View Full Version : AI Impressions

03-17-2005, 10:37 AM
What's everyone's takeon the AI of escorts/aircraft/warships/etc. Just asking because of the following -

Last night, loaded up the SP - Barham mission, with every intention of wanting to get DC'd. Sent 4 torpedoes at the center BB with 3 hits, at which point, 2 DDs peeled away from the formation to engage me. Immediately went to 50m and maneuvered in a straight line, anywhere from standard to flank speeds to make as much noise as possible.

Despite these efforts to make myself an easy target, the DDs never got close. Four separate DC attacks were launched, with the closest being off my port beam at maybe a two or three hundred or so yards distant.

I still have a lot more playtime before making a concrete determination of the game's AI, but just wanted to hear from others on their observations.

03-17-2005, 11:03 AM
Interesting. I was played the same scenario last night on 29% realism. Fired 4 fish 3 of which struck the center battleship. Didn't sink it. 1 escort broke off and dropped a dc pattern that wasn't close. I did some evasive maneuvers and slipped away from the escort. I then went to the map and plotted an intercept course to finish off the damaged battleship. As I was closing in for the kill I noticed the escort bearing in from dead astern. I got a firing solution and fired a fish from my aft tube. It struck the escort, but was a dud. The escort then dropped a dc pattern that sent me to the bottom...

Pr0metheus 1962
03-17-2005, 11:19 AM
From what I can gather from the reading I've done, escorts weren't all that good at killing U-Boats with depth charges. They were good at keeping the boat submerged until the boat ran out of battery power and was forced to the surface, and then they'd pummel them with guns. So I wouldn't be too concerned with poor AI when it comes to depth charge attacks. It may be a feature rather than a failing.

03-17-2005, 11:31 AM
I've read the same thing. It will be interesting to see if escorts get more effective in the later years when improved sonar became available. I also wonder if an element of randomness are programmed into the game. Many times luck plays a role. Someone spots the periscope wake. Does anyone know if the AI ships have crew morale and experience programmed into it?

03-17-2005, 11:33 AM
Maybe its depend of the years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

03-17-2005, 12:20 PM
The British greatly overestimated the ability of ASDIC to detect and track submarines. It is one reason they were so shocked by the success of the German uboats.

In the tutorial I sank a merchant, i was attacked by 2 escorts, they dropped a couple groups of DCs, then hurried off after the convoy. This seems to be exactly what would happen in an early war convoy. The escorts didn't have the time to go really chasing after teh uboats.

03-17-2005, 12:22 PM
What happens when you try the same mission at 100% realism?

03-17-2005, 12:35 PM
here is my small experience with SHIII AI.
I must agree with Serena about the DDs, they are not very good at aiming, but thats limited to 1939-1943. After this period, I tried the U505 mission (1944 or 1945 I dont remember)....I did dive, 50m after been spotted on surface, immediately after the depth reached I commanded a silent running. But the DDs managed to found me and sent me all their weapons : hedgehogs (you should see the cinematic when they launch that, awesome), depth charges....they killed me in less than a minute.
I guess new technology helped him.

39-40 DDs were pretty blind indeed.

Pr0metheus 1962
03-17-2005, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by u2336:
...they are not very good at aiming, but thats limited to 1939-1943. After this period, I tried the U505 mission (1944 or 1945 I dont remember).....they killed me in less than a minute. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds realistic. Before 1943, the U-Boats were virtually unstoppable, and afterwards they were a deathtrap. Destroyers shouldn't be much to fear until later in the war.

03-17-2005, 12:55 PM
From what I've read, the early war ASDIC wasn't very good at giving a depth reading. It could give a bearing, but not tell the operator how deep the target was. Early hydrophones couldn't tell much more than the target was left/right of the ship. It wasn't until later in the war that the tech side improved, and dedicated hunter/killer groups deployed.

03-17-2005, 01:59 PM
I disagree about the un-effectiveness of DDs early in the war.
The problem was that early on there were too few of them.
One of the things that surprised me more in my pre-SH3 readings was the lethality of 1939-40 DDs once sonar contact was established.
The easy times weren't easy at all in that circumstance.

Actually I was under the impresion that, as the war progressed, escorts became less effective.
This is fairly easy to explain: green crews opposed to highly trained pre-war professionals.

It should be noted that the wolfpack tactic required the U-boats to attack during nighttime on surface: one of the reasons was that a surfaced sub could not be detected by a sonar.
The introduction of centimetric radar made surface attacks very difficult and compelled the U-boats to dive when detected.
By 1943 the training of Allied crews was good enough to make them deadly with the array of weapons at their disposal, even if by them the main danger for U-boats had become the plane.

About the AI: it is not unusual to read of escorts dropping depth charges in totally wrong positions, so I'm not much worried about this AI behaviour per se, on the contrary...
Once they've got a good contact, however, you should be in big troubles and expect probable damage.

03-17-2005, 02:01 PM
Thanks for sharing, all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pr0metheus 1962
03-17-2005, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans_Koenig:
I disagree about the un-effectiveness of DDs early in the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the fact is, some U-Boats survived 300 depth charge attacks. If destroyers were effective that wouldn't have happened.

Anyway, no one is suggesting that early war Destroyers should be completely ineffective. I said they shouldn't be feared, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be respected.

03-17-2005, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
Destroyers shouldn't be much to fear until later in the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Provided, of course, that you get under water. They don't have any trouble ripping you apart on the surface (and they shouldn't).

What everyone is saying here matches exactly my experiences so far. That one destroyer that caught my T-II on the surface got a few potshots in for minor damage before we got submerged, but once we were submerged evading him was mostly painless. He trolled around looking for us for a bit before giving up, but was never really a big threat. This was in 1939. I haven't played any late-war yet (preferred to just jump right into a campaign after doing tutorials) ....

More interesting to me was his search pattern. At this point I'm still allowing myself the free camera (might as well enjoy the beauty of the graphics for a while). I only glanced at him a few times, but it appeared to me he was circling in an ever-widening circle to look for me. Hm.

03-17-2005, 04:46 PM
thus far, i've had about 5 hrs experience with the game and i must say, this game is by far the best AI i have seen thus far in terms of submarine games.. and i've been playing sub games since the introduction of wolfpack http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif thow thumbs up on my part thus far.. i still have to try the campaign http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif