4.13 development update discussion and feedback

[ben_wh]

Would love to learn more about the status of the New Guinea/New Britain map that we have heard of for years.

This map, if made in the same quality as the Solomons maps, can be the centerpiece of 4.13 - at least in the PTO perspective.



Cheers,

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Jami

But there is one thing annoys me and my squadron: the skill levels of AI fighters are too close to each other. So would it be possible to make rookies really rookie (like they really were) and aces may stand where they are.

Isn't this already possible in the FMB?

Since AI has gotten so much more human, I'd love to see more AI levels: "untrained" and "superhuman."

Untrained would be for pilots and gunners "straight from the farm" who have insufficient hours of training to be effective in combat.

While they can perform basic maneuvers, they will have some trouble with formation flying, regularly stall their plane during high performance maneuvers, will have virtually non-existent SA, bombing and gunnery skills, except maybe against bombers.

They should show lack of familiarity with the aircraft, doing things like not handling prop pitch or superchargers properly, and possibly damaging the engine with improper throttle changes. If IL2 modeled it, they'd also damage the engine by stressing it before it was fully warmed up.

In combat on their own, they'd use something like the old rookie AI model - basically flying around doing nothing, but with excessively aggressive attacks on obvious targets that can't shoot back. They'll badly overshoot B & Z attacks and might high speed stall due to aggressive turns in turning fights.

Against bombers, or any other target that throws a lot of bullets, they should be excessively timid. They either don't engage at all or attack from extreme range.

Gunnery and bombing skills should be abysmal. They should have no hope of hitting with a deflection shot more than 10-15 * "angle off," and they should regularly shoot at extremely distant targets (300+ m) without correcting for ballistics. Against large targets, they will lead the target as if it were much smaller and closer. They should also hesitate for a few seconds while they line up their shots, even easy shots. This makes snapshots impossible and makes collisions with enemy planes more likely

Bombing will be from extreme range without correcting for wind or target movement and with insufficient correction for airspeed and altitude.

When fighting as part of a squadron, however, Untrained pilots should spend far too much time trying to hold formation and sticking closely to their leader's tail while doing almost nothing useful as a wingman. When formation flying, they should have virtually no SA to their rear.

This level of AI would be appropriate for many German and Japanese pilots in late 1944 to early 1945 and many Soviet pilots in 1942 (and some in 1943) and some UK pilots in mid- to late 1940.

Superhuman would be based on the old model Ace AI - perfect engine management, SA, bombing and gunnery skills as well as improved resistance to G-forces, limited only by the AI's new inability to see through obstructions. Basically, "Terminator" flying an airplane. It would specifically be designed for players looking for an extra challenge, or to make the best historical aces, like Erich Hartmann or Hans Wind, suitably scary.

Currently, Rookie AI seems to be about right for gunnery accuracy from bombers. Average, Veteran and Ace bomber gunners are too effective. Remember, the best that any flexible gunner could do was about 5% hits, and in the game hits from rifle caliber MG seem to be too effective at penetrating armor and engine blocks, starting fires, and inflicting airframe damage.

As for fighter and attack planes Rookie to Average pilots don't seem to be aggressive enough, but their gunnery skills seem to be alright.

I'd prefer a Rookie or Average fighter pilot model where the AI has a tendency to be too aggressive - opening fire too soon, jamming their guns by making long bursts (if IL2 modeled that), bleeding off energy in turn fights with excessively sharp turns and overshooting targets in B & Z fights.

Rookies should also have a distinct preference for "turn and burn" dogfights, even if their plane isn't suited for it. Basically, every noob maneuver that seasoned online players laugh at.

If IL2 modeled it, Rookies might also forget to charge their guns, or otherwise prepare their weapons, prior to combat. They should also have a somewhat higher chance of attacking friendly planes, especially less familiar allied types or easily-confused types (e.g., Typhoon vs. Fw-190 vs. Lagg-5, P-51 vs. Bf-109G vs. Yak series, SBD vs. A6M series).

Originally Posted by Jami

. I don’t believe that in real life any rookie has been able to take full advantage of his plane’s all features and performance. In addition rookie’s shooting skills are amazing.

What would help is more clarification from TD about what the different AI levels mean.

In defense of current Rookie AI, any military pilot who makes it through advanced training and type familiarization is going to be proficient in formation flying and advanced combat maneuvers. What they're going to lack is real-life gunnery experience (or, often any sort of gunnery experience), tactical knowledge and Situational Awareness.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

I'd really like to see a few more cruisers and or destroyers. But what I feel is really absolutely necessary is a few more different merchant ships, and if only reskinned ones. Though a really big fleet oiler wouldn't hurt, either.

I agree. Most plane to ship violence during WW2 wasn't against carriers or battleships. Instead, they were anti-shipping strikes or opportunistic attacks against the smaller ships and boats that made up the bulk of each country's navy.

I'd love to see a lot more ships of 5,000 tons or less, as well as lots of little ships and boats, such as patrol boats, trawlers and junks, which could be destroyed using MG or 20mm cannon fire.

I don't mind the relative lack of merchant ship types, although perhaps the Japanese freighter model could be scaled down to make a new coastal freighter type.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I agree. Most plane to ship violence during WW2 wasn't against carriers or battleships. Instead, they were anti-shipping strikes or opportunistic attacks against the smaller ships and boats that made up the bulk of each country's navy.

Not only that, in nearly any task force there were destroyers/cruisers for ASW and FlaK support. And convoy escorts were destroyers or even smaller slower vehicles. For lesser targets as marine artillery support, it was destroyer and cruiser fire used (Japanese shellings of Henderson field e. g.).
Any new cruiser/destroyer could be used in more than a few scenarios, while battlships are always limited in that aspect.
And then there is the aspect of beauty, and you can say anything but some of these Japanese WW2 cruisers just look graceful, elegant, yet powerful and menacing.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I'd love to see a lot more ships of 5,000 tons or less, as well as lots of little ships and boats, such as patrol boats, trawlers and junks, which could be destroyed using MG or 20mm cannon fire.

For those a ability to reskin them would at least allow for some different look.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I don't mind the relative lack of merchant ship types, although perhaps the Japanese freighter model could be scaled down to make a new coastal freighter type.

I just don't like that every bigger merchant vessel of every nation looks entirely the same.

Vs. AI Rookies, they seem okay to me when considering shooting abilities, they shoot at far too great distances and usually miss. Maneuvering wise, hmm could be a little less skilled, but okay for me -at least they stall and crash sometimes. My impression is, that their SA is still too good, and that rookies should lack most in that department - and should more frequently not see the enemy sneaking up on them, especially when targeting one bandit themselves. I mean, thats what happens to any novice of this game, isn't it?

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Against bombers, or any other target that throws a lot of bullets, they should be excessively timid. They either don't engage at all or attack from extreme range.

On the other hand, veteran and ace AI shouldn't venture to attack Betties and Wellingtons from level six and without a major speed advantage. Still, they are prone to do so, particularly at low altitudes. They level out well behind the bomber and try to close up in crossfire. Instead, they should dive on the bomber and use their deflection shooting skills. Pitifully, they do not seem to sport against bombers what they do sport against fighters. No head-on attacks, no side passes, only what also a rookie human does.

[Jami]

Many thanks Pursuivant for your "analysis". I couldn't agree more.
That kind of changes would give this sim a huge boost to even more realistic air battles and most of all this would give human rookies a chance to enjoy this great sim and possibility to develop their own skills little by little. The threshold to come into this sim as newbie is getting too high.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

As for fighter and attack planes Rookie to Average pilots don't seem to be aggressive enough, but their gunnery skills seem to be alright.

Have tried to fly against 2-4 I-16 with somewhat equal plane for example Hawk 75, MS406 or B-239? I have found them very aggressive and skilled even as rookie. I think that an average or better human pilot should be able to beat four rookie AI pilots with equal or even worse plane.

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Jami

I think that an average or better human pilot should be able to beat four rookie AI pilots with equal or even worse plane.

Really? I think in RL "an average or better human pilot" should never get into a situation where he alone has to fight 4 (four) enemy fighters at the same time, no matter how unskilled they are. Not even Luke Skywalker would do that.

[Jami]

Originally Posted by sniperton

Really? I think in RL "an average or better human pilot" should never get into a situation where he alone has to fight 4 (four) enemy fighters at the same time, no matter how unskilled they are. Not even Luke Skywalker would do that.

I agree that "should never...", but sometimes you can't help it. According to memoirs of WWII pilots they often faced situations where they had to fight against overwhelming enemies. Of course in the sim this depends on mission maker plans, correct/incorrect timing and how has the human pilot managed so far.

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Jami

I agree that "should never...", but sometimes you can't help it. According to memoirs of WWII pilots they often faced situations where they had to fight against overwhelming enemies.

Yep, and some of them even survived... Anyway, your point was that an average pilot "should be able to beat" 4 AI fighters in a 1 to 4 engagement. My point is that it wouldn't be realistic.

[Jami]

Originally Posted by sniperton

Yep, and some of them even survived... Anyway, your point was that an average pilot "should be able to beat" 4 AI fighters in a 1 to 4 engagement. My point is that it wouldn't be realistic.

Ok, this is not worth arguing. Let's be happy with our own opinions...