Jump to content

AI avoiding artillery


jppsx
 Share

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, jppsx said:

i like to know is the ai able to predict exact location the artilleries shell will fall ? it seam almost impossible to hit a tank whit artillery's whit out making massive barrage covering very large area 

 

No, but they do react to incoming indirect fire and move positions. 

 

Use ICM to kill vehicles. It is purpose made to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jppsx said:

it seam almost impossible to hit a tank whit artillery's whit out making massive barrage covering very large area 

That's because artillery isn't specifically designed to destroy things - especially not tanks. It's designed effect is to suppress, disrupt, or delay. 

 

ICM and other warheads that are used specifically to destroy things are usually used in rare circumstances or when the target is a single objective of high value. 

 

Artillery is best used in a combined arms role - suppressing a target while infantry, tanks, or aviation close with and destroy with direct fires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

That being said, in past versions AI controlled vehicles would react way too early to incoming artillery fire.

Yes, and this behaviour has been veriably improved. They will now only move AFTER the 1st splash.

So I do not know which SB version is the OP using? And what is he seeing exactly?

 

Edited by Grenny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, jppsx said:

I use newest version and ai seam to often move before round land 

Do they?

What tactics do your waypoint use?...I tried all including none,

What type of round do you fire on them?

When exactly do they move?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, jppsx said:

I use newest version and ai seam to often move before round land 

Without tactics assigned before making evasive manoeuvre  AI would let 1-3 salvos to land  depending of what  type of artillery is used- on-map or off-map, and in case of on-map artillery- of arty unit's rate fire. And there is one small nuance  with SMArt 155 and alikes- delay between payload release and acquisition of targets is quite long, so AI might start reacting just at the same time or slightly shorter before actual  impacts of  EFPs.

 

Then there are conditioned routes, which might override certain AI's behaviours;  for example if unit is on battle position, which has escape route with embarkation condition 'if unit is under indirect fire', then unit would embark it immediately once indirect fire is registered, unless condition has  some delay defined ('after true, delay...').

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

That's because artillery isn't specifically designed to destroy things - especially not tanks. It's designed effect is to suppress, disrupt, or delay. 

 

ICM and other warheads that are used specifically to destroy things are usually used in rare circumstances or when the target is a single objective of high value. 

 

Artillery is best used in a combined arms role - suppressing a target while infantry, tanks, or aviation close with and destroy with direct fires.

Here is a link that makes this post seem some what...umm "misleading"  some would say...:)

 

https://rumble.com/v1ew9qt-08.08.2022-chronicle-of-military-operations-russia-ukraine.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=3

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/WFq9qkWUDNdQ/

Edited by 12Alfa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that Artillery (HE) is designed to kill whatever it hits, if not with one round, than through; weight of volley, selection of appropriate weight of shell, or gradual degradation through repetition.  
 

As the most likely target profiles have increased their armor over time, the standard shell weight of what is considered appropriate close support artillery has increased as well (~105mm largely replaced by ~155mm).

 

The apparent efficiency of the lowest hanging fruit, suppression, is just the obvious acknowlegement of the outsized psychological impact of a shell beyond its physical destructive capacity.

 

Obviously a shell without the ability to course correct is beholden to the target's decision to remain where the shell has been told to go.  

 

DPICM is not designed to 'destroy that which HE cannot' but instead increase efficiency by reducing effects bleed [inherent through poor TLE and CEP] and a given target's dispersion, and freedom to increase the space, through movement, between itself and the round's point of impact.

 

HE overpressure at the point of impact is great enough to destroy AFVs, bunkers, buildings. The destructive capacity drops off too quickly however to efficiently compensate for a target's ability to displace or spread out (an armor platoon can present itself as a 50 meter linear target or 300 meter target).
 

DPICM addresses the problems of dispersion and space between target and point of impact by increasing the surface area of the effect, forcing the target to increase the space between itself and the impact; beyond what is hopefully considered efficient or is immediately prudent for the target.

 

If you can guarantee a target will be within an HE beaten zone at the time of impact, a probability of effect can be calculated and expected up to and including destruction.  

Edited by Breakthrough7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can guarantee a target will be within an HE beaten zone at the time of impact, a probability of effect can be calculated and expected up to and including destruction

 

Most, if not all Mech armies have SOP's to ensure they move after first impact, thus making HE beating zones ineffective to alert mobile units, and given the weight to HP (speed) now to move quickly out of said beating zone. 

 

In my time (centurion was a rank), during training, and qualifications we had personnel who would throw devices simulating a arty strike, and the unit had a time assigned to leave the area, this was in the  30 sec (cold start, crews mounted) for the standard, along with dispersion within the unit, it was not 50m at any time while in ops in open terrain. If running, less than 10 sec, as we are aware of the threat, and trained to carry out our Arty strike SOP.

 

Arty (non LDM) is best employed in MHO on trenches, inf in open, and on foot where escaping the zone cannot be done quickly. We are seeing this being played out in eastern EU.

 

As for SB, well, reducing the strike to 50x50m will increase ones chance for destruction on a non-mobile target. :)

Edited by 12Alfa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:

Most, if not all Mech armies have SOP's to ensure they move after first impact, thus making HE beating zones ineffective to alert mobile units, and given the weight to HP (speed) now to move quickly out of said beating zone. 

Therein lies the importance of both surprise fires and having personnel and equipment that permit accurate first round FFE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mirzayev said:

So in short for those knuckle-draggers among us:

 

1. Use HE when you primarily want to achieve an effect on armored vehicles (suppress, force the enemy to move from a BP, etc.)

 

2. Use DPICM when you primarily want to destroy armored vehicles. 

meh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Breakthrough7 said:

Therein lies the importance of both surprise fires and having personnel and equipment that permit accurate first round FFE.

Only the 1st round is a surprise, if the engine is running. Many vids of pers hearing incoming rounds, and diving for cover. Which leads many to believe , you can actually hear arty about to land, strange I know, but we live in strange times don't we.

 

And yes -equipment that permit accurate first round FFE-, and there is no counter arty radar/unit equipment that permits accurate counter fire. Some would suggest that the enemy is not waiting for arty units to fire to locate them :)

 

I hear counter battery fire is a "thing"  :) recently in wheat fields .

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:

Only the 1st round is a surprise, if the engine is running. Many vids of pers hearing incoming rounds, and diving for cover. Which leads many to believe , you can actually hear arty about to land, strange I know, but we live in strange times don't we.

 

And yes -equipment that permit accurate first round FFE-, and there is no counter arty radar/unit equipment that permits accurate counter fire. Some would suggest that the enemy is not waiting for arty units to fire to locate them :)

 

I hear counter battery fire is a "thing"  :) recently in wheat fields .

 

 

 

 

Right.  That's why things that aren't overly simple, shouldn't be oversimplified.  

 

A column of armor marching slowly in file down a road with close dispersion is an excellent HE linear target, and we've seen both Russia and Ukraine interdicting columns with not so suprisingly devastating effects.  

 

Likewise we've seen both sides destroying static armor positions, again and again with HE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all great, but from the context of artillery in Steel Beasts...

 

Using a fire mission of 100x400 with 18 guns firing 40 rounds of HE each against a column of static tanks:

 

image.thumb.png.d7f3dfd25f362fa2e19a0a043dcc0fc4.png

 

image.thumb.png.4cda0d93f9456b438499638212b0c8e3.png

 

image.thumb.png.679fcad969705a3e013b3b9e3e8c92a9.png

 

Produced a very dramatic few minutes of explosions, followed by 3x T-72B3s suffering mobility and radio damage. 

 

image.thumb.png.c7f4486d381f98dc7e7326db344fa043.png

 

Again, in the context of Steel Beasts:

 

1. Use HE when you primarily want to achieve an effect on armored vehicles (suppress, force the enemy to move from a BP, etc.)

 

2. Use DPICM when you primarily want to destroy armored vehicles. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Breakthrough7 said:

Right.  That's why things that aren't overly simple, shouldn't be oversimplified.  

 

A column of armor marching slowly in file down a road with close dispersion is an excellent HE linear target, and we've seen both Russia and Ukraine interdicting columns with not so suprisingly devastating effects.  

 

Likewise we've seen both sides destroying static armor positions, again and again with HE.

Many don't see the vids as anything but entertainment, concluding anything else is hope-um.

 

Example: side A is winning, from a burnt-out tank with fresh Z paint.

I place "A column of armor marching slowly in file down a road with close dispersion" in this category.

 

We shall see what effect arty had when this is done to confirm what is posted here............again Meh.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mirzayev said:

This is all great, but from the context of artillery in Steel Beasts...

 

Using a fire mission of 100x400 with 18 guns firing 40 rounds of HE each against a column of static tanks:

 

image.thumb.png.d7f3dfd25f362fa2e19a0a043dcc0fc4.png

 

image.thumb.png.4cda0d93f9456b438499638212b0c8e3.png

 

image.thumb.png.679fcad969705a3e013b3b9e3e8c92a9.png

 

Produced a very dramatic few minutes of explosions, followed by 3x T-72B3s suffering mobility and radio damage. 

 

image.thumb.png.c7f4486d381f98dc7e7326db344fa043.png

 

Again, in the context of Steel Beasts:

 

1. Use HE when you primarily want to achieve an effect on armored vehicles (suppress, force the enemy to move from a BP, etc.)

 

2. Use DPICM when you primarily want to destroy armored vehicles. 

 

I assume without human player rdy to react, very poor example, the AI is .........................dare I say it.......Artificial (how they react has been posted). Try with human players waiting for arty on their position, then report back in the context (you know -it's everything :) ) of SB

 

18 tubes 40 rds is a bit much some would think, but its free, and no counterbattery :(, so have had it..... in fact we all can try this and report back how well a human players do. Now that could be a reasonable test, not that the above was not..................... :)

Edited by 12Alfa
Critical thinking skills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Breakthrough7 said:

@Mirzayev Well yeah plotting a 100x400 meter target on a road is literally just attacking the dirt on either side of the column.

 

Doing the same test with 20x400 yielded similar results. Feel free to test it yourself and post here. 

 

2 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:

I assume without human player rdy to react, very poor example, the AI is .........................dare I say it.......Artificial (how they react has been posted). Try with human players waiting for arty on their position, then report back in the context (you know -it's everything :) ) of SB

 

18 tubes 40 rds is a bit much some would think, but its free, and no counterbattery :(, so have had it..... in fact we all can try this and report back how well a human players do. Now that could be a reasonable test, not that the above was not..................... :)

 

Having played literally hundreds of games with human players reacting to artillery, I can assure you that these results are quite similar, with the exception that human players tend to have better reactions. PLs will commonly set a timer and move between alternate and primary BPs to avoid artillery strikes from our human OPFOR. 

 

Unless you are talking about ICM. Then you just die. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mirzayev said:

 

Doing the same test with 20x400 yielded similar results. Feel free to test it yourself and post here. 

 

 

Having played literally hundreds of games with human players reacting to artillery, I can assure you that these results are quite similar, with the exception that human players tend to have better reactions. PLs will commonly set a timer and move between alternate and primary BPs to avoid artillery strikes from our human OPFOR. 

 

Unless you are talking about ICM. Then you just die. 

 

Taking your assuring in to account- " report back in the context (you know -it's everything :) ) of SB", (you may of miss that detail), np on my end, I'll wait.

Edited by 12Alfa
trying to determine overall results with a test without bad data
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 12Alfa said:

It seems that way :) maybe sleep on it, ................waiting on others to report results at the moment.

 

 

Or you could rephrase the question. 

 

Or not. 

 

I'm not gonna devote brain power trying to decipher an unclear and strangely worded question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...