GWX's "uber" AI demystified

[Jimbuna]

In the control room there's a rpm guage upper left of the planesmen

[Catfish]

Hello,
i have been away a long time for real life reasons, but i just installed SH3 again and this new GWX2 mod. Thanks for that excellent work, however i do have a question on that Ueber-AI.

The game date is october 1940, daylight, and there is a convoy so far away i can only see one silhouette of a large freighter. Next i am shelled by an invisible destroyer (?), that is directed at me. I "saw" this with external camera on, i did not even see his smoke from my position. How could he possibly have seen me ? There is no way a 4-stacker or any ship would see a U-boat at that distance (12 km or so) visually, let alone electronically with its poor Radar of 1939 (if it already was fitted with one at that time).

Next i dive, and this 4-stacker goes directly at me (changed speed and course at periscope depth without ever using the Periscope). But regardless what evasive manoeuvre i do, which depth or whatever, this thing goes directly at me. I could as well have stayed at the surface waving a flag.
For evading I did all that was written in the first post of this thread, but this "thing" knows exactly where i am, and at which depth - depth charges exploding at perfect depth and directly at the hull of my boat.
Not alone that, but after sinking to the ground and silent running with stopped engines this ship makes one attack after the other, dropping charges and not even missing for inches.
I do not want to complain, just what did you do with that AI ? I can understand this happening after late 1942 (certainly not that quality of an attack), but i think here at this date and location (Western approaches) this looks completely exaggerated.

edit: i forgot - if a destroyer pings, you will hear it in the boat, whether you are in his detection cone or not - it does not tell you whether he really sees you. So you better don't go to full ahead - at least in reality - or only for two seconds.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[Catfish]

Hi,
just to throw in some info from reread book chapters, the trick of the U-boats in the early war was to go in surfaced at night like a "Schnellboot", shoot from less than 400 meters if possible, and just keep up speed and reload. Diving was only done in almost hopeless conditions.
This is why escorts had a hard time, their ASDIC was useless against surfaced targets. Radar did not work under 1000-1500 meters, and not above 8000 meters. As well most escorts simply did not have radar until 1942. There is certainly propaganda still active today.
And there are numerous witness reports of U-boat crews that escort ships were passed at less than 300 meters, and they did not even see the U-boat. Even when they did see it and both had different courses they would pass each other so quickly that the U-boat did not need to dive, because the escort would lose the sub anyway in the next seconds - but try this in GWX and you'll be dead already in 1939

Greetings,
Catfish

[Catfish]

Hello,
an additional info, a U-boat or submarine can not be detected by surface ASDIC or Sonar when it is at periscope depth - the surface noise makes it vanish from the screen in anything else than perfectly flat calm seas, and even a very flat-adjusted detection cone will not really detect it.
Mr Topp said he almost never dived to more than 30 meters for that reason.
The real U-boat skippers considered this sim much too hard, and this was the vanilla version ... i begin to understand why my performance sucks lol.
Anyway it is fun, but real life tactics do not work here
Greetings,
Catfish

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by Catfish

There is certainly propaganda still active today.

Well, it was quite nice of you to imply that we are have not accounted for false 'propaganda.' I really hope that I am reading you wrong.

What you are stating is your opinion concerning the modification of the AI sensors in GWX based on information as you interpret it. Naturally, you are entitled to it.

However, I think it is more likely that you are simply doing something wrong that readily leaves your U-boat wide open to detection.

Dead men cannot speak, and the living can only speculate. Furthermore, real life sensors were subject to a host of environmental factors that are not modelled in SH3.

Modifications to GWX AI sensors were made with the intent to produce historically plausible situations and outcomes, to the best of our abilities... within an entire series of game and code limitations.

What you must understand, is that the AI itself cannot be altered as it is hard coded... SH3 modders can only alter the AI's perceptions of its environment. The ASW modding knowledge pool for SH3 was built over months of difficult trial and error, and will remain an imperfect beast.

The AI should punish dumb mistakes... In stock SH3 escorts/DD's/AI response is boneheaded and thick beyond belief IMHO... allowing total distruction of convoys and taskforces with virtually no risk to the player.

For those claiming that GWX AI response is overly harsh... Horse-muffins! It is most certainly surviveable assuming you are willing to give up bad habits... like watching torpedo detonations... target fixation... or slugging it out with aircraft... surface attacks in broad daylight... forgetting to engage silent running... etc.

If you read "The U-boat Commander's Handbook" you will find that you can absolutely survive to the end of the war. (If you don't mind running an unrealistic 54 patrols!)

Having observed countless debates and whinges claiming that the AI in GWX was either too weak or too strong... honestly leaves me with the feeling that we've executed a competent modification of sensor settings.

It would serve you well to read beyond just the first post of this thread, and to again review appendix "C" in the GWX manual.

Other members have already demonstrated that such things as surface attacks in GWX are quite possible (although difficult.) If you cannot adjust to the effectiveness of sensors in 1939... you haven't got a prayer in later years.

I also suggest that you read this thread:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=134930

Speaking for GWX, if you aren't happy with the AI response... feel free to find a mod that is good for you. You are entitled to your opinion... and your interpretation of how data might be interpreted into game code. The enemy AI in GWX though, is what it is.

[wiggywaawaa]

Thanks for that i learnt a hell of alot. am downloading GWX at the moment. Am pretty new to being online and playing online.thanks again.

[Sailor Steve]

Well, WELCOME ABOARD! You're not only playing the greatest subsim around, you've found the friendliest forum as well.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by wiggywaawaa

Thanks for that i learnt a hell of alot. am downloading GWX at the moment. Am pretty new to being online and playing online.thanks again.

Welcome aboard wiggywaawaa...I'm sure you'll enjoy the GWXperience

[Catfish]

Hello Kpt. Lehmann,
thanks for your answers. I just realized i did not tell at all how much fun this GWX is !
I just felt somehow inclined to write about my experience with GWX in the 1939 to 40 years. It occurred to me that a visual sighting at the described distance 8+ miles with the following quality of an attack was not possible in reality - at that time an american lend-lease four-stacker would have been virtually blind (and i presented a low profile, running silent at PD with less than 100 rpms when he was still 7 miles away). Remember he already shelled me at 10 or more miles distance, when i did not see him at all.
A direct question: What kind of detectors does a four stacker have in GWX in mid-1940 ? A hint referring to the respective file is enough.
Concerning the link you gave - i also answered in this thread what the original poster might have done wrong to be detected - only to show here i am not completely inexperienced .

There is no doubt that the GWX "mod", or better total conversion made a very good sim out of the vanilla version. But it seems - as you wrote - that some basic programming cannot be altered. Well, but i did not experience this behaviour in the vanilla version, so this must have changed due to GWX, hence my comments.
I believe you that this is survivable, however the tactics you need here are harder than in reality, at least in the early war - this is from comments as well as from the books i read. I have no problem with that, just learn other tactics, it is a sim after all.

The propaganda thing. There are some recently published books and TV media suggesting the "Allies" (not even distinguishing between US and British actions) knew and used all the technology, like convoys, and reacting to an attack, right from the beginning of the war, and that Radar and Sonar was used from day one, on most ships. Maybe this is what german history channel or Mr Knoop is about lol. Would this be true the U-boats would never have had the possibilities and chances they had and used until 1942. Germany lost the war for all kinds of reasons, not only at the technological front.

In my opinion this is said to (try to) explain why the US did not react to the U-boat threat at all in the first war years. They would not even have run convoys had not the British command insisted. As well a lot of British war intelligence was wasted or better not wanted to be heard by the US. Seems someone is in need of an explanation here.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[Kpt. Lehmann]

To Catfish and others who whinge and complain regarding the sensors in GWX... I am going to respond with all the kindness and cordiality that I can muster.

"Was GWX's AI altered for the sake of challenge?" The answer is no. I mean no offense, but If your comparison's used the scientific method, and had begun with stock SH3... The improvements that GWX arguably introduces, may present you with a clearer picture of where we are versus where SH3 started. Modifications to GWX AI sensors were made with the intent to produce historically plausible situations and outcomes, to the best of our abilities... within an entire series of game and code limitations. Increased challenge to the player though, was a predictable side effect of modding the enemy AI sensors.

The AI should punish dumb mistakes... In stock SH3 escorts/DD's/AI response is boneheaded and thick beyond belief IMHO... allowing total distruction of convoys and taskforces with virtually no risk to the player.

A proper gradient reflecting the progression of technology, resulting in an accelerating curve of U-boat losses is modelled in GWX.

Is it perfect? Of course not. I don't think any mod's ASW arrangement or sensors modification is perfect... nor do I feel that we have anything to be ashamed of. It does the job quite nicely IMHO. On full realism, it certainly cuts down on 500,000 ton single patrols by players... The GWX dev team made a concerted effort to interlock the ASW assets, damage models, contact reports, campaign files, and weapon damage balancing in an effort cut down on rediculous tonnage hauls.

Reputable sources were used and relied upon. (Clay Blair, U-boat Commander's Handbook circa 1943... and a whole HOST of sources listed in the GWX manual) GWX dev teamers were not the victims of fictional 'propaganda' nor were they historical revisionists.

Ease of success breeds bad habits and false expectations.

Players have had it easy and have not been forced to think as submarine captains.

Your greatest weapons are not your torpedoes... and certainly not your deck gun.

Your greatest weapons are stealth and patience.

Typically what I see in those who complain is a sense that they can do no wrong. "I've been playing sub simulations for years and this isn't right because blah blah blah..."

It is easy to blame the mod instead of admitting complacency and the desire for instant gratification.

The people who built GWX, whatever their individual faults may be, are among the best that subsim has to offer.

Nothing under the sun that we do, or choose not to do, is going to make everyone happy. Tailoring the AI perception (or any element of GWX) to each individual's personal preference or interpretation is quite naturally impossible. I hope you will also understand that we don't really have any intention of helping users UNDO what we worked so hard to build... based on atypical experiences colored by individual wishes.

Months were spent tuning the ASW sensors in GWX... and months of code crunching, spent isolating sensors, determining their limits and "signal strength" at various ranges, and and interpretation (often leading to dead ends... you can't just plug in real life data and expect life-like results in SH3) preceeded the gradual changes and testing. From the original GW to GWX it continued to evolve. I'd rather have all my teeth pulled out with rusty pliers and no anesthetic, than to revisit it again!

One thing that we cannot change, is the experience base of the player... as your experience is not reduced with your simulated "death." There is no way to properly simulate U-boat warfare in any game... we can only approximate it. The player will always learn from a simulated death.

It is a good thing for us that when you die in SH3... you live to count rivets another day. You do not drown, or have to abandon ship, or be taken prisoner... You get to fight another day and carry the experience... and the desire to become a better U-boat captain.

In the end... the downloads do the talking. GWX 2.0 ALONE has been downloaded more than 10,000 times. Those are simply the ones that can be counted. I suspect a further 20,000 from other locations such as GameShadow, Atomic Gamer etc. If the AI (or any element) in GWX was so terrible, complaints about it would be incessant. I am not saying this to be bombastic or arrogant. I am saying it to drive home the points being made.

Seriously folks... if GWX causes you such distress, you have choices. Use them.

If anyone has put a gun to your head and forced you to use (and keep using) GWX... please raise your hand.

Stop complaining and get to patrolling.

[Oldgamer48]

@Cpt. Lehmann

I don't see anything to argue with you about. I've only been sunk once, since I started playing 2.1, and that was when I made a truly stupid mistake. I made an almost perfect submerged attack on a freighter. I checked with my soundman to see if he had a contact, which he didn't. I even went into his station and listened, for myself.

Feeling confident and secure, and not wanting to waste another torpedo on the freighter, I surfaced to finish it off with the deck gun. When I broke the surface, the damned thing started firing guns at me! Instead of doing the sensible thing and going back down, I decided, "It's just a freighter. I can take him!"

By the time I realized what a terrible mistake I'd made, the U-36 was going down, and for the last time. Before I reached crush depth, I got the message, "She's going down!"

If I were a real Kaleun, I'm sure that my crew would be truly irritated with my caution. I'm careful ... after the pitiful spectacle I made above ... because a U-Boat is a fragile thing. Because of this, casualties are low, damage is minimal, and I'm going up in BDU's estimation.

If you do stupid things in war, you get killed. If you're an officer, you get other people killed, too.

By the way, I've quite a collection of books about the Atlantic War, and listening to actual accounts of actions at sea by real U-Boat captains has convinced me that the conversion is very close to the real thing ... as close as you're going to get in an arguably flawed simulation.

[Nyarlathotep]

First let me say that I have no problem with GWX "uber" AI. It's unfortunate that this thread devolved into the GWX team defending their work; an enormous effort that is available to us *FOR FREE*. GWX does so much more than tweak the sensors, I can't imagine how anyone could complain. The first time I launched a patrol in GWX, the harbor environment alone made me think "this is what stock SH3 should have been" and wonder why the GWX team wasn't hired to work on, or at least consult for SH4?

Moving on.. I've made successful convoy attacks and evaded escorts in GWX. I'm playing at %100 realism, malfunctions, sabotage, random crush depth, etc. I've done pretty well so far, but I'm only in late 1940. I know it's going to get harder, and maybe I'll get my butt kicked. In fact I'm certain of it.

But here's the thing; it's a video game simulation. Regardless of the "why" or game mechanics, I try to immerse myself in the experience and simply assume real-life tactics will translate into success, rather than nitpick. No offense, but I find this far more enjoyable than parsing through the config files trying to determine maximum range or depth or whatever.. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that other people have been willing to do so in order to vastly improve on the stock game. But I'm just enjoying their work, and when I do get sunk, I'd rather assume it's my fault and refine my tactics than blame someone else. It's working for me so far.

Here are some ideas that might help if you're struggling in GWX:

- The SH3 manual says the depth charge explosions create a temporary blind spot. From what I've read here, that's not exactly the case. There is a large blind spot in the baffles of the attacker, however, which in some cases is almost the same thing. I've had some luck "chasing" DD's in this blind spot.

- When they start to circle, I turn hard in the same direction, then kill the engine and turn hard the other way. The idea being that when they come around again, I will be heading away from them, hopefully having put some distance between us, and presenting the narrowest possible sonar signature. Plus, if there are multiple attackers, they seem to lose me when I make that second turn while drifting, often times attacking where I would be had I not changed direction.

- It seems like creating a "knuckle" or disturbance in the water with hard rudder commands and high speeds can create a decoy-like effect. Also, you can order "knuckle left or right" manuevers in the GUI. I don't know if the game is modeling this or not. Honestly, I'm not sure I want to know. For whatever reason, it seems to work. It very well could be that it's just the "pump fake" double-move thing confusing them. Who cares?

- If you've got electric torps, or you're not worried about your target spotting the wake, use the slow speed settings. If you're in close range, or just confident in your target solution (or using auto-targeting, boooo) the extra time between launch and impact will give you time to escape.. or set up on another target.

- More on the "baffles" or blind spot; I've used merchant ships as "cover" during convoy attacks, putting my sub under them and slightly behind at shallow depth. This seems to work, but maybe I'm just getting lucky. Again, I'm not too concerned with the "why" so long as it keeps working. It could just be collision avoidance. Anything I can use to my advantage..

So.. I'd suggest trying some of these, then maybe developing your own tactics, and then posting them here possibly? Rather than complaining about the AI in the incredibly cool expansion pack you just downloaded for free.

[Speedy]

Hi guys, I am, just coming back to sh3 after a couple of years away from it and playing GWX2.1 I have to say you guys have done a great job. What originally put me off sh3 was how ridiculously easy it was with 60-70,000+ grt patrols being the norm.

Now I just have a question regarding radar. I just ran the Gibraltar straight in Jan 43 running on the surface in bad weather (overcast, heavy rain, poor vis, 15m/s) and although I detected numerous radar signals I was not intercepted. I just wanted to know if bad weather effects the performance of allied radar in the modded game?

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by Speedy

I just wanted to know if bad weather effects the performance of allied radar in the modded game?

Bad weather in GWX does affect detection probability by enemy radar, but not drastically. For the allied sailor in WWII, a primary attraction of radar was to have a set of eyes that could see through the storm and/or darkness. That being said, surface radar was rather short ranged in real life. On a clear day, you could usually see farther than its actual effective detection range, even late in the war as technology progressed. Conversely, within that limited range it can be far more dependable than the Mark-1 eyeballs of the lookouts... narrowing the search pattern of watch crewmen.

Sounds to me as if you had a bit of luck with you and managed to thread the needle. Good show!

[downunder]

One of the best most informative threads Iv'e read. Thankyou now im off to try it out.

Cheers