|
|
|
|
#1
08-16-2015, 06:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
AI vs AI Kill ratio
I kept thinking DT would settle this problem sometime and I waiting so far.
But it wasn't settled at all, so I decided to propose. This is the picture I drew before. http://gachopin.no-ip.info/kudo/Fighter_2.jpg Maybe it was insufficient to tell my true meaning only with this picture. The one I wanted to say is Kill ratio by a war between AI. I experimented. In Fw-190s vs P-51Ds fight. skill is average. 16 vs 16 = 10 Fw-190s killed : 13 P-51Ds killed 32 vs 32 = 18 Fw-190s killed : 22 P-51Ds killed The next things finds out that AI fighter in v4.13 will be observed attentively. 1. Pilots of average and rookie are shoot there guns strangely correctly. 2. AI can't avoid the bullets by AIs gun fires. Even if maneuver is performed, bullets hits. 3. A lot of planes are falling down one after another consequently. I think Kill ratio between AI in v4.13 is too distant from a real war. I hope hard repair this problem. Everyone. What do you think? - Maybe this will be helpful reference data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confir...g_World_War_II Airplanes aren't shotdown so much in once of air combat. Sorry my poor English. 
|
|
#3
08-16-2015, 12:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
In my opinion, overkill has little to do with the topic of AI kill ratios. Personally, I always considered kill claims simply not credible, period.
Returning to topic, I think the problem is combat duration. In real life, air combats were usually very brief, often lasting just a few seconds, and usually ending with opponents losing sight of each other. In game, AI pilots never lost sight of each other, and never quit combat when they should, because of damage, bad tactical position or low fuel level. In my opinion, these are the main reasons of abnormally high kill ratios. As a consequence, I don’t believe an easy fix could be implemented in game, at least one that pleases everyone. A typical, realistic mission will entail long, boring navigation and very brief combats, often inconclusive, followed by another long and boring return home. My preference, for what is worth, would be to try some steps toward realism. AI’s eyesight could be gradually reduced or – better yet – player could have the option to choose different distances, the same way as AI pilots experience is chosen. Also, I would like a “combat quitting” routine implemented. I know that’s difficult to determine an exact sequence of conditions that trigger quitting, but at least some could be tried. Any engine damage, particularly in the cooling system, should trigger a “Return to base immediately”.
|
|
#4
08-17-2015, 02:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Its no secret that AI vs. AI kill ratios reflect unrealistically aggressive pilot behavior.
That is necessary to make a fun game, but isn't at all realistic historically. Historically, at least for the USAAF, only 1 in every 10 fighter pilots shot down a single plane during their entire military career! Only something like 1 in 1000 made ace. Numbers were roughly comparable for other nations. That means you have a very few "eagles" and a whole lot of "turkeys." Furio makes good points, but in addition to all the other advantages that AI aircraft have they never have moral problems about killing, they never get scared, they never get tired (air combat - especially a hard turning dogfight - was quite fatiguing), and they never think about their overall mission or tactical situation (i.e., "Am I going to get attack while I'm attacking?" "Will I have enough fuel after this dogfight to get home?") There should be an option in the QMB or FMB to allow historical levels of pilot aggression, with the vast majority of pilots being quite cautious, and very aggressive pilots (the sort that become aces or die trying) being unusual.
|
|
#5
08-23-2015, 03:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
- Gun shooting of AI more inaccurately. In particular, Rookie and Average.
- AI Decision to "return to base immediately" by more less damage. - If the prudence of AI can be set at QMB and FMB, it's more better. Isn't there a way which raises the survivability of these other AI?
|
|
#6
08-25-2015, 10:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I've also argued that there should be a level of quality below Rookie to simulate pilots who have no business being in a combat zone. (e.g., RAF fighter pilots fresh from training school in summer of 1940, many Soviet replacement pilots in 1941-42, and most Japanese and German replacement pilots from 1944 on). Quote:
First, in the heat of combat you might not be aware that your plane has has taken some types of critical damage - other than obvious signs like fire or sudden loss of power output or maneuverability. Second, in a dogfight, unless you can plan your disengagement and successfully implement it, you don't have any option other than to fight until the end. But, I don't think that IL2 is modeling either of those things. Any engine damage, any fuel leak, any pilot injury, or serious damage to any other aircraft systems should be an automatic disengagement from a dogfight for all but the most aggressive or desperate pilots. Average or rookie pilots should have the strong possibility of panicking when their plane is damaged, meaning that they disengage even when it is tactically unfavorable to do so. Exceptions might be made for bombers, where often it made more sense to stick with the formation than fly back to base alone through hostile territory. Quote:
Quote:
For the future: 1) Option in FMB (possibly QMB) for certain aircraft to fight more defensively than normal. - Extremely Defensive - Avoid enemy planes, break off combat if attacked, don't take anything other than the easiest shots (e.g., less than 10 degrees of deflection, within 100 meters for most weapons, 50 meters for LMG). RTB if pilot or crew is injured, if there's engine damage or fuel leaks, if the radio is shot out, or if there's serious damage to other aircraft systems. - Defensive. Avoid enemy fighters unless you've got numeric, altitude, and positional advantage, don't make repeated attacks, break off from dogfights if it is safe to do so, don't take anything other than easy shots (e.g., less than 20 degrees of deflection, within 200 meters for most weapons, 100 meters for light MG). Against bombers, only attack if you've got altitude and positional advantages. Make a single attack from a quarter where the bombers' defensive fire is weakest, at maximum effective range for your weapon (300-500 meters for cannons, 300 meters for HMG, 200 meters for LMG) and then disengage. Return to Base if there's engine damage, injury to pilot or crew, serious fuel leak, or serious damage to any other aircraft system. - Aggressive. Avoid enemy planes unless you've got at least one of numeric or altitude advantage, break off from dogfights if you're disadvantaged and its safe to do so. RTB if there's engine damage, serious fuel leak, serious damage to pilot or crew, or serious damage to any other aircraft system. - Very Aggressive. Current AI. 2) Introduce more "Human Factors" - Rookie and Average pilots might "freeze" or hesitate rather than taking shots. (This can also simulate pilots forgetting to charge their guns due to over excitement.) - Rookie and Average pilots might lose their nerve - especially when attacking large formations of enemy planes. They either refuse to attack or take shots from excessively long ranges. - Rookie and Average pilots, and possibly hard pressed Veteran pilots, might panic, causing them to break off combat even though its tactically disadvantageous to do so. This is particularly true if the pilot is wounded, his plane is damaged, and/or he is attacked by surprise. - All pilots should suffer the effects of fatigue during prolonged combat, particularly at altitude, or in fights where they pull lots of Gs. Once fatigue reaches a certain level, maneuverability and ability to pull further Gs suffers. When fatigue reaches a critical level, pilots will attempt to disengage from combat. - Introduce Discipline Levels. - Undisciplined. Pilots will regularly ignore their superiors' commands, particularly if doing so would endanger their lives. They will automatically break formation if attacked. If they break off combat, or refuse to engage in combat, they will ignore commands to return. If they engage in combat, they will refuse commands to disengage. If they break formation, they will eventually rejoin in their own good time. Undisciplined + Aggressive pilots will break formation to chase enemy planes, assuming other conditions are favorable. - Disciplined. Current AI. - Very Disciplined. Pilots automatically obey their superiors' commands unless physically unable to do so. If they RTB, they can be ordered back into combat, even if it is suicidal. 3) Introduce more tactical options in the FMB. - Alter course to avoid: fighters, bombers, flak, ships, ground vehicles, cities. This option allows planes to be even more defensive, as well as simulating planes which are trying to avoid being spotted. - Seek & Destroy: fighters, bombers, flak, ships, ground vehicles. Planes will go out of their way to find targets of the specified types, and will attack them preferentially. - Ignore: fighters, bombers, flak, ships, ground vehicles. This option allows for suicidally heroic "straight in" attacks. - Hold formation: Planes hold formation no matter what, unless incapable of doing so, or ordered to break formation by their commander. Typical behavior for most bombers, doctrine for early war British and Soviet fighter pilots, and for early to mid-war Japanese fighter. - Maneuver to avoid: fighters, flak. This option allows planes to maneuver within formation, or break formation, if attacked. If "hold formation" and "maneuver to avoid flak" options are combined, the entire formation will randomly "zig zag" to spoil flak gunners' aim. Last edited by Pursuivant; 08-25-2015 at 10:42 PM.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
