Part of the problem may be too good gunnery by the AI, but greater part is IMHO the fight to the death attitude - AI usually doesn't retrat - real life pilots in a faster plane wouldn't wait till all of their wing is wiped by superior opposition.

Better, use only single gunnery skill maybe (bad marksmen necessarily are bad deflection shooters, and good marksmen probably are good deflection shooters) and add maybe bombing/torpedo ability, add character (agressive/timid) and maybe some leadership skill.
And make much less grades of each talent, three to five (inept/(less than average)/average/(good)/excellent)


It may be unrealistic, but as a player I do it a lot, too, you have nearly endless ammo in a 190 so you can try to get the enemy even with low probability snap shots. And you get a feel where the enemy is and where he will be - even if he is temporarily out of sight you can make the shot, and even as a not so great pilot you can IMHO - difference should be ace makes maybe 1 in 5 no-look-shots and rookie gets 1 in 100 or the like

The difference between AI and player guesswork tends to be evident, though - try rolling into a different angled turn while you're in their blindspot and the AI still seems to visibly track your movement :-|

Personally, since TD made it clear that AI have subset skills a la CloD, I think it would be nice to see a popup window like CloD's FMB that gives the mission builder an option to nudge around their strengths and weaknesses, as per major.kudo's example. Having a good maneuver fight is fun, but sometimes the single .303 to the head from 500m in a sharp turn dampens the excitement a bit. I know these things happen, but I seem to get a disproportionate amount of PK's from the AI as compared to human players (maybe because the player is generally near the "center" of the 3D model, and the AI will always use the central point of the model for targeting as opposed to any firing solution that will connect)

Same here. While it's reasonable for AI to aim at the aircraft's center, less experienced human pilots will give too little deflection, while IMO more experienced human pilots will give a little bit too much lead in an attempt to take out the engine on single-engined planes, since it's a larger target.

A quick fix for AI gunnery accuracy would be for Rookies and Average pilots to not lead their targets sufficiently, Veterans to give their target too much lead, and for Aces to get it "just right" aiming more or less at the target's CG or vulnerable parts of multi-engined planes.

Even a rookie pilot will make a guess and fire a bunch of rounds to see if they can score a hit in those kinds of situations.

Prior to the AI upgrades the AI could see 360 degrees and would make these shots regardless. With the upgrade the AI could no longer see through their aircraft but that meant adding some routines to change how the AI did aiming. With the upgrade they will now estimate the target angle and make a deflection shot guess not unlike how human pilots behave.

You are probably on to something that the Rookie pilots are perhaps too successful in this area. The effect can be toned down surely. But its not unrealistic for an average to veteran to ace pilot to be able to make this shot.

With the FW190 in particular I got to a point where I was firing blind a lot of the time and destroying my target. I'd follow the target for a while and then once I was into firing position I'd pull the stick back and although I couldn't actually see the target I'd have the whole trajectory worked out in my head and I'd score a killing shot say 7 or 8 times out of 10. No reason the AI at perhaps the veteran level to be able to do that kind of shot semi-reliably. The rookie AI... maybe not as much as it does.

That's just what happens with human pilots in virtual skies. Rookies that I know shoot the enemies always when possible and hope to get some hits - and waste their bullets. More skilled guys try to hit the fuselage and most skilled aim at engines and even bomber pilots when attacking head on. That's how it goes in my sqn with pilots who have 1 to 10 years of experience in virtual combat flying.

If we got this change, my sqn would be veeery happy...

Probably, many people thinking about me "this guy is adhering to AI's deflection shooting".
It's right. But I have a reason.

I prepared the server of the COOP only and was playing together some players.
Since A.I comes to have too exact shot, it became impossible to pleasant play.
Because "human's rookie player" is also contained in "some players".
They are merely shot down, before doing any action.
This is no good. So, we can not play air combat mission now.

I hope DT observes this thread.

retrat = retreat?
I think about retreat.
http://gachopin.no-ip.info/kudo/retreat1.jpg
and
http://gachopin.no-ip.info/kudo/retreat2.jpg
I want to transmit my idea to you well.
Is this unclear?

But remember, there's some dispute over what "rookie" skill actually means. Does it mean "straight from training" with about 350 hours flying time and about 50 hours flying time "in type", plus an adequate gunnery and air combat maneuver training, or does it mean "straight from the farm" with less than 50 hours total flying time and no gunnery and combat maneuver training?

Agreed. Some real life pilots described doing exactly this sort of thing.

It's also the reason that Veteran or Ace pilots will also break in an unexpected direction when they're "under the nose" of an enemy. They will anticipate the firing solution their opponent is trying to achieve on them and move to counter it.

I can't imagine even a well-trained rookie being able to pull off this shot.

The most realistic fixed-air gunnery training of the period was against towed targets pulled by a target tug. But, target tugs were (mostly) slow-moving obsolete planes to begin with, even ignoring the drag produced by towing a giant wind sock or banner.

That means that (most) target tugs just didn't have the speed required for trainees to make shots that required extreme amounts of lead.

I also can't see any responsible training officer allowing novice pilots to run the risk of accidentally shooting the target tug by making a badly miscalculated high deflection turning shot. I haven't found anything really detailed about exactly how fighter pilots attacked towed targets, but my guess is that attacks mostly consisted of "pursuit curves" which ended up with "high side attacks" against the target drogue, while keeping the target and the target tug in sight at all times.

In such situations, when a "trained rookie" can mentally plot his intended shot in advance and can keep his target in view at all times, accuracy from a high-side attack at 30-60 degrees "angle off" from the target should probably be about 2-3% at 200-300 meters, maybe a bit less for 60-60 degrees "angle off. (3% was the expected accuracy standard for UK and US gunnery schools, 5% was considered to be very good.)

For an "under the nose" attack where a "trained rookie" can't see his target, accuracy should be less than 1% at best, and might result in the rookie ending up colliding with his target, getting ahead of it, or losing awareness of its location.

For pilots with no gunnery training (e.g., 1941-43 Soviet rookie pilots, post 1943 German and Japanese rookie pilots, and many pre-1944 Chinese rookie pilots) any sort of deflection shooting at much more than 20 degrees "angle off" from the target's front or rear should be a waste of ammo.

I agree that Rookie fighter pilots are still too good in the game, especially in I-16s, while Aces now often do things in certain aircraft that they definitely shouldn't be doing. For example, play any early Barbarossa scenario with AI Ace pilots flying Bf109F-2s and AI Rookies flying I-16-18s and 24s, and watch as the Aces constantly get themselves into trouble by trying to turn fight with the I-16s - and even I-153s - and get shot up in the process.

Indeed, you see this in any theater aircraft; Veteran and Ace AI pilots in BnZ type aircraft are constantly trying to turn-fight against dedicated turn-fighters, and get stomped as a result, even when their foe is Rookie or Novice. This happens far too often to be attributed to the "occasional chance of a less skilled pilot beating a more skillful one" explanation.

With all the great improvements done to the AI recently, this is the one area where things got messed up in the process.

A few observations that I hope DT would take into consideration when they decide to further refine the AI:

1) Reading the discussion again there seems to be some consensus about the gunnery accuracy of rookie and regular AI pilot. Would love to hear more thoughts from more sim pilots.

2) (With respect to Treetop 64's comment) It is also my experience that the AI for BnZ planes tend to go into turn fights with slower but more maneuverable opponents. Furthermore, sometimes the high turn rate makes it easier for an AI pilot to to move the nose around for a shot, and this makes for some very interesting (some may say unhistorical results) in many occasions. e.g. Ace Bf-109F Vs novice/regular I-16/LaG-3 (as pointed out above) and Ace late US fighters Vs novice/regular Zeroes.

3) Self-preservation instinct - it was pointed out before that AI may not necessarily want to only retreat when its own plane suffers significant damage. Highly unfavorable tactical situation may also prompt this reaction (as graphically illustrated by major.kudo). This may help address issues of high loss rate in battles - e.g. whole flight wiped out in a fur ball - which is not very often historically since at some point the rest of the flight would retreat. This may apply for bombers as well - if 2/3 of their flight went down and there is no fighter escort - would they still press on to the target?

4) Linked to (2) above is whether AI can be made sophisticated enough to use team tactics. It is admittedly a very difficult task, but if, for example, AI can be made adopting 'Hit and Run' tactics, forming 'Lufbery Circle' or initiating 'Thach Weave' then it would truly take offline battles to a new level.

Of course whether or how DT may adopt this is up to the team, but I hope that discussion here may help stimulate ideas for future patches.

Cheers,