Suggestions for AI Improvements

[Pursuivant]

With the understanding that this is likely to be a "wishlist" thread, that AI programming is hard and tricky work, and that the improvements to AI in the 4.12 patch are generally excellent, I'd like to propose some potential improvements for AI behavior in future patches.

Proposed changes might be things that are "baked in" to standard AI behavior, but might also be things that can be set up in the FMB, or even specified as player commands.

Currently, IL2 AI doesn't always follow historical tactics and formations. While much of this information is probably old news for TD, perhaps these links might offer new information, or give mission builders a sense of how WW2 era Air Forces actually maneuvered their planes.

Interesting video on 1944-45 USAAF tactics here which covers a lot of details:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0Vke_HZtAE

Video on 1943 USN tactics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_iW1T3yg80


http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/bf109/Bf109tactics.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger-four

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/FAFhist.htm

http://tangmerepilots.co.uk/images/training/training.pdf

http://thehistorymanatlarge.blogspot.com/2010/09/raf-fighter-tactics-summer-1940.html

http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsI.htm

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html

[Pursuivant]

Continuing my massive wishlist for AI behavior:

1) Alterations to Aircraft Protective Behavior.

In the FMB and/or as player commands, there could be more options for planes to only protect certain objectives, allowing for more realistic bomber escort, CAP and fighter squadron behavior.

A) Option to Assign Protective Mission by: Plane, Section, Flight, Squadron, Wing (2+ squadrons as defined in FMB).

B) Objective Protected:

Single Unit - Plane(s) defend a particular unit - plane, ship, etc.
Section - Plane(s) defend a 2 or 3 plane section.
Flight - Planes defend a 4 or 6 plane flight composed of two sections.
Squadron - Planes defend 3 or 4 flights.
Type of Unit - Planes defend one or more of Bombers, Fighters, Ground Vehicles, Artillery, Ships
Formation - Two or more units moving more or less in formation, regardless of type. Used to make CAP protect entire fleet, or fighter escort protect entire bomber wing.
Location - Particular map sector or a geometrical shape defined by the the mission builder in the FMB. Certain altitudes can be set (e.g., defend map sector C-13 between 1,000 and 3,000 meters). This could be an extension of the existing "Loiter here" command.

In the FMB, it could be possible to assign multiple objectives to be protected, prioritizing them, and/or shifting from one objective to another once a particular waypoint or trigger has been reached.

C) Type of Protection:

Very Close Cover/Wingman - Keep protected plane(s) in sight, more or less following their path, and weaving or circling closely around the protected objective if it is slower than you. Just attack enemies which are maneuvering to attack you or the objective you've been assigned to protect. Break off attack as necessary to follow assigned objective. Default distance to pursue an enemy is 500 meters, but this can be set to less in the FMB. Default behavior is to follow, then weaving to keep station with a slower target above protecting aircraft's stall speed, then a circling or "racetrack" course to keep station with a slower target moving below the protecting aircraft's stall speed.

Close Cover - Keep objective in sight, ignoring enemies which aren't attacking or maneuvering to attack you, planes in your formation, or planes you've been assigned to escort. Break off attacks against fleeing enemies beyond assigned close cover range and return to escorting position. Default "roving" range is 1000 meters, but can be altered in FMB.

Top Cover - The current AI option. Once sighted, chase and attack enemies as necessary. Only return to defended objective once enemies have been destroyed or are out of sight.


D) Degree of Self-Sacrifice

Highly Defensive: Defend objective only if multiple advantages are in your favor - numbers, plane quality, altitude, etc. Temporarily abort protective mission and flee or adopted defensive behavior if outnumbered, faced by superior planes, or otherwise severely disadvantaged.

Defensive: Defend objective only if some advantages are in your favor. Temporarily abort protective mission if severely disadvantaged.

Aggressive: Defend objective even in unfavorable conditions. Temporarily abort protective mission and protect yourself if attacked, but resume attack if possible after attackers are dealt with.

Suicidal: Defend objective regardless of odds. Ignore attacks on yourself if necessary to protect your objective.


E) Miscellaneous Modifiers:

* Defend units of same nationality only (default is defend all allied units within an assigned category)

* Defend damaged/undamaged units only (default is to defend all units within an assigned category)

[Pursuivant]

2) Improvements to Self-Defensive Behavior.

There should be more options for AI maneuvering when attacked, in the FMB and/or as player commands:

A) Defensive Maneuvering In Formation:

Full Defense - Planes break formation when attacked - fleeing or defending as necessary.

Limited Defense - Individual planes maneuver when attacked while maintaining overall formation (i.e., limited jinking and weaving).

No Defense - Planes don't break formation when attacked.

B) Defensive Behavior Against Attack by Aircraft

Highly Defensive: Maneuver to avoid contact with/sighting by the enemy. Flee if attacked unless escape is impossible, then defend yourself.

Defensive - Flee if attacked unless escape is impossible, then defend yourself.

Aggressive - Current AI default. Defend yourself if attacked, fleeing only if badly damaged.

Suicidal - Ignore enemy attacks. Don't maneuver to defend yourself, although gunners can still attack.


C) Flak Defense Options:

Individual Defense - Planes maneuver to evade flak individually - alternating left and right turns of 10-60 degrees, and/or or minor climbs and dives of +/- 50-200 meters, at 15-30 second intervals while following the overall assigned flight path.

Formation Defense - Planes maneuver to avoid flak as a formation, as described above.

Suicidal - Planes ignore flak. E.g., bombers on bombing run from IP, torpedo bombers or kamikazes committed to attack run.


D) Cooperative Unit Self-Defense Options: Probably as player commands, although could be set as pre-programmed defenses in FMB or AI programming.

Lufberry Circle - By flight or squadron. Planes form a circle, with 100-300 meters between planes. Planes in the circle will engage in limited maneuvering to attack enemies manuevering to attack planes in front of them, essentially treating the plane ahead of them as the "lead" plane in a lead/wingman formation.

Beam Defense/"Thatch Weave" - by plane, section or flight. Lead and wingman, 2 2-plane sections in "line abreast" formation, or 2 4-plane flights in line abreast formation make overlapping "S-turns" to cover each other's flank and rear, maneuvering only to engage enemies attacking the leading formation.

Cover - by plane, section or flight. One or more planes, sections or flights in a squadron is assigned to take position above, below, ahead, behind, or to the left or right of another plane/section/flight, protecting them against attack. Example, "Section 1, give top cover to section 2".

[Pursuivant]

3) New Flight, Squadron and Wing Formation and Behavior Options:

There should be more options for standard squadron and wing formations as well as section and flight formations, which include standard AI behaviors for various sections or flights.

A) Ability to choose 3 plane sections as opposed to 2-plane sections.

B) Ability to choose 2, 3, 4 or 5 flight squadrons.

C) Option to allow planes to switch positions within a section, flight or squadron.

* Ability to regroup sections/flights. For example, if you have two sections which have each lost one plane, you should have the option of assigning one surviving plane as lead and the other surviving plane as wingman to form a new section.

Veteran or Ace pilots should automatically regroup in this way based on rank or initial flight position. For example, if if the lead from section 2 loses his wingman, and the wingman from section 3 loses his lead, then they should automatically reformate with section 2 leader as leader and section 3 wingman as wingman in a new section.

* Ability to reassign section, wing or squadron command, with planes changing position accordingly. This is important if a leader is injured or his plane is damaged.

D) More section, flight, etc. commands:

* Ability to make sections, flights or squadron gain or lose altitude while still holding formation, allowing formations which are "stepped" to the left, right, front or rear.

* Option for "formate on my target" allowing for very close escort of individual plane.

* Option for "follow my target" allowing for looser escort of a particular plane (or formation) or non-hostile pursuit of enemy.

E) New formations, either in FMB or as commands.

* Various USAAF Heavy Bomber "box" formations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_box
http://www.398th.org/Research/8th_AF_Formations_Description.html
http://www.airpower.at/news03/0813_luftkrieg_ostmark/15USAF.htm
http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?19215-B-17-Combat-Box
http://forum.worldofwarplanes.com/index.php?/topic/3455-bomber-formation-escorting-and-atacking-guide/

* 1944 USAAF Fighter Squadron Formation - 3 sections of 4 (2-plane sections) in line abreast and stepped down.

2 1 3 4 6 5 7 8 10 9 11 12

* Common Fighter Squadron Formation - 3 sections of 4 (2-plane sections) in "finger 4" formation with trailing flights stepped down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger-four

For squadrons of 12 planes, the formation is modified like this:


1
2 3
4
5 9
6 7 10 11
8 12

Alternately, this formation could be in line abreast:


5 7 1 3 9 11
6 8 2 4 10 12

* Finger 4 could also be modified into "loose deuce" formation (could be achieved by using the existing "loosen formation" command).


1

2 3

4

or

1 3


2 4


* 1939-40 RAF squadron "Vic" formation with 4 "vics" of 3 planes. Each "Vic" maneuvers as a unit while maintaining overall squadron formation. The Soviets and Japanese also used this formation for a while, and it was a fairly common formation for light bombers and attack aircraft.


1 4
2 3 5 6
7 10
8 9 11 12

* 1939-40 RAF squadron "Line Astern" formation with 3 lines of 4 planes or 4 lines of 3 planes. Each line maneuvers as a unit while maintaining overall squadron formation.


1 4 7 10 1 5 9
2 5 8 11 2 6 10
3 6 9 12 3 7 11
4 8 12

* "Gaggle" - by flight, squadron or wing. A loosely clustered group of aircraft with no formation.


1
11
4 6 5
9 7
3 12
2
8
10

* Bomber Stream - essentially a very long "line astern" formation, but with each plane slightly offset in altitude (by 500-100 meters) from the plane ahead or behind.

F) Unless radio silence is being observed, flight leaders should call out speed changes (as well as course changes) when they reach a waypoint. This would make it possible to actually hold formation with the bombers you're escorting!

G) Waypoint information on map should include formation information.

H) Flight and Squadron formations should take off, formate, and make turns "by the book." Currently, formations turn very clumsily (at least in the QMB) such that they collide or lose formation.

http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/html/mshwpmn2.htm

http://www.quora.com/Operationally-speaking-how-did-the-USAAF-5th-Wing-assemble-following-take-off-in-the-air-above-England-before-setting-out-on-a-bombing-run-in-Germany

* Command to "follow the leader" so that trailing planes in the formation attempt to follow the lead plane no matter what. Not historical in most cases.

I) Situational Awareness should be reduced for pilots who are attempting to hold close formation with their leader, or who are attempting to formate with other planes.

J) Option to set rally points. That is, a player designated "waypoint" on the map where planes which are isolated from the rest of the formation will travel to and loiter around. Similar to existing "Loiter Here" command, but can be set for a distant location.

[Pursuivant]

4) Ideas for AI attacking behavior

A) New attack commands

Attack Assigned Types Only - Assign by Nationality, Roles, or individual type.

Attack Only When Threatened (i.e., shot at or enemy plane gets within 1,000 yards).

Attack Only When Escorted Types Threatened (when shot at or enemy plane gets within 1,000 yards of escorted types)

B) Specific Attack Strategies - in FMB or as player commands:

Frontal attacks on/off
Beam attacks on/off
Flank attacks on/off
Rear attacks on/off
Diving/Boom and Zoom attacks on/off
Climbing/attacks from below on/off
Turn fighting on/off

This will help the player keep the AI from doing STOOOPID things like slow closing attacks from the rear against a heavily armed bomber, or dogfighting with a more maneuverable opponent.

C) Attacking Formation behavior:

Lead plane in section attacks only - other planes only provide cover if lead plane attacked. This is equivalent to the current "Cover Me" command.

Formation Attack - All planes in section/flight attack lead's target while maintaining formation. A variant on existing "Attack My Target" command.

Individual Attack - The current default. All planes in section/flight attack independently. This is covered by existing "attack fighters," "attack bombers" and "attack" commands.

D) Target choice:

Attack damaged/undamaged planes only.
Attack lead/trailing planes only.
Attack high/low planes only.

E) Attack aggression

Defensive: Against fighters, attacker only makes an attack if he has clear advantages in height, position, numbers and/or plane quality. Against bombers, attacker only makes an attack if no enemy fighters are present and he is supported by multiple attackers (no solo attacks). If attacked, attacker will attempt to flee before he attempts to defend himself.

Aggressive: Against fighters, attacker only makes an attack if he has at least one advantage in height, position, numbers or plane quality. Attacker only attacks bombers if no enemy fighters are nearby (within 1,000 feet).

If attacked, attacker will attempt to defend himself before fleeing unless outnumbered or damaged.

Highly Aggressive: Current AI option. Attacker will press home attacks regardless of disadvantages and unfavorable tactical position. If attacked, attacker will attempt to defend himself against all odds until severely damaged or destroyed.

F) Options to Aggressiveness:

One Pass Only - Subject to conditions above, attacker makes one pass on the target and then attempts to flee.

Limited passes - As above, but the attacker will make a number of attacks specified by the mission builder (or player).

G) Options for cooperative attacks by section, flight or squadron.

"Drag and Bag"

Coordinated Beam Attacks

Coordinated High-Low Attacks

"Bracketing"

Shaw's book on fighter tactics covers the various options in detail.

http://www.jg-51.com/topsecret/Fighter_Combat-Tactics_and_Maneuvering.pdf

[Pursuivant]

5) Individualization/Roleplaying Elements for AI Aircrew

Many people object to the concept of "role playing" within a flight sim. Even so, some aircrew were notably better or worse than others, and had specific skills and vulnerabilities.

A) Overall Skill Levels

Within the FMB or a campaign, it should be possible to assign certain skills and personality traits to a particular pilot or crewman.

For simplicity, it probably makes sense to use the existing AI quality levels for setting skill or trait levels.

Rookie - Minimally qualified, but has graduated from a decent training program. For piloting skills, this might represent 200 hours of overall flight time, with about 10 hours "in type."

Average - A pilot or crewman who has survived at least 5 combat missions, or a lavishly trained rookie with 400+ hours overall flight time, and 40+ hours "in type." (Or equivalent skill levels for non-pilots.)

Veteran - A pilot who has survived at least 25 combat missions, or a very experienced military pilot with no prior combat experience, with thousands of hours of overall flight time and 100+ hours "in type." (Or equivalent skill levels for non-pilots - like gunnery or bombardier instructors.)

Ace - The top 1% of military aircrew. Has flown dozens of combat missions, and has achieved extraordinary success in combat - or is capable of doing so.

I'd also include:

Unqualified - A pilot or crewman who hasn't received sufficient training, and/or who shouldn't be allowed to fly for some reason. E.g., Typical products of late 1940 RAF training, 1941-42 Soviet training, or 1944-45 German or Japanese training programs.

B) Specific Traits

Once skill levels are defined, here are the traits that define a successful air warrior. Note that some of these traits might already be present in the game.

Aggression - Preference for reckless attacks against difficult odds vs. cautious "stalking" behavior. Regardless of overall skill level, realistically most aircrew never exceed "Average" aggression levels.

Courage - Willingness to face danger, i.e., fly through flak, engage the enemy, or stick with a damaged plane. Regardless of overall skill level, realistically most aircrew never exceed "Veteran" courage levels. "Unqualified" aircrew are outright cowards.

Day Vision - Range at which targets can be detected in daytime. Includes target identification.

Dive/Glide Bombing

Fitness - Ability to handle G-stresses, hold high G maneuvers, and survive or recover from injury.

Guided Missile Attack

Gunnery - Includes fixed and flexible guns, as well as range estimation.

Leadership - Ability to effectively command other aircraft. Includes group tactics. In a campaign setting, this skill also includes teaching ability which allows more rapid improvement of other pilots in the unit, up to the teacher's level of skill.

Level/Guided Bombing

Navigation - including use of navigation aids.

Night Vision - Range at which targets can be detected in low light conditions. Includes target identification.

Piloting - includes acrobatics, engine management, damage control and air combat maneuvering skills and tactics.

Radar Operations - Range at which targets can be detected and identified using radar (limited by the maximum range of the radar unit itself). Includes target identification.

Reflexes - Speed of reaction times, hand-eye coordination. Affects dive bombing, gunnery, piloting and rocketry skills.

Rocket Attack

Situational Awareness - Tracking ability. The ability to keep track of other aircraft once "target acquisition" has been achieved, even if "lock on" (i.e., visual target acquisition) has been lost.

Torpedo/Guided Torpedo Attack

The FMB or by a campaign designer could assign some or all of these traits, or they could be randomly assigned within ranges by country and year. By default, they're all set at the proper level for overall AI skill level.

These options could also be used to define historical people.

E.g., Eric Hartmann would have Ace level Piloting, Gunnery, Reflexes, Day Vision, Situational Awareness and Courage, but merely "Average" Aggression, making him more of a stalker than a brawler.

John "Killer" Kane (who led the first U.S. raid on Ploesti) might have Veteran level piloting and navigation, but Ace level Courage and Leadership.

Typical 1945 Kamikaze pilot: Unqualified in most respects, but Veteran to Ace level Courage and Aggression.

Typical late 1944 Luftwaffe Pilot: Unqualified to Rookie piloting skill, Unqualified gunnery and rocketry skills, Average to Veteran Courage, Unqualified to Average Aggression.

C) Reactions in Combat

Combat is terrifying and physically demanding. For this reason, it is realistic for aircrew to react accordingly.

Fatigue: Pilots cannot sustain high-G maneuvers for long periods of time, even if they don't black out. Veteran to Ace level Fitness helps to sustain high-G maneuvers longer.

At night and at high altitudes, Fatigue interferes with vision.

Extreme fatigue can interfere with Aggression and Courage.

Fear: Cowardly and/or inexperienced aircrew might panic, causing them to react in sub-optimal ways - like fleeing when they should turn to fight. In some cases, a panicked crewman might even bail out of an otherwise flyable plane. (IL2 AI actually has AI crew occasionally bail out at inappropriate times, which is a nice touch.)

Even otherwise courageous aircrew might "go defensive" (i.e., behave in a cautious manner or flee) if injured, if their airplane is damaged, or if they are faced by superior numbers of enemy aircraft. For example, German airmen were typically very cautious, perhaps too much so, around massive formations of U.S. heavy bombers.

Fear makes Aggression and Courage drop, and creates a situation where a crewman might panic.

Panic when attacked or outnumbered - Turn away from enemy and fly straight (or go into a straight dive) until you've achieved separation from all visible enemies. Might accidentally dive until plane is damaged and/or can't recover.

Panic when plane is damaged - Bail out.

Target Fixation: Inexperienced pilots, particularly aggressive ones, tend to focus on a single target when attacking, neglecting "Situational Awareness" and making them easy targets. When making diving attacks against ground targets, they might not pull up in time.

Pain and Injury: Wounded aircrew can't perform as well. IL2 currently simulates this very well, far better than most other flight sims.

[robday]

Whilst all the above posts represent laudable goals for improvement to the AI behavior, I have a couple of questions;
1: Will Il-2's game engine support such complex AI,
2: Is there anyone out there with the time, skills and inclination to do the coding required,(I'm assuming it won't be a small job).
T.D. after all are "Amateurs" in the true sense of the word. Individuals who use their considerable skills, for no financial reward, just for the pleasure of it!

[majorfailure]

While most of your statements are true, I think it may be too much to ever include.

Things that irk me the most are:
AI in a plane truckloads faster than the enemy slows down and slowly turns, because then its so much easier for the enemy to catch up - its just baaaaaad to have a whole flight of Fw190 killed by I-16 due to this.

Bomber attacks are still generally from 6, though now they sometimes get high and dive on the bomber. Beam attacks and head ons should be in the repertoire, especially when flying a faster plane, a head on approach is easy to do.

AI is near incapable of beeing unaware of an attack carried out against them - no matter how many enemies are currently close. Their SA is almost perfect, even for rookies.

AI pilots in same flight crash into each other or you just because they TOTALLY INSANELY want to fly formation in every maneuvre - and you cannot even tell them to get lost, and stay away until you are done with the maneuvre.

Bombers sometimes switch into high gear and then behave like fighters - not too funny.

And while their shooting is beyond contempt now (lower AI grades, low deflection shots - they shoot a long burst high, correct their aim, and shoot high again, and so on...), they still occassionally have a tendency to serve 600m one shot kills.
Better AI is insanely good at high deflection shots - though when parked behind bombers they still shoot a lot of ammo in the air.
Bomber gunners get shots in the dead centre of your plane, and while they may do so more often when attacking from 6, results are more critical when attacking from other directions - as usually dead centre hits from off angle injure or kill pilot. Given a sturdy plane it is usually easier to pick up a lot of speed and go for the dead six approach, at least that gives you a good shot and you can try to take out gunners.

EDIT:
Something else that is troublesome - AI always pursues severly crippled enemies that are largely out of the fight (e. g. shot out controls/control surfaces/engine smoking/severe fuel leaks/on fire) with no regards to any other enemies present or possibly arriving soon, and often end up bogged down for only the gain of putting an already largely harmless out of position enemy out of its misery.

[Derda508]

While most of your statements are true, I think it may be too much to ever include.
Things that irk me the most are:
AI in a plane truckloads faster than the enemy slows down and slowly turns, because then its so much easier for the enemy to catch up

AI is near incapable of beeing unaware of an attack carried out against them - no matter how many enemies are currently close. Their SA is almost perfect, even for rookies.

they still occassionally have a tendency to serve 600m one shot kills.

Better AI is insanely good at high deflection shots .

I absolutely agree to the points quoted above.

AI´s situational awareness, plus its ability to do everthing at once exactly right, plus their deflection shooting makes many missions in older campaigns simply impossible to survive (Ok, if you fly KI-43 in 1944 against P-51, Spit VIII or I-185 the odds are not in your favour anyway...)
As a repost from the other thread, I think this could help:
At present, if you try to attack a big formation of bombers with a small number of attackers, the protecting fighters will all immediately go for you, leave their bombers and chase you all over the map, even if you spend all your ammo and are no threat anymore. Your own AI (even obsolete Bf 110) will not go for a quick attack on a bomber, but happily engage in turnfights with vastly superior numbers of enemy fighters.
To create more 'realistic' bomber intercepts and survivable missions for destroyers the missionbuilder would need to be able to give several commands for attackers and defenders:
Blue high flying fighters (Bf-109, Ki-100 etc.): Attack fighters only
Blue bomber interceptors (Me 410, FW-190, Ki 84 etc.): Attack bombers only
Red fighter cover: Stick to the bombers, never get further than XXX distance from them.

[Igo kyu]

Tl:dr
Actually, I read the first couple, but after that? I've got more interesting things to do with my time.

Blue high flying fighters (Bf-109, Ki-100 etc.): Attack fighters only
Blue bomber interceptors (Me 410, FW-190, Ki 84 etc.): Attack bombers only
Red fighter cover: Stick to the bombers, never get further than XXX distance from them.
That is not accurate for WW2 in Western Europe. The P51s were given free rein to roam the bomber streams attacking all enemy fighters they saw. They had huge numerical superiority, so this paid off.

It's not a fair balanced game, but at that point (1944 and 1945) the war wasn't balanced.

[majorfailure]

Actually, I read the first couple, but after that? I've got more interesting things to do with my time.


That is not accurate for WW2 in Western Europe. The P51s were given free rein to roam the bomber streams attacking all enemy fighters they saw. They had huge numerical superiority, so this paid off.

It's not a fair balanced game, but at that point (1944 and 1945) the war wasn't balanced.

But currently if in Il-2 all and any P-51 would leave their bombers pursuing a single enemy - and only return when that one is dead. In real life the first German (flight) attacking the bombers would have a very bad day - and the other flights nice, yummy, juicy unprotected bombers. I bet the Allied squad leader ordering ALL of his planes after the first attacker getting the bombers slaughtered would not be squad leader the next day, but prisoner awaiting court martial.

AI should if numerically superior chase attackers, but only to a certain amount. If they are the only flight protecting, they should only do so once in a while (the worse the AI level, the more so).

[Igo kyu]

But currently if in Il-2 all and any P-51 would leave their bombers pursuing a single enemy - and only return when that one is dead.
Oh, the old all chasing one of theirs, while the rest of theirs chase the player situation? I thought that had been sorted out?

You're right that's not realistic, you should have two planes at most chasing one plane, but it's not realistic for the allies to stick to the bombers either, the Germans tried that in the BoB and it wasn't particularly successful.

In real life the first German (flight) attacking the bombers would have a very bad day - and the other flights nice, yummy, juicy unprotected bombers. I bet the Allied squad leader ordering ALL of his planes after the first attacker getting the bombers slaughtered would not be squad leader the next day, but prisoner awaiting court martial.
That is a mistake, almost a bug, but IL*2 just can't deal with the numbers of planes in the real war.

AI should if numerically superior chase attackers, but only to a certain amount. If they are the only flight protecting, they should only do so once in a while (the worse the AI level, the more so).
What actually happened was patrols of fighters along the route of the bombers, if a squadron found an enemy formation they would engage the formation, and every free fighter for miles around would head for the combat.

They did have enormous numerical superiority.

[Pursuivant]

While most of your statements are true, I think it may be too much to ever include.

Agreed. This IS a wish list thread!

But, the purpose of a wish list thread is to inspire. If TD or a mod team look at even one of the many ideas on this thread and think "Hey, we could do that!" then this thread has served its purpose.



AI in a plane truckloads faster than the enemy slows down and slowly turns, because then its so much easier for the enemy to catch up - its just baaaaaad to have a whole flight of Fw190 killed by I-16 due to this.

This is because AI currently doesn't alter formation turn behavior based on whether it's in combat or out.

While it wasn't uncommon for planes, especially fighters, to cruise at high speeds (or maximum speed that could be sustained without overheating the engine) in the combat zone, outside of the immediate combat zone planes typically throttled back as much as possible to conserve fuel.

Also, fighter AI doesn't grab altitude as a matter of course.

Unless you're Unqualified or Rookie AI, if you're being "bounced" from behind by a slower plane, the only logical move if you want to fight is to go into a climbing turn, achieve your desired altitude, separation distance and angle, and then come down in a screaming BnZ attack.

In a one-on-one, you get 300-500 meters of altitude, perhaps 600 meters of distance, and come down in a beam attack which converts to either a flank or rear attack depending on how the enemy breaks.

For a section or squadron attack, you might do things a bit different.

You leave one flight or section to slow down while flying straight and level to act as decoys and sucker the enemy in.

One flight or section serves as top cover for the attackers.

One flight or section attacks once the ambush is sprung.

When the trap is sprung, the "decoy flight" accelerates and dives away. If the situation is good, they might be freed to go after damaged enemies and/or enemies who are trying to dive away.

Once it's clear that the flight/squadron won't be bounced. The top flight and the attack flight might take turns making BnZ attacks against the surviving enemy.


Bomber attacks are still generally from 6, though now they sometimes get high and dive on the bomber. Beam attacks and head ons should be in the repertoire, especially when flying a faster plane, a head on approach is easy to do.

I've almost never seen an AI plane make a beam or flank attack, and I've never seen them make head on attacks against bombers. Veteran or Ace AI will make head-on attacks against fighters, however.

Other than that, cue up a flight of any Ace AI fighter you choose in the QMB and send them against a flight of bombers. Even in a slow plane that has no hope of catching the bombers in a stern attack, the AI will always pass up the head-on attack. They will then engage in a hopeless stern chase. For slightly faster fighters, they'll stern chase until they get shot to pieces.

My suggestion for player commands that "turn on" or "turn off" certain sorts of AI attacks was specifically designed to correct this problem. "Turn on" head on attacks, and "turn off" all the other types of attacks, and you'll get sensible AI attacks by slow fighters vs. fast bombers. "Turn on" head on, beam and overhead attacks, and "turn off" attacks from the rear and flank and you'll get intelligent AI behavior against bombers with armament mostly to the rear.


AI is near incapable of being unaware of an attack carried out against them - no matter how many enemies are currently close. Their SA is almost perfect, even for rookies.

I've achieved "bounces" against unaware AI fighters, but I think you're mostly right.

It's tricky and is almost impossible to achieve surprise against formations of fighters, even when attacking from the rear.

It's impossible to achieve against bombers, but that's realistic for daylight attacks against a bomber formation. (At night, against a single bomber, it's a different story.)

Something that I don't think that AI currently models is the amount of attention required to keep station while formation flying. In close formation, a pilot spends something like 60% of his time keeping a lookout on the other planes in the formation in order to avoid collision and to respond to speed or formation changes.

But, the amount of time the AI spends scanning the sky is pretty impressive. I'd alter things as follows:

Unqualified: Blind to any plane not in their front 60 degree arc and within 1,000 meters. Doesn't maneuver to check blind spots. Doesn't react when fired up until bullets actually hit the aircraft and then likely to panic.

Doesn't recognize hostile or friendly aircraft as such until they are clearly obvious (i.e., 300 meters for fighters).

Rookie: Blind to any plane not within 1,000 meters. Very limited ability to detect aircraft outside of their 60 degree front arc. Doesn't maneuver to check blind spots. Doesn't react immediately until fired upon and might panic.

Doesn't immediately recognize hostile or friendly aircraft, but always recognizes them when they are clearly obvious.

Average: Normal sighting distances (modified normally by superior/inferior Vision and Gunnery). Occasionally maneuvers to check blind spots. Reacts immediately when fired upon, but might occasionally panic.

Sometimes fails to recognize hostile or friendly aircraft until they are clearly obvious.

Veteran: Improved sighting distances. Maneuvers every 30 seconds to check blind spots. Reacts immediately when fired upon, seldom panics.

Rarely fails to recognize hostile or friendly aircraft.

Ace: Improved sighting ranges (even beyond Veteran). Maneuvers every 15-30 seconds on a random basis to check blind spots. Reacts immediately when fired upon and never panics.

Always recognizes hostile or friendly aircraft.


AI pilots in same flight crash into each other or you just because they TOTALLY INSANELY want to fly formation in every maneuvre - and you cannot even tell them to get lost, and stay away until you are done with the maneuvre.

Yep.

This is why there needs to be "by the book" section, flight and squadron maneuvering, where trailing and outside elements within a formation cross over during a hard turn.

And, if you're a wingman, this is why the AI leader needs to call out formation maneuvers.

But, that said, there were a few air forces where formation flying was stressed above personal survival, and/or where close formations were valued over individual freedom to maneuver and to keep a lookout. In particular, early war Soviet and Japanese bombers and attack planes were noted for holding formation no matter what.

In those situations, you can easily have collisions, especially if you've got tight formation and the leader is suddenly disabled and/or doesn't call out the maneuver.


Bombers sometimes switch into high gear and then behave like fighters - not too funny.

But, sometimes realistic. Admittedly, bomber AI is often screwy but occasionally a single bomber would fly defensively in ways that surprised the attackers. Saburo Sakai was most impressed by a RAAF Hudson which managed to avoid being shot down for over 20 minutes because of its (unknown) pilot's remarkable acrobatics.

Lt. Charlie Brown, a B-17 pilot on his first mission, managed to hold off an entire gaggle of FW-190 and Bf-109, by aggressively maneuvering his damaged aircraft:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brown_and_Franz_Stigler_incident

That said, it's insane for AI bombers to break formation and try to maneuver as fighters as they sometimes do. Proper tactics are to close up and let concentration of defensive firepower to its work. Only rookies, panicked pilots, and stragglers should break formation.

I also hat the default formations in the QMB - too widely spaced and initially in echelon left in line abreast. At the very least the spacing between flights should be closer. And, as an option, the player should be able to choose from a few common formations to get proper historical formations.


And while their shooting is beyond contempt now (lower AI grades, low deflection shots - they shoot a long burst high, correct their aim, and shoot high again, and so on...), they still occassionally have a tendency to serve 600m one shot kills.

Ace flexible gunner AI is still too good.

I don't think that the gunnery model includes things like slipstream effects (winds buffeting the gun barrels or the gunners), vibration (big engines spinning big propellers will make the entire machine vibrate), and minor wind turbulence (the plane is almost never actually flying straight and level, there will always be a bit of "bouncing" and "rocking" as it flies). While these effects aren't really noticeable under normal conditions, they WILL affect long range gun accuracy.

I know that the gunnery model doesn't model historical gunnery doctrine very well. At least in the FMB, it should be possible to set the range at which gunners open fire.

If you're flying a multi-crew plane, you should also have the option of commanding your gunners: Open fire, cease fire, attack at close range, attack at medium range, attack at long range, attack my target (a padlocked ground or air target).

In my initial barrage of posts, I deliberately didn't include suggestions for AI bomber crew behavior, since I get the impression from TD that the ability to command a bomber crew wouldn't just be an upgrade to existing AI, but would represent a whole aspect of the game.



Better AI is insanely good at high deflection shots - though when parked behind bombers they still shoot a lot of ammo in the air.

I think that fighter AI is still a bit too good at setting up high deflection shots "below the nose" - that is, estimating where an enemy aircraft will be when you can't see it.

It might also be a bit too quick to make deflection shots when an enemy plane "pops into view". Realistically, it takes a human a fraction of a second to "acquire" the target and identify it before opening fire.


Bomber gunners get shots in the dead centre of your plane, and while they may do so more often when attacking from 6, results are more critical when attacking from other directions - as usually dead centre hits from off angle injure or kill pilot.

How is this not realistic? During WW2, every air force advised its gunners to aim for the engine, cockpit and fuel tanks. Conveniently for gunners, in most planes those parts are all arranged around the aircraft's center of gravity - AKA center of mass.

Given a sturdy plane it is usually easier to pick up a lot of speed and go for the dead six approach, at least that gives you a good shot and you can try to take out gunners.

AI planes already have a depressing tendency to make suicidal stern attacks against bombers. Against fighters, it usually makes sense to make attacks from stern or rear to get a lower deflection shot that keeps the target in your sights for longer. In that regard, fighter AI does a good job.

Your point about going for the gunners is one that the AI doesn't seem to do. Instead, AI fighters vs. bombers seem to go for the engines or wing fuel tanks.

Unqualified and Rookie pilots should shoot "at the plane" (i.e., center of mass, ignoring vital parts).

Average pilots should shoot at an easy, obvious target (i.e., the engine or cockpit). If they repeat an attack from the same quarter, they should keep attacking that part until it's clearly destroyed.

Veteran and ace pilots should shoot at vital targets (fuel tanks, engines, cockpit). But, if making a rear attack against a single bomber, they should take out the tail gunner first, then go for the vital target.

If they know that a gunner is down, they should make attacks from sectors that they know aren't defended.

Something else that is troublesome - AI always pursues severly crippled enemies that are largely out of the fight (e. g. shot out controls/control surfaces/engine smoking/severe fuel leaks/on fire) with no regards to any other enemies present or possibly arriving soon, and often end up bogged down for only the gain of putting an already largely harmless out of position enemy out of its misery.

This is somewhat realistic. There's always a tendency for a fighter pilot to get "target fixation" and a smoking, crippled plane is an obvious target.

In particular, late war US pilots were notorious for wanting to "rack up a score" (i.e., confirm that an enemy was destroyed) so less disciplined pilots might very well chase a badly wounded enemy to their ultimate detriment, or to the detriment of the mission.

My suggestion for "close escort" defense - where escorting fighters always let retreating enemies go without following - would fix this problem.

Currently, you have to be very strict when you command your AI, using the "rejoin me" on a regular basis in order to get them to break off attacks or to stop chasing enemies.

Remarkably, the pilots under your command always hear you, and always obey your orders! Maybe realistic for authoritarian air forces like the Soviets, Japanese or Luftwaffe, but not so much for democratic air forces like the Americans, French or UK.

You also bring up a valid point here, in that AI is currently quite "stupid" about recognizing what's a valid target.

Currently, the "Arcade Mode" has a plane send out a message when it's heavily damaged ("Returning to Base"), destroyed/too badly damaged to fly ("Bailing out"), and/or on fire ("On Fire").

It would be very easy for this information to be relayed to any AI plane within 300-500 meters of the stricken aircraft, representing the range at which it's possible to determine that an airplane is too badly damaged to fly.

It should be possible to recognize that a plane is on fire at longer ranges - perhaps 2,000 meters or more. It should also be possible to determine that the crew of a plane is bailing out at similar ranges.


That would then allow player/FMB commands for: Don't pursue destroyed aircraft, Don't pursue badly damaged aircraft.

[Pursuivant]

As a repost from the other thread, I think this could help:
At present, if you try to attack a big formation of bombers with a small number of attackers, the protecting fighters will all immediately go for you, leave their bombers and chase you all over the map, even if you spend all your ammo and are no threat anymore. Your own AI (even obsolete Bf 110) will not go for a quick attack on a bomber, but happily engage in turnfights with vastly superior numbers of enemy fighters.
To create more 'realistic' bomber intercepts and survivable missions for destroyers the missionbuilder would need to be able to give several commands for attackers and defenders:
Blue high flying fighters (Bf-109, Ki-100 etc.): Attack fighters only
Blue bomber interceptors (Me 410, FW-190, Ki 84 etc.): Attack bombers only
Red fighter cover: Stick to the bombers, never get further than XXX distance from them.

I actually had your post in mind when I included some of my suggestions.

But, one important change to player commands or the QMB or FMB is the possibility of including aircraft of different types into a single section, flight or squadron.

If that fix is implemented, here's how my AI fixes would meet your request:

For the defenders:

Set a Squadron Formation of 3 flights of 4 (2 sections each). Say P-51Ds.

Choose "1944 USAAF Squadron Escort Formation"

This automatically sets up 3 flights of 4 planes, with sections of 2 planes, flying in line abreast, with top cover 1,000 meters above and 1,000 meters to the left of the "close cover escort", and the close cover escort 1,000 meters above and 1,000 meters to the right of the close cover flight.

Red Flight is set automatically as "top cover" - they'll chase fighters all over the map, just like normal.

Blue Flight is set automatically as "close cover escort" - they'll automatically attack anything attacking the "close cover" flight but won't follow attackers once they're driven off.

Green Flight is set automatically as "close cover" - they'll attack anything that gets close to the bombers, but won't pursue retreating attackers.

All flights will automatically follow the planes they're set to escort. Set "evade flak as formation".

The P-51 are escorting 3 squadrons of B-17G. You choose "1944 USAAF Heavy Bomber Wing Box formation". Choose "evade flak as formation." and "Maneuver within formation to evade enemy attacks."

That means that the bombers all line up nicely, and won't break formation, just like they're supposed to.

For the attackers:

Assume a squadron of 12 planes, but 3 different types, say Bf-109G, Me-410B, and Ju-88C-6 (Hey, this is a wish list thread, I can dream!)

Set the Squadron formation to "Line Abreast." Choose "Flights" as division elements within the squadron. Choose "Stepped Left, 1,000 meters" for modifiers to the squadron formation. Choose "sections of 2" for division elements within each flight. Choose "Finger Four" for formation within each flight.

Top Flight: Bf-109G - Give them the command to "attack fighters only" (currently available as player command, but could be added to QMB/FMB). They'll tangle with the fighters.

Middle Flight: Bf-110 - Give them the command to "attack bombers only", check "head on," "beam attacks," and "attack from above" for attack types. Set aggressiveness to "Aggressive." They'll make repeated frontal and beam attacks as long as they aren't actively threatened by fighters.

Low Flight: Ju-88C-6 - As for the Bf-110s, but set them to make "one pass only" and then "attack stragglers only." They'll make one pass through the main bomber formation, and then pick on straggling bombers.

So, in the FMB, that would allow you to quickly set up an authentic 1944 "Battle of Germany" scenario with proper formations and AI behavior in just a few minutes. Currently, it would take half an hour and the AI still wouldn't behave right. (And, yes, the scenario has 60 planes in the air, so realistically it would be a "slide show". But, wish list thread, I can dream!)

[Pursuivant]

Actually, I read the first couple, but after that? I've got more interesting things to do with my time.

That's all right. Different strokes for different folks. Sorry to bore you.


That is not accurate for WW2 in Western Europe. The P51s were given free rein to roam the bomber streams attacking all enemy fighters they saw. They had huge numerical superiority, so this paid off.

Depends on the month and year. In 1943 the USAAF had more traditional escort tactics, where the fighters were prohibited from straying far from the bombers. Not surprisingly, the fighter pilots hated it.

In March 1944, the 8th Air Force allowed some of its fighter squadrons to precede the bombers and perform "fighter sweeps." Later in the year, these formations were allowed to "go low" to strafe German airfields. Even later, escorting fighters were allowed to detach from the bombers and go on strafing missions after the bombers had dropped their bombs.

[majorfailure]

I've achieved "bounces" against unaware AI fighters, but I think you're mostly right.
Achieved, yes. Some were even believable, but most were chasing an AI that already was in a fight with me, then decided to leave, me pursuing and in the end shooting it down.

If estimates are correct, then almost half of planes shot down in real life were unaware or aware too late of their attackers. If Il-2 reached close to 10% I'd be pleased.


But, the amount of time the AI spends scanning the sky is pretty impressive. I'd alter things as follows:

Unqualified: Blind to any plane not in their front 60 degree arc and within 1,000 meters. Doesn't maneuver to check blind spots. Doesn't react when fired up until bullets actually hit the aircraft and then likely to panic.

Doesn't recognize hostile or friendly aircraft as such until they are clearly obvious (i.e., 300 meters for fighters).

Rookie: Blind to any plane not within 1,000 meters. Very limited ability to detect aircraft outside of their 60 degree front arc. Doesn't maneuver to check blind spots. Doesn't react immediately until fired upon and might panic.

Doesn't immediately recognize hostile or friendly aircraft, but always recognizes them when they are clearly obvious.

Average: Normal sighting distances (modified normally by superior/inferior Vision and Gunnery). Occasionally maneuvers to check blind spots. Reacts immediately when fired upon, but might occasionally panic.

Sometimes fails to recognize hostile or friendly aircraft until they are clearly obvious.

Veteran: Improved sighting distances. Maneuvers every 30 seconds to check blind spots. Reacts immediately when fired upon, seldom panics.

Rarely fails to recognize hostile or friendly aircraft.

Ace: Improved sighting ranges (even beyond Veteran). Maneuvers every 15-30 seconds on a random basis to check blind spots. Reacts immediately when fired upon and never panics.

Always recognizes hostile or friendly aircraft.

I'd say if you additionally allow for radio comms (e. g. better AI in the region/same flight calling out the bandits/bogeys), and also do not make spotting skill rigidly connected to general AI skill (there were pilots with keen eyesight even as rookies, and some of those had nerves of steel - future aces to be)


But, sometimes realistic. Admittedly, bomber AI is often screwy but occasionally a single bomber would fly defensively in ways that surprised the attackers. Saburo Sakai was most impressed by a RAAF Hudson which managed to avoid being shot down for over 20 minutes because of its (unknown) pilot's remarkable acrobatics.

Lt. Charlie Brown, a B-17 pilot on his first mission, managed to hold off an entire gaggle of FW-190 and Bf-109, by aggressively maneuvering his damaged aircraft:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brown_and_Franz_Stigler_incident

That said, it's insane for AI bombers to break formation and try to maneuver as fighters as they sometimes do. Proper tactics are to close up and let concentration of defensive firepower to its work. Only rookies, panicked pilots, and stragglers should break formation.

That is what I meant - bombers that are in formation should not do this.


How is this not realistic? During WW2, every air force advised its gunners to aim for the engine, cockpit and fuel tanks. Conveniently for gunners, in most planes those parts are all arranged around the aircraft's center of gravity - AKA center of mass.

It is realistic to try. And it is realistic to hit when target approaches on a low angle low deflection path, dead six for rear gunner. It is not realistic to make hits dead center when target approaches fast, off angle and from above - in a situation where even hitting the attacking fighter at all would be lucky or extremly skilled. And I have had this more than once - either real bad luck or too high chance to hit.
(On a sidenote, I have been shot three times by now by rifle caliber guns, me flying an nearly undamaged IL-2, technically impossible IMHO)

And my dead six approach tactics was not about the AI behavior, its what I sometimes do - and I find I should get punished more for dead six and/or rewarded more for "survivalistic" tactics.



This is somewhat realistic. There's always a tendency for a fighter pilot to get "target fixation" and a smoking, crippled plane is an obvious target.

In particular, late war US pilots were notorious for wanting to "rack up a score" (i.e., confirm that an enemy was destroyed) so less disciplined pilots might very well chase a badly wounded enemy to their ultimate detriment, or to the detriment of the mission.

Yeah, if you have numerical superiority and maybe buddies that can save your bacon by diving at an enemy appearing behind you. But not if you are equal numbers, and not all the time. Equal numbers, first plane I hit usually gets labeled "lesser threat" - at least when I have the feeling I hit something that might be vital or at least better to have unbroken if you want to have a pleasant flight (sometimes signs are pretty clear, like plane not reacting(pilot/controls shot?), smoke, fire, fuel leak, parts falling off. Other time I go with gut feeling that this plane should be less flyable than before - and I'm right half of the time. I'm aware that I may judge incorrect. But it is better to do so and go for more vital threats, than following a possibly dead enemy plane down to the bogs - even if he is still in a pretty good shape, by now he has lost position. He may come back later, but for now he is a lesser threat. And if there are not too many enemies around, I still can keep an eye for that.
And while this may be too sophisticated for the lesser AI - even they should have a limit how many of them get drawn downward - its just ridiculous to have two flights chase one near dead enemy while they all lose position towards other enemies.

My suggestion for "close escort" defense - where escorting fighters always let retreating enemies go without following - would fix this problem.

Currently, you have to be very strict when you command your AI, using the "rejoin me" on a regular basis in order to get them to break off attacks or to stop chasing enemies.

Remarkably, the pilots under your command always hear you, and always obey your orders! Maybe realistic for authoritarian air forces like the Soviets, Japanese or Luftwaffe, but not so much for democratic air forces like the Americans, French or UK.

Most of the times they do, and it has gotten easier with last two patches. And while they are still a handfull most time, they can follow orders sometimes. A little more control would be nice.
I wish they did follow orders all the time - they don't. Sometimes they - especially if what you currently want them to do does not follow mission goals to protocol, they just use your orders to break formation, fly off to some VITALLY important waypoint, airfield, friendlies, ground target. Best case, you gave orders to attack enemies and they do that enemies try to bag them and you may get one or two down. Worst case you are suddenly alone against an enemy flight - and soon in a bad spot.

[Pursuivant]

If estimates are correct, then almost half of planes shot down in real life were unaware or aware too late of their attackers. If Il-2 reached close to 10% I'd be pleased.

In some cases, it was more than 50%. So, there has to be a way of "dumbing down" AI, especially for single-seater planes, and especially for attacks from the rear and from below (and out of the sun, but that's possibly modeled).

In some cases, even multi-crew bombers can be surprised if the crew isn't keeping a proper lookout. But its much harder because each bomber has 1+ guys whose job description includes looking out for fighters.

Another big deal is lack of Situational Awareness. Flying in close formation means that you lose most of your SA. Attacking means you (probably) lose SA. Trying to navigate means you lose your SA. Dealing with damage or pulling a high-G maneuver means that you might lose SA. So, in addition to reducing sighting chances when you're doing those things, there also has to be a chance that you "lose acquisition" of a previously "acquired" target. That is, you lose sight of it and you can't figure out where it is.


I'd say if you additionally allow for radio comms (e. g. better AI in the region/same flight calling out the bandits/bogeys), and also do not make spotting skill rigidly connected to general AI skill (there were pilots with keen eyesight even as rookies, and some of those had nerves of steel - future aces to be)

It's currently possible to call out bogeys, and AI will occasionally call out bogeys. It will also occasionally call out that you've got a bandit on your tail.
Generally, though, "In combat" AI communication is a weak point, which I forgot to address in my initial wishlist barrage.

It's probably too much to hope for for realistic bomber crew behavior (i.e., individual crew skills and traits) and communications. But, fighter squadron behavior might be fixable.

* The lag problem for in combat commo needs to be fixed. Sometimes it might be several seconds until the AI calls out a particular command, leading to odd situations where the dead pilot of an exploded plane says, "This is 2 (calm voice), I'm bailing out (panicked voice)."

* AI needs to distinguish between "bogeys" (i.e., unidentified aircraft) and "bandits" (i.e., hostile aircraft).

* Wingmen should always call out bandits attacking the lead.

* Friendly planes in your flight/squadron should call out enemies they happen to see attacking another friendly within the squadron.

* Wingmen should tell the lead how to break when a bandit is incoming to set up a "drag and bag" attack. (i.e., break left/right, climb, dive)

* If maneuvering by sections or flights, flight/section leaders should tell the other section/flight how to maneuver to avoid/attack incoming bogeys.

* There should be individual squadron call signs - at least for the air forces that used them.

* Anything other than rookie and unqualified AI should identify themselves by squadron, flight and number. If they know it, they should also call out squadron, flight and number for a plane they're addressing. E.g., "Tare Red 2, break right!, or "Tare Leader to Tare Green 3, rejoin formation!" (This is actually a bit unrealistic and clunky, since typically pilots used personal names or nicknames in combat, e.g., "Mickey, bandit on your 6! Break right!" But, it would be easier to program.)

* The should be "calm" and "excited" voices for squadron, flight and number identifiers. It's sometimes a bit confusing to have "This is 2. (calm voice) Help me! (panicked), especially when there are multiple flights or squadrons in the air.

* Unqualified and rookie pilots might "step on" commo channels, making it impossible for other pilots in the squadron to use the radio.

* No radio means no radio. Currently, AI planes which don't have radios or which had historically unreliable radios, can maneuver and respond to commands just as effectively as those without (as far as I can tell). Realistically, if you're flying without radio, or your radio is dead, commands like "rejoin" or "cover me" are impossible except at very short ranges.

It is realistic to try. And it is realistic to hit when target approaches on a low angle low deflection path, dead six for rear gunner. It is not realistic to make hits dead center when target approaches fast, off angle and from above - in a situation where even hitting the attacking fighter at all would be lucky or extremly skilled. And I have had this more than once - either real bad luck or too high chance to hit.
(On a sidenote, I have been shot three times by now by rifle caliber guns, me flying an nearly undamaged IL-2, technically impossible IMHO)

I spent a lot of time flying QMB missions in arcade mode against ace bomber formations to try to figure out how IL2 engine damage models work, especially against small caliber bullets. My experience is that, while there are plenty of problems with AI flexible gunnery, it's not unrealistic that they aim at center of mass.

And, if you are moving at high speed and high angle off, particularly if you are maneuvering in 3 dimensions (like a diving pursuit curve) you can throw off the AI gunners and you'll "only" get hits near the edge of your airplane. Likewise, fighters making high deflection shots often hit you in the wing or tail rather than center of mass.

Your point about rifle caliber bullets being excessively lethal is spot on, though. I've documented this extensively in previous posts. Even .30 caliber AP bullets shouldn't be able to penetrate armor plate at anything but short ranges.

AI gunnery problems

Doesn't factor in plane vibration
Doesn't factor in air turbulence
Doesn't factor in wind buffeting on exposed gunners
Doesn't factor in slipstream buffeting on guns
Doesn't factor in gunner reaction time (in some cases. In other cases the AI seems right).
For hand-turned guns, it doesn't factor in the limits at which the gunner can move his body to accurately sight the guns as opposed to maximum cone of fire. Realistically, this should make ventral guns in planes like the He-111 or A-20 pretty well useless.
Gunners have unrealistically good Situational Awareness which allows them to perfectly track attacking aircraft.
Gunners start shooting at historically inaccurate ranges - this is inappropriate for anything other than rookie/unqualified gunners
Gunners have unrealistically good ranging ability.
Gunners have perfect coordination with the pilot, such that they know exactly how the plane will move and can instantly adjust their aim accordingly.
There is no stoppage of fire when the gunner would realistically need to reload ammo cases/drums.
Aircrew aren't always injured by nearby cannon shell hits (realistically, a 20 mm explosive shell going off in an enclosed space like a gun turret is at least going to stun you).
Flexible guns never jam or freeze
Gunners never panic
Gunners never get fixated on a target
.30 caliber/7.62 mm bullets are unrealistically dangerous, especially at longer ranges.

Equal numbers, first plane I hit usually gets labeled "lesser threat" - at least when I have the feeling I hit something that might be vital

This would actually be fairly easy for AI to distinguish if some of the damage modeling info were available to it. When a particular aircraft shows a "heavy damage" skin for some vital part (e.g., wing, engine, cockpit) then AI set for "defensive" level aggression or less, or coping with superior numbers of enemies, will ignore that plane.

Something that I didn't really touch on was how to get AI to recognize that the odds are/aren't in their favor. This would actually be easy to do.

Give each plane in the game a combat effectiveness/threat rating of 1-10. Ratings go down for damaged or seriously damaged planes. Multiply that by the number of planes. Divide the number if a plane is far away - more than 1,000 meters. Multiply or divide that by positional advantages (altitude advantage, frontal or stern attack). Divide or multiply the number if you're over hostile/friendly territory.

If the total number for your side is less than that for the total number for the enemy side, you're disadvantaged and react accordingly (unless AI is set to be Aggressive/Suicidal). If the total number for your side is greater than the total number, you've got an advantage and react accordingly.

The same simple calculation could be used to determine which threat an AI plane reacts to first. Close threats to the rear and/or above are generally going to be a priority compared to more distant threats or threats from below and to the front, but there are exceptions.

If you want to get a bit more complex, you could also assign each plane in the game a "maneuver rating," an "attack rating", a "speed rating" and a "defense rating"

If your maneuver rating is better than the enemy's, you go for turn fighting. If your maneuver rating is poorer, but your speed rating is better, you go for BnZ.
If your maneuver and speed rating are poorer, you go defensive.
If your attack rating and defensive rating is better than the enemy's, you go for head-on attacks. Otherwise, you avoid them.
If your defense rating is lower than the enemy's you maneuver more defensively to avoid taking hits.
The lower your defense rating, the more cautious you will be about making attacks against large bomber formations or ground attacks against targets defended by flak.
If your speed rating is lower than the enemy's, you know that it's futile to go for shots from stern or to chase a fleeing enemy.

These calculations could be made once every 15 seconds or so (longer intervals for less experienced AI levels), so the total effect on fps would be minor.

[Furio]

You're right that's not realistic, you should have two planes at most chasing one plane, but it's not realistic for the allies to stick to the bombers either, the Germans tried that in the BoB and it wasn't particularly successful.


It worked quite well for the Tuskegee Airmen, probably the best escort fighter unit ever.

This is not only a whish-list thread, it’s also somewhat complex to be read, at least for me. I would contribute with two small considerations.
Once in landing pattern, AIs have a constrained behaviour. If attacked, they do make evasive manoeuvres, but never fight back and return to pattern as soon as possible. This behaviour could be, perhaps, used for escort fighters, with appropriate tweaking.
Then, I would have a simple wish: the possibility to mark as destroyed… a destroyed plane, or a clearly doomed one. Something like the order: “Don’t shoot to this target anymore”. It’s not realistic, I must admit, but it is annoying to have your kill stolen by a “last bullet”, and I suspect that any shared kills system would end up with the vast majority of kills being awarded as shared.

[Derda508]

This 'last bullet kill stealing' was really annoying up to 4.11.
The shared kills system of 4.12 fixed it, at least for me. If you fly Japanese (as I do since some time) or German, there are no shared kills, so if you choose the option 'shared kills/historically' and inflict major damage to an enemy plane (more than 50 % I assume) you get the full kill, no matter whether some of your ai-friends still pour their bullets in it.
Admittedly I don´t know how it works for the red side, where kill sharing existed.

[Pursuivant]

It worked quite well for the Tuskegee Airmen, probably the best escort fighter unit ever.

Multiple fighters chasing a single hostile aircraft, or breaking formation to go hunting on their own, was a matter of experience and unit discipline and is an old problem. It's listed in the Dicta Boelke as "a thing not to do."

As for the "Tuskeegee Airmen," the 332d FS was basically following U.S. doctrine, but they excelled because they had remarkable "esprit de corps," a superior pilot pool, a high standard of training, and good leadership. The "Redtails" had a point that they wanted to prove, and went about proving it in exemplary fashion. Although their reputation for "never losing a bomber" is a myth, they were noteworthy for low losses among bombers they were assigned to escort.


Once in landing pattern, AIs have a constrained behaviour. If attacked, they do make evasive manoeuvres, but never fight back and return to pattern as soon as possible. This behaviour could be, perhaps, used for escort fighters, with appropriate tweaking.

This is another good point, and one that's easily fixed.

* Aircraft shouldn't enter the landing pattern until they're sure there are not hostile aircraft about.

* If there are hostile aircraft present, they abandon the landing behavior, and behave as if they're still in the combat zone.

This is a simple fix to the existing AI.

More advanced landing options:

* If they're forced to land (due to damage or low fuel) when hostile aircraft are present, then the rest of the flight/squadron should give top cover to the aircraft which is landing.

* If possible, aircraft should try to lure hostile aircraft into areas where friendly flak can attack them.

* Aircraft with wounded crew aboard land first. Badly damaged land-based aircraft land second. Possibly, aircraft could shoot/drop flares to indicate priority landing (radio calls weren't used to avoid giving intelligence to the enemy).

* If there are multiple airfields in the area, badly damaged aircraft which are likely to crash divert to secondary/emergency landing strips to keep the main airfield clear.

* Damaged carrier aircraft which are still capable of making a carrier landing land last. Badly damaged carrier aircraft which are incapable of making a carrier landing ditch alongside the carrier or an escorting ship rather than attempting to land.

* If a multi-crew aircraft is badly damaged so that it is unlikely to be able to land safely, and it is over friendly, populated territory, all crew but the pilot (possibly co-pilot) and badly wounded crew will bail out if it is possible to safely do so. The pilot(s) will then make an attempt to land the plane with wounded crew aboard.

* Planes with landing gear failure, which must crash land rather than landing normally, will "belly land" alongside the runway, rather than on it. This keeps the main runway clear.


Then, I would have a simple wish: the possibility to mark as destroyed… a destroyed plane, or a clearly doomed one. Something like the order: “Don’t shoot to this target anymore”.

Technically, you can control AI planes in your formation by telling them to "rejoin formation." But, that's inconvenient and doesn't always work.

I've suggested a fix for friendly AI breaking off attacks on damaged or destroyed enemies, but perhaps you didn't notice it.

Currently, IL2 has an "Arcade Mode" where AI aircraft produce "cartoon thought bubbles" when they take certain kinds of damage. Messages include "I'm On Fire" (i.e., fatal damage), "Returning to Base" (i.e., severe damage) and "Bailing Out" (AI recognizes that damage is fatal).

It would be very simple for AI programming to use these messages from Arcade Mode to decide when AI crew should bail out, when attackers should stop shooting, and when a player (or AI aircraft) should get credit for a kill.

Rather than victory credit, or shared credit, going to the pilot who fired the last bullet, credit should go to the pilot who inflicted the fatal damage (i.e., the one who caused the damage that triggered the "I'm on Fire" or "I'm Bailing Out" message).

Pilots should get shared kill credit for damage which triggers the "RTB" message.

For Air Forces which tracked such things, it should also be possible to get "probable kill" credit for any damage which triggers the "RTB" message. And "damaged" credit for any hit at all to an enemy plane.

Once the scoring system is trained to recognize "damaged," "severe damage" and "fatal damage", then it would be possible to have more complex scoring systems, like those used by the Germans for awarding points towards medals.

Herausschuss (Separation) = RTB
Abschuss (Destruction) = I'm on Fire/Bailing Out
Endgueltige Vernichtung (Final Destruction) = I'm on Fire/Bailing Out result on a plane that's already received enough damage that it's RTB.

Kill claiming could be made more strict (for Air Forces which required such things) by only giving credit for kills made over friendly land territory, or in the presence of at least one other friendly unit (including ships and ground units).

Kill claiming could be made less strict by allowing pilots who achieved an "RTB" result to claim a "kill" rather than a probable. This would allow two pilots to both get kill credit for a single aircraft (and would mimic historical rates of kill claims for fighter pilots).

Kill claiming could be made much less strict by allowing pilots who inflicted any damage on an aircraft at all to count it as a kill! This would be good for "duels to the first blood" and would mimic historical rates of kill claims for air gunners and pilots in air forces where kill claims were accepted based on the pilot's word.

[Pursuivant]

The shared kills system of 4.12 fixed it, at least for me. If you fly Japanese (as I do since some time) or German, there are no shared kills, so if you choose the option 'shared kills/historically' and inflict major damage to an enemy plane (more than 50 % I assume) you get the full kill, no matter whether some of your ai-friends still pour their bullets in it.

Basically, yes. Although there are still a few bugs.


Admittedly I don´t know how it works for the red side, where kill sharing existed.

It works just fine for US and British/Commonwealth, where shared kills were allowed.

It's also possible to have "shared kills" for Axis and Soviet aircraft if you turn on "shared kills" but turn off "historical kill claims."

Every air force has "half kill" markings.

[Pursuivant]

This is a new post to an old thread, but here are some further wishlist ideas

AI ATTACK OPTIONS

1) Ability to Specify Targets in Advance: Currently, when ordered to attack a target that isn't in range, AI gives you an "unable to comply" message (at least in the QMB). It would be handy if you could "program" sections or divisions to perform various tasks BEFORE you get to the target, either in the FMB or as player commands.

As player commands, this option would let you fly your plane without being distracted with a lot of formation commands when things get hectic.

2) Ability to Specify Target Priority: In conjunction with Option 1, this allows you to program AI so that it will automatically "default" to certain targets after the primary target is destroyed. For example, "Flak first, then aircraft on the ground, then vehicles, then other ground targets."

3) Ability to Specify Attack Type: Currently, there's no method in the FMB or the player commands that allow you to tell AI which method of attack they should use first. There should be the following options: Strafe, Air-to-Ground Rocket Attack, Air-to-Air Rocket Attack, Torpedo Attack, Dive Bomb Attack, Glide Bomb Attack, Low Level Bomb Attack (specify altitude), High Level Bomb Attack (specify altitude), Guided Bomb Attack, [Aerial Bomb Attack, Depth Charge Attack (set depth), Mine-Dropping Attack].

Edit: Add Paratroop drop, Cargo Drop, Flare Drop, and Kamikaze to "attack" types.

4) Ability to Specify Ordinance Priority: As for Option 2, but for ordinance types. Options: Internal/centerline bombs, external/wing bombs, Air-to-air rockets, Air-to-ground rockets, torpedoes, guided bombs, fixed guns, flexible guns, [aerial bombs, depth charges, mines].

5) Ability to Specify Attack Formation: Currently, it appears that planes don't always attack at once when ordered to do so. There should be the following FMB/Player commands: Attack individually, Attack by section/Rotte, Attack by Division/Schwarm, Attack by Squadron/Staffel.

6) Ability to Specify Number of Attacks: either a number or "unlimited." Specifying just one attack is automatically interpreted as "one attack and evade/ egress" meaning just one quick attack followed by going defensive and leaving the target area at as high a rate of speed as possible. Multiple attacks defaults to appropriate ordinance attacks, followed by strafing until the number of attacks is satisfied. Unlimited is the current situation - the AI will attack indefinitely until destroyed/heavily damaged, or it runs out of ammo.

For fighter attacks vs. aerial targets, specifying just one attack means a "bounce" followed by an attempt to evade.

7) Ability to Specify Automatic Abort Conditions: AI aborts attacks, goes defensive, and returns to base when one or more conditions occur: >X% formation casualties, light damage to plane, heavy damage to plane, crew lightly wounded, crew heavily wounded, crew bleeding, <X% fuel, <X% ordinance (type), <X% ammo, >X number of hostile fighters in area, >X number of hostile AAA in area.

[Marabekm]

This is a new post to an old thread, but here are some further wishlist ideas

AI ATTACK OPTIONS

3) Ability to Specify Attack Type: Currently, there's no method in the FMB or the player commands that allow you to tell AI which method of attack they should use first. There should be the following options: Strafe, Air-to-Ground Rocket Attack, Air-to-Air Rocket Attack, Torpedo Attack, Dive Bomb Attack, Glide Bomb Attack, Low Level Bomb Attack (specify altitude), High Level Bomb Attack (specify altitude), Guided Bomb Attack, [Aerial Bomb Attack, Depth Charge Attack (set depth), Mine-Dropping Attack].

Does this help?

From game manual. 4.08 So make sure nothing changed with patches. I don't think any of this did.

Note:
1. For dive bombers, fighters with bombs, and fighter-bombers, you have to set target
objects for the GATTACK point. Otherwise, they will attack the enemy object nearest to
the waypoint, if they can find it.
2. For transports with bombs and level bombers, set the waypoint directly over the object
that you would like to destroy, and then set GATTACK for that waypoint. Planes will drop
the bombs in that area. (You must set the GATTACK waypoint without a target object!) Do
the same if you use planes with paratroopers as loadout.
3. For dive bombers and fighter-bombers with bombs, the altitude has to be more than 1300
meters for dive bombing. Otherwise, they drop bombs as level bombers.
4. If you want any of the selected groups of planes with bombs to do level bombing, see
item 3 above.
5. Don’t set an altitude that is too low in bomb target areas for level bombers. They may be
destroyed by their own bomb explosion.
6. Don’t set the previous waypoint too close to the point of GATTACK. Planes won’t have
time to rejoin the right formation for the attack. Usually it is enough to set 7 to 10 km
between these waypoints

At least this will differentiate between level and dive bombing.

And for Kamikaze attacks:

KAMIKAZE MISSIONS
Creating kamikaze flights is very simple. Any flight whose last waypoint is a GATTACK will ram
itself into the designated target.
However, if you set up too many waypoints before the GATTACK waypoint, the planes may still
decide to use regular attacks before ramming it. Therefore, it’s recommended that you only
give the kamikaze one waypoint before GATTACK. This will ensure that it attack the target on
the first pass.
Note: If you do not want kamikaze bombers, make sure the planes have another waypoint
after the GATTACK. If you fail to do this, you may end up with the bombers behaving in a completely
unintended manner.


As for setting the level bombers to high or low level bomb, set the ground attack waypoint as described above. On the waypoint tab you will see settings for airspeed and height. This is the height the plane will fly at that waypoint. For low level attack, set the height some number under 500m. For high level, probably whatever number above 3000m.

There doesn't need to be options for torpedo or guided bomb attack. Either the aircraft has one of these weapons (and will attack appropriately, as long as mission builder set waypoints right) or it doesn't have one of these weapons. You can't have a mix of say bombs and a torpedo, or regular bombs and 1 guided bomb on the same aircraft. However the mission builder needs to set waypoints appropriate to these munitions. Low waypoints for torpedoes, and above 4000m for guided bombs.

But I do agree with you on option to fire either rockets and regular bombs. (As many aircraft can carry both at the same time)

There are no depth charges or mines currently in game, so I have no idea why this was even brought up????????

[Pursuivant]

Interesting article on US P-38 tactics, with some discussion of late-war Japanese tactics, written by Thomas McGuire, the US's 2nd highest scoring ace.

http://www.475th.org/home/475th/other-475th-documentation/214-combat-tactics-in-the-southwest-pacific-area

Note the emphasis on flight (schwarme/division)-based tactics.

[Pursuivant]

Does this help?

The existing method of specifying attack type aren't bad, and has the virtue of simplicity, but could be better.

Say you've got an aircraft which could attack in three different ways, like a solid-nosed B-25 armed with guns, bombs and rockets, or a TBF armed with guns, torpedoes and rockets. Say that the target is a small ship.

By default, the B-25 will glide or level bomb first, then use rockets, then use guns. The TBF will make a torpedo attack first, then use rockets, then maybe guns.

But, suppose that you wanted to create a patrol mission where you take out the small ship first, then attack a larger ship later. In that case, you'd want to keep your heavy ordinance for the bigger ship.

So, you'd want the option of making the planes make rocket or gun attacks first, and hold onto their bombs/torpedoes.

Or, say that you want the B-25 to use skip bombing rather than glide bombing. Currently, there's no way for the FMB to specify that attack preference.

Or, suppose you have a Ju-87 flying at 1,200 m. Currently, if set to bomb, it will make a level bombing attack rather than a glide bombing attack. Why couldn't it make a glide bombing attack instead, or just try to gain the 100 m needed to get sufficient altitude, and then make a dive bombing attack?

I can think of several ways the GAttack command could be made more useful.

First, give more attack options, and the option of different attack sequences, like I've described.

Second, have a flag in the FMB that reminds mission builders of the parameters required for planes to make certain attack types, and/or which automatically adjusts the planes' altitude to the minimum/maximum height required to make a particular attack.

For example, paratroop drops are always going to be at a minimum of ~200-300 m altitude, torpedo attacks are always going to be at 200 m or less, skip bombing attacks will always be at 100 m or less, dive bombing attacks will always start at 1,300 m or higher, and guided bomb attacks at 4,000 m or greater (plus whatever standoff distance is needed).

You can't have a mix of say bombs and a torpedo, or regular bombs and 1 guided bomb on the same aircraft.

Why not? Is this a limitation of the game's AI, or just something that happened historically?

I can't find historical loadouts to make my case, but I could imagine that a big patrol bomber might carry a mix of torpedoes, bombs and/or rockets, or that if guided bombs were scarce that a bomber might carry a mix of guided and "dumb" bombs.

There are no depth charges or mines currently in game, so I have no idea why this was even brought up?

These types of ordinance are available as mods, and would be highly appropriate to patrol bomber and bomber ops were they added to the official game. Since those weapons use slightly different attack techniques I included them [in brackets] as potential options should they ever appear.

[Pursuivant]

Further Attack Options

*"Kamikaze" if severely damaged or destroyed - If a plane meets the damage parameters, and the pilot is still alive and able to control the plane, he will will choose a suitable target (ground, air, ship, etc.) and dive at it rather than attempting to bail out.

* Opportunistic Kamikaze attacks - Planes will only kamikaze if a particular target, or type of target, presents itself. Otherwise, they don't suicide. For example, if you've got two waves of kamikazes and the first wave successfully destroys all the carriers and battleships in a task force, then the second wave might choose to not die to destroy second-line ships like destroyers or fleet auxiliaries.

* Optional Attack - Only attack using a certain method if a certain target, or type of target, is present. For example, only use torpedo attacks vs. large ships, only make rocket attacks vs. small ships, only use guns against soft vehicles or severely damaged small ships.

This option would be very handy to make sure that planes behave exactly as you want them to. No more strafing attacks vs. tanks or battleships.

* Maneuver to optimize attack. AI planes change formation, altitude and position as necessary to optimize their chances of destroying the target using the specified method of attack.

Admittedly, this option could be handled using proper waypoints in the FMB, but not all mission designers know the preferred historical tactics - like making torpedo runs in line abreast from a 45 degree angle abeam or astern to the target, or circling behind a Tiger tank and getting very close to it before making a rocket attack.

[dimlee]

Interesting article on US P-38 tactics, with some discussion of late-war Japanese tactics, written by Thomas McGuire, the US's 2nd highest scoring ace.

http://www.475th.org/home/475th/other-475th-documentation/214-combat-tactics-in-the-southwest-pacific-area

Note the emphasis on flight (schwarme/division)-based tactics.

Thanks. It's always interesting to study first hands notes of aces.
I love the part about clouds. I use clouds whenever possible in online game.