4.12.2 de-bugging

[Pursuivant]

Maybe this isn't a 4.12 bug, but it seems to me that AI planes are still a bit "stupid" when it comes to making crash landings.

Many times in the 4.12 version of the game I've seen mortally wounded AI planes forgo landing on or near perfectly good airfields or flat terrain in favor of landing on relatively steep hillsides, wooded areas or water features.

While this does good things for my kill ratio, it is a bit of an immersion killer.

Assuming an AI plane isn't going to turn into a kamikaze, the pilot should aim for:

friendly airfield > flat ground near friendly airfield > road in friendly territory > flat ground near road in friendly territory > flat ground in friendly territory > open slope of no more than 10 degrees angle in friendly territory > water in or near friendly territory.

If that isn't possible, the pilot should aim for neutral territory using the same landing criteria as above. If that isn't possible, the pilot should aim for enemy territory using the same landing criteria as above.

If no safe crash landing or ditching is possible, the plane should try to gain as much altitude as possible (or hold altitude as long as possible) fly towards land (friendly, neutral, enemy) and then have the crew bail out.

If none of the above are possible, the plane should "kamikaze" towards the nearest valid enemy target. (Realistically, this was mostly a Japanese tactic, but doomed pilots of all Air Forces were known to make suicide attacks if bailing out was impossible.)

[Pursuivant]

When the B-17 is hit, it appears that the radio operator/dorsal MG operator never bails out.

Also, in general, it seems that bomber crews can bail out very quickly (within about 10 seconds) when the plane is hit, even when the plane is spinning or in a vertical dive.

Realistically, it seems like it would take a bit longer for certain crewmen to escape the plane (e.g., ball turret gunner) especially if the crew weren't wearing their parachutes and had to attach them (as was the case for B-17 crew). Also, escape was much more impossible once the plane entered a spin or steep dive.

[chn6]

Moving Tank destroyed Model lost.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

L

Anyone else experiencing this?
@ElAuren: did you try a different similar long mission ( single mis. maybe)?

I'm trying to replicate it with other missions and careers. So far no luck.

[Vendigo]

Please help me understand why Me-163 AI now is so much different. Readme mentioned some changes to Me-163 flight model, without providing any details... But now AI Komets seem to be unable to attack high flying bombers (about 8km high) if the mission starts with bombers already in close vicinity of the field from which the Komets are taking off.
I made an offline compaign for Me-163 but now in most missions my wingmen just can't follow me up to the altitude of the bombers.
At first the AI Me-163s are gaining altitude (the pilots actually can 'see' the bombers, they are looking up at them) but at about 5km high they suddenly abort and fly back to the airfield and proceed to land.
It all worked properly in 4.11 though.

[FC99]

Originally Posted by Vendigo

Please help me understand why Me-163 AI now is so much different. Readme mentioned some changes to Me-163 flight model, without providing any details... But now AI Komets seem to be unable to attack high flying bombers (about 8km high) if the mission starts with bombers already in close vicinity of the field from which the Komets are taking off.
I made an offline compaign for Me-163 but now in most missions my wingmen just can't follow me up to the altitude of the bombers.
At first the AI Me-163s are gaining altitude (the pilots actually can 'see' the bombers, they are looking up at them) but at about 5km high they suddenly abort and fly back to the airfield and proceed to land.
It all worked properly in 4.11 though.

Check how much fuel AI have.

[Vendigo]

Originally Posted by FC99

Check how much fuel AI have.

Full tanks of course.
I've made two simple missions to describe what I'm talking about. You can unzip the attachment to IL-2 folder and it will add them to "Single missions" directory, you will find them in Japanese Army airforce section. It's called ME-163 BUG. Just turn the autopilot on as soon as the missions starts as watch what the AI will do.
In "test1" the AI Me-163s will not attack the bombers, in 9 out of 10 times they will abort the mission before they reach 5km altitude.
In "test2" AI Me-163s always attack the bombers.
Can anybody try it on your PCs?
It seems that AI need more time after take off before they see the bombers, otherwise they don't attack.
But this perfectly worked in 4.11

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by Vendigo

Full tanks of course.
I've made two simple missions to describe what I'm talking about. You can unzip the attachment to IL-2 folder and it will add them to "Single missions" directory, you will find them in Japanese Army airforce section. It's called ME-163 BUG. Just turn the autopilot on as soon as the missions starts as watch what the AI will do.
In "test1" the AI Me-163s will not attack the bombers, in 9 out of 10 times they will abort the mission before they reach 5km altitude.
In "test2" AI Me-163s always attack the bombers.
Can anybody try it on your PCs?
It seems that AI need more time after take off before they see the bombers, otherwise they don't attack.
But this perfectly worked in 4.11

Please check the mission 1 I have edited for you it works as it should now.

Pay attention to the new waypoints, altitudes and speeds etc etc it should point you in the right direction for your mission building.



Have fun.

[Pursuivant]

AI fighter routines to attack heavy bombers seem badly flawed.

Fighters forgo effective and relatively safe head-on or high-side deflection shots in favor of suicidal tail-chases against U.S. heavy bombers.

Fighters equipped with "schrage-musik" style weapons don't take advantage of them, which makes it pointless to design bomber intercept missions for the Ki-45.

Fighters don't attack stragglers or "tail end Charlies" (the last and outermost plane in the formation), instead choosing to go for the #2 or #3 plane in the flight. If the bombers are in a "vic" formation, this means that a fighter taking a shot from behind the target is exposed to the defensive firepower of the entire formation!

Fighters will fly in between two "vics" of bombers when making stern chase attacks, so that they take fire from the front guns of the vic behind them and from the rear guns of the vic ahead of them.

Fighters always attack bomber formations individually, rather than than coordinating their attacks to split defensive firepower.

Fighters will follow an obviously crippled bomber all the way down to the deck, ignoring the other bombers in the formation. This effectively takes them out of the fight.

And this is for ACE AI!

On the other side:

At least in QMB, heavy and medium bombers don't appear in "defensive box" formations. Instead, they fly in the standard vic formations used by light bombers and dive bombers. This might be an artifact of the QMB, but Uber-demon's mission builder makes it very easy to assign different formations to particular groups of planes.

In QMB, bombers will break up their formations when they turn and not regain them for several minutes. This makes them much easier targets for fighters. This might be an artifact of the relatively short distances between waypoints.

(As a related issue, why have landing waypoints in the QMB? Would it be possible to just have AI planes that fly from one edge of the map to the other, possibly turning to bomb some location on the map?)

U.S. bombers seem to catch fire and/or break apart very quickly. While a 20-30 mm cannon shell could easily start a huge fire if it blew apart a fuel tank, it seems a bit unrealistic for even 2-3 hits to blow off the entire wing of a heavy bomber. And, while massive fires could burn through a wing fairly quickly, I'm not sure that the fire from a single fuel tank could do it quite as quickly as depicted in the game. (Keep in mind that the spectacular pictures of B-17 and B-24 plunging to earth with missing wings and with massive fires were mostly due to direct flak hits and/or wings pulling off due to excessive G forces.)

Bombers seem to make no attempt to control fires. Since IL2 can't model shutting off fuel tanks or switching fuel from damaged tanks, it seems to me that fire suppression systems on heavy bombers should have a slightly better chance of working than they did historically, and that there should be some method of using "fire extinguishers" to suppress fuel fires as well as engine fires.

I'm still dreaming of a QMB mission where I could quickly set up an immersive intercept mission by Axis fighters against Allied heavy bombers.

In a head-to-head daylight intercept situation, I'd love to see:

1) Fighters take diving or level head-on attacks against the lead bomber in the lead formation.

2) Against loosely formed formations, possibly taking additional shots at planes in trailing formations as they continue.

3) Climb or dive to out of range of the bombers guns. Look for stragglers.

4) Detail some members of the flight to attack cripples (using coordinated high-side or head on-attacks).

5) The rest of the flight/squadron turns, gets ahead of the bombers and turns to make new head-on or high side attacks. With some planes in the squadron making right and left high-side attacks while others make head-on attacks.

6) Repeat as necessary.

[Vendigo]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Please check the mission 1 I have edited for you it works as it should now.
Pay attention to the new waypoints, altitudes and speeds etc etc it should point you in the right direction for your mission building.

Thank you but it only works 50/50, in about half the times I tried it the AI Me-163s still fail to lock on the B-17s and keep flying in circles until the fuel runs out. Unfortunately seems this is not the solution I need.
I would like to note again that in 4.11 the Komets would take off and always attack the high-flying bombers even if Me-163s had only two waypoints set. It's a natural behaviour for rocket fighter AI but now it is not working as before.
Could anybody from DT pay attention to this and be so kind to comment whether this could be fixed, please?