AI friendly fire

[Lumituisku]

Im curious... is there currently any mechanism at all to prevent AI friendly fire incidents? 

 

and if there isn't, could one be created?   This seems like..  rather important thing to be added "To do list"  

 

Currendly AI units seem to be all too happy to blast away even if there is Friendly AFV quite literally blocking gun barrel.   😕

 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Lumituisku

[Ssnake]

Friendly fire won't happen as a result of misidentification. But the AI doesn't check extensively for obstructions along the flight trajectory either. There is some checking, but it's imperfect. Realistically though, that's one of the reasons why (in real life) we have formations for platoons in the first place, so that units should never block each other's engagement sector; if you drive across someone else's (very narrow) field of view, accidents are only a matter of time.

 

That some friendly fire incidents are being observed by you and others is, in itself, not a problem. The interesting question is the context leading up to the event. What were the formation and fire control orders, how restrictive was the terrain. You can always find an incident where the AI looks stupid, but the question is how often, objectively, these events occur before we can make a statement if these are exceptionally often. And whether we can then fix it, would be the next question.

[Lumituisku]

57 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Friendly fire won't happen as a result of misidentification. But the AI doesn't check extensively for obstructions along the flight trajectory either. There is some checking, but it's imperfect. Realistically though, that's one of the reasons why (in real life) we have formations for platoons in the first place, so that units should never block each other's engagement sector; if you drive across someone else's (very narrow) field of view, accidents are only a matter of time.

 

That some friendly fire incidents are being observed by you and others is, in itself, not a problem. The interesting question is the context leading up to the event. What were the formation and fire control orders, how restrictive was the terrain. You can always find an incident where the AI looks stupid, but the question is how often, objectively, these events occur before we can make a statement if these are exceptionally often. And whether we can then fix it, would be the next question.

 

 

So there is some checking? 

 

And  yes I understand, I have over the years observed a lot of AI friendly fire incidents, and while the reasons are as you stated.  "Restrictive terrain"  "Route planning"   

 

What I observed today was a friendly AI leopard wingman driving in front of platoon leaders tank likely due to restrictive terrain  (forest on each side of road they were on and big rocks in front of them) and it trying to move to engage enemy it couldn't see but platoon leader could? And worst of all.. platoon leader kept shooting at the immobilized wingman because enemy it tried to destroy stayed operational.

 

And here I am trying to get my head around it...  how to prevent that from happening. On that mission and future ones on Finland on narrow roads and boulderish / stony terrain that i suppose is somehow trying to simulate tree stumps?

 

 That there is some checking  is ansver enough.  I had forgotten that more often than not enemy doesn't blindly blast onto friendly in front of it.  On this case.. I suppose it is because friendly was not on line of sight of gunner nor commander  but still managed to be on path of round to be fired.

 

I remember there was tank game.. called Spearhead from I-magic? before steelbeast gold edition..  and my most livid memory of it is...  when AI TC screamed.. "Cease fire, Cease fire thats a friendly!"      That was on such tone that made blood chill

So I wonder... On AAR we see that Steelbeast does record shots, and identify friendly fire...   perhaps  (AI TC  to scream.. "Cease fire, Cease fire thats a friendly!)  could be future addition for both AI and players?   And someting like that for AI as well to prevent... continying to blasting on friendly target?   I can accept that AI fires once..  especially now when I think of the conditions when those happen..  I believe on all cases I remember...  TC - Nor gunner would have direct line of sight to friendly they fired at...  but either small part of friendly that was hit (usually on opposing side of barrel in relation ship to optics location. left / right / below )    exluding ones where friendly steamed full speed between and got blasted on. 

 

 

 

[Volcano]

Not a criticism but, one word of caution here to keep in mind:

 

In real life, it is never a good idea to have a friendly behind another friendly. We can say "dumb AI!" for shooting that friendly in front, sure, but I recall this nearly happening in real life on a gunnery range (Tank Table XII).  I think we have to be careful here -- we expect the AI to act perfectly, but there should be a level of chaos and error present and possible, because (for example) the user didn't have them in the best formation for the situation at the time. 

 

That is not to say that there shouldn't be a check for an obstruction in the gun sight, and that it shouldn't be lessened -- all I am saying here is that often we expect perfection from the AI, when in real life "stuff happens" too - when the solution would be to avoid certain formations in some situations.

 

I think recently something happened in a game where the AI made a mistake (like got a vehicle stuck in a marsh). My thought was -- its frustrating, but that does indeed happen in real life, things are always going wrong. Commo doesn't work, vehicles get lost, driver makes mistakes and drives somewhere they shouldn't, tracks are thrown, friendly fire occurs, but it is very interesting how we don't expect the AI to make mistakes. So I guess its a balance between allowing AI error, but not having too much of it. (just thinking out loud here) 😎

[Gibsonm]

In a similar vein, sometimes the AI doesn't appear to check "crest clearance" with rounds ploughing the ridge in front of them.

 

But again real live people (players and AFV crewmen) often make the same mistake. 

[Ssnake]

If our AI would faithfully replicate what one of the crews in one of my platoons did on a regular basis, everybody would assume that eSim Games is wholly incompetent. But the truth is, you don't always have "Top. Men." (to quote the ending of the original Indiana Jones movie).

[Lumituisku]

On my first year in my current employer even when i had some years of experience already. I got stuck 6 times with forest machine.  Today if i get stuck... I am usually able to unstuck myself without help and such usually only happens once or twice a year. 

 

On Steelbeast.. sadly i do have number of shooting at friendly units.. so yes. Stuff happens and SB ai is perhaps bit too good at times. Especially with things like detection and target identification.  But again... I don't think that no one of us would want to add... Miss-identification as feature.

 

This colum thingy though that blew my fuse... Finland is very restricted terrain and there traveling in colum formation is kind of necessary.

 

I guess how i will try to solve that is to make 2 routes next to each other without Pathfinding to troublesome area... And pray that it works.  Though.. it would be really nice if units could be scripted to detach and attach back to their original platoon if all units are on waypoint? I think that would make task of scripting tank force movements on restricted terrain much nicer.. and also allow quite bit other possibilities such as having supplying force to travel as platoon and then dropping unit after unit to desired locations... Or so. 

 

Again... that is yet one more thing to wishlist i suppose.

 

 

[Ssnake]

AI navigation and fire control should never conflict with each other. But your point about checking better for interruptions of the line of fire is well taken. How soon we can address it, I don't know.

[Lumituisku]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

AI navigation and fire control should never conflict with each other. But your point about checking better for interruptions of the line of fire is well taken. How soon we can address it, I don't know.

 

Those words alone mean so much to me. Thank you. 

[iamfritz]

Just read Company C, Blackhawk Down, or ... that one USMC in ODS book. Incompetence is the grease of the military machine.