Suggestions for AI Improvements

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

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]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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...igler_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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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]

Originally Posted by Derda508

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]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

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.

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

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]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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)

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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...igler_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.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

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]

Originally Posted by Furio

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.

Originally Posted by Furio

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.

Originally Posted by Furio

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.