there and take a look. Sounds like putting you task force on a simple mission such as 'go there' may keep them from firing on their own.


Herman Hum
Sorry, I believe that to be a totally incorrect presumption. I've tried any number of permutations and combinations to try and reduce that silly Auto-Defense behaviour to no avail, including the use of Missions as you described.

The simple fact is that once you place a unit on ANY mission, you are turning control over to the AI. If you have a specific instance of this working, I'd be very happy to know your settings and conditions. I haven't run across a single instance of this happening, though.


Herman Hum
I just did some testing, too. I made up a number of missions and assigned aircraft/ships to them. Each and every instance resulted in total and abject failure to control this auto-defensive response.

I certainly hope that you have more luck.



FreekS
So that then makes it more likely we're talking about a bug that is being disguised as a feature!

I suspect too you may see other undesired behaviour when placing your units on a mission; ships and planes on patrol missions will start to become inquisitive and deviate from the course you want them to sail.

Also when I make scenario's, making the missions is by far the longest and hardest - it needs endless tweaking to get the missions to do what I want them to do. The thought that I'd even go there in the GE while I'm playing a game never occured to me. Could be good topic to do a poll on.



VCDH
Heh...this is amusing. A thread that decries the ability of platforms to defend themselves.

Platforms will continue to defend themselves in the manner that you see for the foreseeable future. Certainly until we modify our AI for adoptive planning. It is simply not realistic to expect platforms to NOT defend themselves. I know that if I was the CO of such a vessel I would take every effort to defend the personell and hardware to the best of my ability. If they relieved me for defending my ships I'd be on CNN in 3 seconds flat. If fact, I'd rather be relieved for that than be part of any organization that prevents me from protecting my people.

This behavior isn't going to change guys.

Later
D



TonyE
I think these guys are not liking having the micromanagement removed from their arsenal. Everyone wants to save their ships and defend them but the player, unless overwhelmed, is going to do it better than the AI.

This comes into play when the AI wastes munitions auto-defending your ships. The human player would have had some/more weapons left to defend against the 2nd, 3rd, 4th attacks. The AI in its inefficiency doesn't weigh the present against the future and the players are decrying being forced into that situation.

If I fire all of my SM-2 against 5 incomings and I only needed half of my SM-2, CNN is going to hang me for losing my ship when the next incoming shows up and I have nothing to fire.

Now I'm not suggesting AGSI divert from the master plan, nor am I suggesting AGSI stick with the master plan, just sharing my view of what some of the players' real concern is with the changed behavior.



Herman Hum
Maybe we should re-name the thread to: "The inability for a game to accept orders of a rightful commander."

So, how is the new Auto-defense behaviour different from the old Weapons Free behaviour?

If I played the Old H3.6.3 with the Weapons Free all the time, would I be getting the same results as I am getting now with ANW and Weapons Tight/Free?

Just how is Weapons Tight different from Weapons Free, now? I seem to be getting the same results regardless of weapons status.



ChoppperDave

For VCDH

Respectfully, but you, or the game itself, are not the CO of MY ship. (Not yelling, I don't know how to make that stand out the way I want.)

Your other point of defense in nullified because the self-defense behavior does a much poorer job than I can do, and it interferes with my defense, overall causing my ships to be in greater danger.

Can you tell me if it would be easy to code into the game three options?
Weapons tight, self-defense, weapons free. Might such a thing be considered?

Edited: No need to respond here VCDH. I found your post on Maxis.



Jeff Gilbert
I don't think the issue is the ability of a platform to defend itself but rather the ability of the commander to decided when and what defense is appropriate in his situation.

Using the above logic that I might be misunderstanding ... if the current and forseeable program behaviour continues, then we won't need any players at all. Just create a scenario, start it ... come back in a few hours to see how you did.

Not my idea of being a ship, task force or fleet commander.



Herman Hum
Bingo!

There is a long-running joke amongst old-time Harpoon players about a fellow who never really "plays" the game. All he ever does is run it in the Scenario Editor so that he can play both sides. He does this so that he is readily able to switch to the other side in order to "help" the AI and prevent it from acting unrealistically.

The joke is that he would likely consider the current situation ideal. He could write scenarios where there are no sides for a human player. All a "player" would need to do is start the game, turn on the VCR, and come back in a few hours to see which side won and watch the VCR playback in order to marvel at how excellently the scenario was written. No player involvement would be required (or wanted).

Sadly, though, this is exactly the direction the game appears to be heading.

[Herman Hum]

Thanks for trying to make one coherent thread from the various discussions. It reminded me that my questions were never answered by AGSI, either, so here they are again:

Maybe we should re-name the thread to: "The inability for a game to accept orders of a rightful commander."

So, how is the new Auto-defense behaviour different from the old Weapons Free behaviour?

If I played the Old H3.6.3 with the Weapons Free all the time, would I be getting the same results as I am getting now with ANW and Weapons Tight/Free?

Just how is Weapons Tight different from Weapons Free, now? I seem to be getting the same results regardless of weapons status.