|
Post by blarglol on Jul 2, 2023 10:34:08 GMT -6
This is very plain. Vanilla RTW combat model has always had delusional statistics and this isn't fixable with mods because many of the absurdities are hard coded. The AI is extremely passive since, instead of improving AI, its ship templates, simulation parameters, etc, the developers simply made AI avoid battle. Fleeing in the presence of a 5-1 advantage is not only common, but documented behavior. [Broken sim parameters, ie; mechanic of sinking ships still being considered targets essentially eliminates the ability of the AI to pursue a vanquished force. Since it attacks the sinking ship until it despawns] In RTW2 the developers, to counteract this, nerfed torpedoes repeatedly, motivated by early episodes of player on AI abuse. The tactical situations created by this combination of poor decision making and stubborn ignorance is that player must sail into torpedo intercepts. Because the AI almost always runs, and combination of infinite smoke screen destroyer group, abysmal gunnery, and various other broken mechanics, makes it (generally) tactically infeasible to ever catch them. The pursuit often motivated by the AI blockade. Nowadays the player almost always wins gun battles when they occur, since the AI defeats itself through pure cowardice. While QGM demonstrably boosts the AI, the AI is still functionally incapable of victory. [unless you hand it to them on a silver platter] Well obviously I can't speak for you, but I do not see this "AI always runs away issue." Methinks you are thinking of another naval game....
Regardless, I find the enemy is often quite aggressive in RTW3 when the tactical situation favors it. For example, I once had an engagement where the enemy battleline was acting unusually aggressive and forward, but I saw no reason why....until it became clear they had battlecruisers on the other side of my forces to pin me between! Failure in reconnaissance on my part.
The AI is cautious when such behavior is in-line with historical doctrine, but they will absolutely pounce when they think they can kick you when you're down, finish off crippled ships, etc. If they think they can annihilate your force, they will.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 3, 2023 10:35:15 GMT -6
wlbjork - as you either haven't read what I wrote or didn't understand it, I'm going to ignore your trolling from now on. t3rm1dor - no, the AI does not seem to use the same rules. The cause may be as simple as how the game is phased - perhaps the AI calculates its moves after the player has entered his. But there seems to be a disparity in how the AI scores torpedo hits, particularly in the early game (the late 1800s through, say, 1915). I do think it is valid yo bring the historical record into a discussion of a game that, otherwise, seems to do a very good job of reproducing events that are plausible for the period. Yes, it is possible for a fixed underwater tube to score a hit, and they were put on ships for that purpose. They just never scored a hit on a moving target... which leads me to believe that the game is not properly accounting for the primitive speed and guidance mechanisms, for the lack of any fire control other than the eyeball, and the inability to train the weapon other than turning the whole ship.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jul 3, 2023 11:21:55 GMT -6
Folks, let us please keep it as civil as possible here. I'm not trying to quell the discussion, just trying to make sure it does not 'head South' as they say...
|
|
|
Post by bobert on Jul 3, 2023 14:23:21 GMT -6
In my game (at about 1920) the Germans definitely run away if I head right for them, but then come after me if I try to skedaddle unless I've done some heavy damage to them. I thought the Italians were more aggressive but of course that's subjective.
|
|
|
Post by t3rm1dor on Jul 4, 2023 9:48:34 GMT -6
wlbjork - as you either haven't read what I wrote or didn't understand it, I'm going to ignore your trolling from now on. t3rm1dor - no, the AI does not seem to use the same rules. The cause may be as simple as how the game is phased - perhaps the AI calculates its moves after the player has entered his. But there seems to be a disparity in how the AI scores torpedo hits, particularly in the early game (the late 1800s through, say, 1915). I do think it is valid yo bring the historical record into a discussion of a game that, otherwise, seems to do a very good job of reproducing events that are plausible for the period. Yes, it is possible for a fixed underwater tube to score a hit, and they were put on ships for that purpose. They just never scored a hit on a moving target... which leads me to believe that the game is not properly accounting for the primitive speed and guidance mechanisms, for the lack of any fire control other than the eyeball, and the inability to train the weapon other than turning the whole ship. My point in regards to RL events is that is imposible to extrapolate from then how effective they were bc there is not a big enough sample size. As it also relates to AI, form my experience playing the game, torpedos are aimed very well in regards to lead, rather than the enemy target position. If a formation keep course they will often get hit, but if they break away it will be a rarer occurances. The Ai can be out-torpedo if you keep in mind that their course decision depends very heavely of your own coursing , at least on admiral, so long range hits can be consistently done if keeping course and having preferable positioning. The element that the Ai reacts to is a flotilla attack , but i think even players will move away if seeing a few destroyers aggresively closing in.
|
|
|
Post by expendable on Jul 6, 2023 6:15:46 GMT -6
This is very plain. Vanilla RTW combat model has always had delusional statistics and this isn't fixable with mods because many of the absurdities are hard coded. The AI is extremely passive since, instead of improving AI, its ship templates, simulation parameters, etc, the developers simply made AI avoid battle. Fleeing in the presence of a 5-1 advantage is not only common, but documented behavior. [Broken sim parameters, ie; mechanic of sinking ships still being considered targets essentially eliminates the ability of the AI to pursue a vanquished force. Since it attacks the sinking ship until it despawns] In RTW2 the developers, to counteract this, nerfed torpedoes repeatedly, motivated by early episodes of player on AI abuse. The tactical situations created by this combination of poor decision making and stubborn ignorance is that player must sail into torpedo intercepts. Because the AI almost always runs, and combination of infinite smoke screen destroyer group, abysmal gunnery, and various other broken mechanics, makes it (generally) tactically infeasible to ever catch them. The pursuit often motivated by the AI blockade. Nowadays the player almost always wins gun battles when they occur, since the AI defeats itself through pure cowardice. While QGM demonstrably boosts the AI, the AI is still functionally incapable of victory. [unless you hand it to them on a silver platter] Well obviously I can't speak for you, but I do not see this "AI always runs away issue." Methinks you are thinking of another naval game....
Regardless, I find the enemy is often quite aggressive in RTW3 when the tactical situation favors it. For example, I once had an engagement where the enemy battleline was acting unusually aggressive and forward, but I saw no reason why....until it became clear they had battlecruisers on the other side of my forces to pin me between! Failure in reconnaissance on my part.
The AI is cautious when such behavior is in-line with historical doctrine, but they will absolutely pounce when they think they can kick you when you're down, finish off crippled ships, etc. If they think they can annihilate your force, they will.
Ah yes, it is impossible for another user to comment without denying experience and illustrating their own fortunate scenario Tactical Failure Extended imgur.com/a/IPWzLpwUnfortunately for those "vibing" I did not take a screenshot almost every battle, but these are between 3 parallel playthroughs, and back to back. Often occurring in every major battle.
|
|
|
Post by blarglol on Jul 6, 2023 7:10:55 GMT -6
Well obviously I can't speak for you, but I do not see this "AI always runs away issue." Methinks you are thinking of another naval game....
Regardless, I find the enemy is often quite aggressive in RTW3 when the tactical situation favors it. For example, I once had an engagement where the enemy battleline was acting unusually aggressive and forward, but I saw no reason why....until it became clear they had battlecruisers on the other side of my forces to pin me between! Failure in reconnaissance on my part.
The AI is cautious when such behavior is in-line with historical doctrine, but they will absolutely pounce when they think they can kick you when you're down, finish off crippled ships, etc. If they think they can annihilate your force, they will.
Ah yes, it is impossible for another user to comment without denying experience and illustrating their own fortunate scenario Tactical Failure View AttachmentView AttachmentView AttachmentExtended imgur.com/a/IPWzLpwUnfortunately for those "vibing" I did not take a screenshot almost every battle, but these are between 3 parallel playthroughs, and back to back. Often occurring in every major battle. And these are supposed to show...? A failure to maintain formation isn't cowardice. If anything, they seem to be madly charging you at the detriment to keeping station and remaining under the cover of allies. First you say it is "too passive and flees" and now it appears too aggressive. Just say: "AI is broken" and be done with it.
I will agree with you on the blockade being a stumbling block to better battles as to how it generates them however.
|
|
|
Post by expendable on Jul 6, 2023 8:03:02 GMT -6
Ah yes, it is impossible for another user to comment without denying experience and illustrating their own fortunate scenario Tactical Failure View AttachmentView AttachmentView AttachmentExtended imgur.com/a/IPWzLpwUnfortunately for those "vibing" I did not take a screenshot almost every battle, but these are between 3 parallel playthroughs, and back to back. Often occurring in every major battle. And these are supposed to show...? A failure to maintain formation isn't cowardice. If anything, they seem to be madly charging you at the detriment to keeping station and remaining under the cover of allies. First you say it is "too passive and flees" and now it appears too aggressive. Just say: "AI is broken" and be done with it.
I will agree with you on the blockade being a stumbling block to better battles as to how it generates them however.
You got it completely backwards. In each event I forced the engagement with dramatically inferior forces and on coming out the better, fleeing from the engagement. I would interdict the invasion transports and force the engagement, holding fire until I found suitable targets. Example; first two pictures, CA Aldabert, heading German line, circles around, crosses the T of the engaged British line [AI sinking 3 of my predreads] and engages Formidable at point blank range. Following CL picture, 4 CL's charge into the British line, arranging themselves to cross British T, delaying the exit of AI units. Only 1 CL of 6 would survive the battle, limping into port at 6 knots. This common type of ship is designed to sail up to the enemy, shoot them, and die. Cases of extremely aggressive positioning appearing defensive, because they sail right up to, and then hold station beside the enemy. As you cannot seem to understand: The AI fails: - on a tactical level [the evade distances are set too high]
- on a mission level [it refuses to complete its mission once it takes a couple of losses, or for no actual reason].
But of course, I must submit myself to the wisdom of "Just say: "AI is broken" and be done with it." instead of explaining clearly and concisely why, and how it is broken.
As yet another gesture of faith. I'll offer some solutions; these values need to be dynamic. Its easy to implement two main systems. - AI classification of threat via displacement including certain modifiers. For example, displacement with S/M/L/VL modifier. And speed modifier [lowering threat level of high speed designs, based on %engine weight]. This (largely) eliminates the need to separate units into classes for the AI.
- Evasion distance is dynamic value, increasing with date and on taking hits. Units in formation only fall back under taking, for example, 20% damage, ideally configurable for player and AI. Of course, this is only one example.
Currently: - Evasion is set high to avoid torpedoes
- Artillery is a parody of armament, thus torpedoes are 'too powerful' and 'must be nerfed'.
- Game simply lacks community involvement in scenarios and designs, the AI roster is poorly suited for the game.
Then the reason for this thread: - Torpedoes aren't hit scan, its simply that the player must pursue the AI, and consequently, set themselves up to be torpedoed. Counterplay --> Does not exist; DD infinite smokescreen.
The very existence of this thread supports my explanation, however cold and calculating it may be.
|
|