active sonar doctrine question

[Ghost Dog]

I dont profess to know anything about how the doctrines work, but ive been pondering this one for a long time.

AI submarines and active sonar. in DW they basically dont use it. True, that there are very few occasions where a submarine would need to or want to use it. But, I feel there are certain instances where it would be used.

There are two instances where I feel active sonar would be used in a tactical situation:

1. Rapid detection of a time-sensitive target. in other words, if you were a sub searching for a submerged target and needed to find it quickly and destroy it before it could do something you wanted to prevent it from doing, such as launching an SLBM, sending a radio message, deploying commandoes. You might find the need to send out a blast or two of active sonar.

2. Counter-fire snapshot. If by chance youve been made by the enemy and he's got fish in the water after you. you might want to fire snapshots down the bearing of incoming fish and later send out a blast of active sonar to firm up your solution just before you turn tail and evade his fish. This is a common soviet tactic from the cold-war days when the soviets felt that NATO boats would more often than not get to shoot first. The russian tactic would be to fire snapshots and hammer away with active sonar before taking evasive action.

Any way to implement this into the game for AI subs? like I said before, I know nothing about editing in this game, im just curious and wanting a new experience.

[LuftWolf]

It is possible to code this behavior into the AI doctrine, however, since most everything has to be done in programming conditions (IF, THEN, AND, ELSE, etc) there is a fair amount of skill in making any specific AI behavior meaningful in a tactical sense. In other words, we can make it ping, but that doesn't necessarily make it a better OPFOR unless there is other programming done along with to make incorporate the behavior into tactically effective action.

[Ghost Dog]

alright, what about the snapshots then? can the AI ever fire snapshots or only on known contacts?

[darksythe]

As far as i know the AI will fire snapshots, sometimes they wait untill the tactical situation gets better for them ie. evading fish first.

then again i could be wrong.... anyone else who knows is welcome criticism. :yep:

[Pigfish]

Ive seen AI snapshot a torp at me once Ive launched a weapon.

I dont think I was detected they were just reacting.

In the 'SubAvoidWeap' doctrine I think.

Being able to script/trigger AI subs to ping when wanted would be very :cool: .

IMHO. :)

[TLAM Strike]

I've seen a AI sub snapshot on my active ping. Well I assume it was a snapshot since that was the 1st hint he had that I was there.

[Pigfish]

I've seen a AI sub snapshot on my active ping. Well I assume it was a snapshot since that was the 1st hint he had that I was there.

Yeah I think your right. 'snapshot' is in both the SubAtkSurf and SubAtkSub doctrines to snapshot at active.

Going active in a sub to me is akin to turning on radar in a sub. Just looking for trouble. :ping:

[Rip]

A single active ping to launch on in response to being fired at is a very good, and valid tactic. If the launch transient and launch are your initial detection an active range could give you a kill solution. You have to assume he had a decent firing solution on you.

I don't know the answer to whether the game can be trained to make this kind of reaction.

In MP I run into sub skippers that use active frequently. Given restricted operating areas and other factors it can actually often reward them with the cheap kill. I think this is the result of many "realists" disabling most of the auto crews. Few are the men that can effectively deal with all stations including TMA in a rich enviroment. Thos that can't deal often go active and use other such simple tactics. On top of that while I can handle all the stations it takes the fun out of it. Too much work to enjoy the tactical analysis. I think if you are going to disable all auto crews you should at least make it multi-station.

[Kapitan]

ive fired on an active and been shot at while pinging bad move i made

[SeaQueen]

On top of that while I can handle all the stations it takes the fun out of it. Too much work to enjoy the tactical analysis. I think if you are going to disable all auto crews you should at least make it multi-station.

I agree. I like to keep at least a few autocrews on so that I can devote my attention as-needed. If I want to turn them off while I'm paying attention to a particular station, I don't mind, but I end up putting them back on again while I do something else. I like to put myself in the role of a decision maker. I spend my time paying attention the station I think is most important AT THAT TIME. I don't want to have to be all over the place, dealing with things that aren't necessarily important.

[Apocal]

I agree. I like to keep at least a few autocrews on so that I can devote my attention as-needed. If I want to turn them off while I'm paying attention to a particular station, I don't mind, but I end up putting them back on again while I do something else. I like to put myself in the role of a decision maker. I spend my time paying attention the station I think is most important AT THAT TIME. I don't want to have to be all over the place, dealing with things that aren't necessarily important.

I agree totally. I play DW to get the experience of being the Commanding Officer, not the sonar tech, fire controlman, or torpedoman. Especially not the boring parts of their jobs. Being forced to stare at the whizwheel for ninety minutes only to get killed because I wasn't at the lookout station watching for vampires... it just really isn't fun.

Few are the men that can effectively deal with all stations including TMA in a rich enviroment. Thos that can't deal often go active and use other such simple tactics.

Being primarily a surface driver, using active sonar is often an outright necessity for me. Especially with all the homemade missions involving sea state five, suface duct, ASW sweeps. Granted, going active sucks, but it's better than passive in that sort of acoustic environment. Often you won't get a video return, but audio is there, so you can use the single beam active mode to narrow it down, then get a ATT on the contact, get probable couse and speed, then either close for a torpedo run or (the much safer and preferred) vector in off-board assests to make the kill. Still get half of that sub on my bridge wing.

[Molon Labe]

A single active ping to launch on in response to being fired at is a very good, and valid tactic. If the launch transient and launch are your initial detection an active range could give you a kill solution. You have to assume he had a decent firing solution on you.

I don't know the answer to whether the game can be trained to make this kind of reaction.

In MP I run into sub skippers that use active frequently. Given restricted operating areas and other factors it can actually often reward them with the cheap kill. I think this is the result of many "realists" disabling most of the auto crews. Few are the men that can effectively deal with all stations including TMA in a rich enviroment. Thos that can't deal often go active and use other such simple tactics. On top of that while I can handle all the stations it takes the fun out of it. Too much work to enjoy the tactical analysis. I think if you are going to disable all auto crews you should at least make it multi-station.

The problem with some of the more popular autocrew is that while the autocrew is freeing up your time (which is good sometimes), it is using information that cannot be known to the player...some autocrew are more than just time-management, they are cheats. :down:

[Kapitan]

i use auto crew purely because im to busy to work all the stations even during a battle im only in one place and i dont shift from there

its not cause i cheat its cause i havnt the time to figure out tactics or next move while operation some other piece of the boat

im only one person you know

[jason taylor]

Using autocrew seems appropriate. For one thing it allows me to gradual learn. For another it is realistic. One can picture a busybody captain going around the different stations to check up, so me doing the same thing is not unrealistic. It is harder to picture handling all at once.
I avoid using the autocrew on the Active though. I don't know if it can really go active without my orders*and I don't want to find out in an inconvenient manner. How much active may be used is obviously a matter of opinion but I am sure that that is a decision I definitely want to reserve to myself.


*isn't it to bad that you can't threaten virtual crewmen with an assignment to garbage duty?

[SeaQueen]

Using autocrew seems appropriate. For one thing it allows me to gradual learn. For another it is realistic. One can picture a busybody captain going around the different stations to check up, so me doing the same thing is not unrealistic. It is harder to picture handling all at once.

Yeah.. but in real life the stations demand more of your attention too. The way I see it, realism wise, is that they're both "realistic" in some sense. I think it's more of a matter of personal preference.

I *like* doing TMA and fussing over bearing rates, so I do it.

The missions I like to play are frequently very long compared to what a lot of other people play too. It's not always possible for me to stare at a sonar screen all day, so I let my autocrew fill in, mostly so I won't miss something. Honestly, though, by this point, based on the mathematics of things, I usually have a pretty good idea of about when I need to start paying attention anyhow. If I know about how long it takes my Pd to reach about 0.5 given the assumptions I've made about my speed and what not, then I start worrying around the median time to detect. It seems to work pretty well. I call it a victory for Koopman. :-)

[SeaQueen]

The problem with some of the more popular autocrew is that while the autocrew is freeing up your time (which is good sometimes), it is using information that cannot be known to the player...some autocrew are more than just time-management, they are cheats. :down:

Has anyone like Jamie ever said that? I've often been suspicious of this claim on the basis that most people are also AWFUL at TMA. If you made a computer program that automatically did Ekelund ranging, Speiss ranging, etc. then OF COURSE it'd do better than someone who was basically making guesses.

[SeaQueen]

.. there is a fair amount of skill in making any specific AI behavior meaningful in a tactical sense. In other words, we can make it ping, but that doesn't necessarily make it a better OPFOR unless there is other programming done along with to make incorporate the behavior into tactically effective action.

I totally second that. This parallels an issue we run into in professional wargames as well. Something we do frequently is to vary different tactics for a given scenario and see how sensitive the outcome is. Sometimes it matters a little bit, sometimes it matters a lot, sometimes it doesn't matter at all.

Honestly, I think the idea of a kind of universal doctrine for the AI to follow is a little bit ambitious. It amazes me that DW does as well as it does. So many of these things are driven by all kinds of things, which there's just no way to a computer program that's written as generally as DW is, to really take into account. I've been pretty happy with what they got. It beats me sometimes...

[Molon Labe]

The problem with some of the more popular autocrew is that while the autocrew is freeing up your time (which is good sometimes), it is using information that cannot be known to the player...some autocrew are more than just time-management, they are cheats. :down:
Has anyone like Jamie ever said that? I've often been suspicious of this claim on the basis that most people are also AWFUL at TMA. If you made a computer program that automatically did Ekelund ranging, Speiss ranging, etc. then OF COURSE it'd do better than someone who was basically making guesses.

Renzie said as much, way back in the day.
The TMA has been improved (which is to say has had more error added to it) in the 1.03 patch, so this has been partially addressed.

[SeaQueen]

Renzie said as much, way back in the day.
The TMA has been improved (which is to say has had more error added to it) in the 1.03 patch, so this has been partially addressed.

It surprises me that they did it the way they did, then. Speiss and Ekelund both have a certain amount of error built in. I guess the hard thing is getting it to know what ranging techniques to use when. *shrug*

[jason taylor]

Using autocrew seems appropriate. For one thing it allows me to gradual learn. For another it is realistic. One can picture a busybody captain going around the different stations to check up, so me doing the same thing is not unrealistic. It is harder to picture handling all at once.

Yeah.. but in real life the stations demand more of your attention too. The way I see it, realism wise, is that they're both "realistic" in some sense. I think it's more of a matter of personal preference.

I *like* doing TMA and fussing over bearing rates, so I do it.

The missions I like to play are frequently very long compared to what a lot of other people play too. It's not always possible for me to stare at a sonar screen all day, so I let my autocrew fill in, mostly so I won't miss something. Honestly, though, by this point, based on the mathematics of things, I usually have a pretty good idea of about when I need to start paying attention anyhow. If I know about how long it takes my Pd to reach about 0.5 given the assumptions I've made about my speed and what not, then I start worrying around the median time to detect. It seems to work pretty well. I call it a victory for Koopman. :-)
____________________________________________
By the way there is a story in the RN about a Corvette captain who when he went out on maneuvers clapped a headphones on and waited in the CIC for days, sleeping and eating with the headphones on. During the maneuvers he suddenly woke up from sleep saying, "thats a submarine". When questioned he explained, "it had a metallic sound."

[jason taylor]

I dont profess to know anything about how the doctrines work, but ive been pondering this one for a long time.

AI submarines and active sonar. in DW they basically dont use it. True, that there are very few occasions where a submarine would need to or want to use it. But, I feel there are certain instances where it would be used.

There are two instances where I feel active sonar would be used in a tactical situation:

1. Rapid detection of a time-sensitive target. in other words, if you were a sub searching for a submerged target and needed to find it quickly and destroy it before it could do something you wanted to prevent it from doing, such as launching an SLBM, sending a radio message, deploying commandoes. You might find the need to send out a blast or two of active sonar.

2. Counter-fire snapshot. If by chance youve been made by the enemy and he's got fish in the water after you. you might want to fire snapshots down the bearing of incoming fish and later send out a blast of active sonar to firm up your solution just before you turn tail and evade his fish. This is a common soviet tactic from the cold-war days when the soviets felt that NATO boats would more often than not get to shoot first. The russian tactic would be to fire snapshots and hammer away with active sonar before taking evasive action.

Any way to implement this into the game for AI subs? like I said before, I know nothing about editing in this game, im just curious and wanting a new experience.
____________________________________________
Active has become more popular with the advent of the Akula. It is wondrously quiet and often needs active to find.
Active is also sometimes used to make the final targetting as you implied.
And it is a way of saying "gotcha". As most of modern naval experience is cold rather then hot war, a means of doing this is advantageous. Obviously that is not the primary purpose but it is a use.