4.13 development update discussion and feedback

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

There's absolutely nothing like one flight going high to cover another flight going low to attack a foe, or two sections in a flight splitting up to "box" a single opponent.

AI programming is a black box for me, but I guess there are basic tactic roles assigned to individual planes: lone wolf (fighting alone for his life), wingman (copying the wing leader and making opportunity attacks), wing leader (copying the flight leader, but acting independently when attacked), flight leader (responsible for flight attack tactics). But no matter how many flights are there, all flight leaders are on the same tactics. In other words, there are no distinctive tactics for 2 flights together, or 3 flights together. Or at least it seems so.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Easier said than done.

Sure, and I have more questions than answers.

AI used to have mystic vision; now it cannot see through clouds and obstacles. It has been made more 'realistic'. Dunno whether this has been done to communication as well.
For AI does communicate. I hear him cry 'help me' and the like. I can mute him by unchecking the 'radio' checkbox in the FMB. Does it mute him only for me, or does it completely stop communication? If I switch off the radio for a whole squad, does it affect its combat performance? Or do they still rely on some mystic thought transmission?

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by sniperton

Or do they still rely on some mystic thought transmission?

Umm, guys, the AI are part of the game's operating system (game engine).

They are part of the code. You need to stop anthropomorphizing them.

When you fight AI, you are fighting the game engine itself. It' does not have to send out radio calls, it already has all the info about everything going on in the game. It "knows" the position of every object, it's speed, altitude, if it is in it's or your gun convergence range, and if you have it in your sight picture. Ever wondered why the AI begin to maneuver just when you are about to pull the trigger? Think about it.

They key is how much info the developers take away from the AI programing to make it more "human", and how much they can take away before the AI becomes impossibly easy to deal with.

This is also why the AI always can out climb and out run you. You are fighting a computer controlled, fly by wire, WW2 aircraft that is always operated at it's best performance level and can adjust it's performance inputs at the speed of, well, a computer.

[sniperton]

Thanks, ELAurens, it was exactly the info what I needed. And although I was anthropomorphizing it, with 'mystic thought transmission' I meant exactly that the computer AI seems to 'know' what it shouldn't know realistically. (E.g. the AI's backward vision is hindered by the fuselage, still it breaks the moment before I pull the trigger while attacking from lower dead six.)
But back to my question: suppressing radio communication for the AI, does it affect squad's performance?

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by sniperton

But back to my question: suppressing radio communication for the AI, does it affect squad's performance?

You were just answered, and responded to that answer. No, there is no radio, the computer tells the AI what is happening, because the AI is the computer. Does your left hand know what your right hand is doing? that's the AI/computer's view of the situation.

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

You were just answered, and responded to that answer. No, there is no radio, the computer tells the AI what is happening, because the AI is the computer. Does your left hand know what your right hand is doing? that's the AI/computer's view of the situation.

I expected simply 'yes' or 'no'. I suppose it's a 'no'. Thanks. English is not my mother tongue. Sorry.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by sniperton

I expected simply 'yes' or 'no'. I suppose it's a 'no'. Thanks. English is not my mother tongue. Sorry.

Sorry if I seemed harsh.

Programming is a difficult thing. What people don't seem to understand is that supposing that to do one thing is x amount of difficulty, then to do two is something like four (two squared) xs worth of difficulty, and to five is about 3,125 (five to the power five) xs worth of difficulty, and when someone says "just one more thing" when there are already a number being done, can be to push the difficulty from 3,125 xs worth of difficulty up to 46,656 (six to the power six) xs worth of difficulty.

[sniperton]

No problem, mate. The funny thing is that I have some programming experience, and I frequently work together with programmers, so the difficulty algorithm you mentioned is well known to me. Unfortunately, when I use a software, I involuntarily try to guess 'what's behind the curtain' / 'what's in the black box', and my badly formulated questions can be easily misunderstood as overpretentiousness...

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

Programming is a difficult thing. What people don't seem to understand is that supposing that to do one thing is x amount of difficulty, then to do two is something like four (two squared) xs worth of difficulty, and to five is about 3,125 (five to the power five) xs worth of difficulty

And then there are programming tasks that non-programmers think should be incredibly easy but which are actually incredibly hard:

http://xkcd.com/1425/

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Umm, guys, the AI are part of the game's operating system (game engine).

This is a very good point. But some tasks are easier to program than others. Calculating bombing, firing and navigation solutions is very easy. Programming lines of sight is fairly easy. Programming basic flight maneuvers is relatively easy. Getting even a single plane to behave "intelligently" when flying defensively or offensively is much trickier. Getting multiple planes to coordinate offensively or defensively is very tricky.

"Nerfing" optimum performance can also be tricky, since you basically have to "teach" the computer how to behave like a less than fully competent human if you want realism.

Mimicking human performance limits is also a bit tricky, except when you're dealing with physiological limits which can be quantified, like g forces or limits of vision.

But, the extent to which we anthropomorphize AI behavior is a measure of the AI programmer's success. If we can temporarily forget that we're playing against a machine, then for a moment that programming passes the Turing Test!