Suggestions for AI Improvements in Future Updates

[Jami]

Originally Posted by ben_wh

Would love to hear more thoughts from more sim pilots.

I agree 100%. This thread has got over 750 views but only few replies.

It'is understandable that for those who fly dogfight against human pilots on line the issue of AI skills is not so interesting but for off line players it is fundamental. And for those who want to fly with their friends coop mission with AIs involved. And it comes more and more important when you try to create historically accurate missions.

[Furio]

I think that giving “more power to the player” could lessen some of the AI issues. As I see it, there should be the option to pause the game, or briefly hand your plane to autopilot, to take some decision that no AI can take.

Some examples.

In the landing pattern, Number 4 is damaged and should land first, but continues to go around leaving unnecessarily precedence to others until it crashes.
Player should be able to take over control tower and order Number 4 to be the first to land.

During an escort mission, an enemy fighter appears. All your squadron’s pilots chase it, leaving alone the escorted bombers.
Player should be able to order: “Number 5 and 6 go ahead with the chase, all other return to escort position”, or click on the selected planes to obtain the same result.

Player has damaged and enemy bomber, and is turning for the coup de grace. Three more squadron’s AI mates run to finish it, allowing other enemy planes to bomb the target undisturbed.
Player should be able to select a target to be ignored by AI pilots.

The list could go on, but the concept is clear, I think. You pay a little price in immersion, because you need to stop the action and momentarily assume the rank of god, but you avoid that immersion be killed by AI pilots unrealistic actions.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by ben_wh

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.

Yes, AI seems to get in trouble when fighting in a much faster less agile plane - and tries to TnB -with usually disappointing results. Though in some situations they seem to get it right, F4F(good) vs. A6M often turns out okay.

Originally Posted by ben_wh

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?

Also AI should consider avoid picking fights in unfavourable positions -if they still can. Real life pilots couldn't tangle endlessly with the enemy on most missions, limited by mission objective and by time (or fuel). And AI should sometimes give up attacking well defended targets(ground&air). There should be a difference in willingness to retreat depending on situation and airforce - while a USAAF rookie flying P-400 in the beginning of 1942 would probably retreat in next to any situation where there is no numerical superiority, an ace piloting an A6M in the IJN in 1942 would even try to attack in an unfavorable position in numerical inferiority.

Originally Posted by ben_wh

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 'Thatch Weave' then it would truly take offline battles to a new level.

It's "Thach Weave". And they kinda do use that. Ever noticed how the AI tends to do their evasive turns towards their wingmans paths - so if you follow them you'll end up in front of AI's his guns? And when you are locally outnumbered, the AI that doesn't get engaged often climbs and positions itself to swoop in after you made a mistake or got dragged down by its wingmen.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Furio

In the landing pattern, Number 4 is damaged and should land first, but continues to go around leaving unnecessarily precedence to others until it crashes.
Player should be able to take over control tower and order Number 4 to be the first to land.

This should work automatically - with no involvement of the player. Damaged planes lost due to having no priority in the landing pattern are as bad for AI only flights - and player can't watch landing approach of 10+ fights.

Originally Posted by Furio

During an escort mission, an enemy fighter appears. All your squadron’s pilots chase it, leaving alone the escorted bombers.
Player should be able to order: “Number 5 and 6 go ahead with the chase, all other return to escort position”, or click on the selected planes to obtain the same result.

Bomber escort missions are among the most disappointing as it is in this game. Either you don't get your flight to engage the enemy even if the bombers are under attack(!) - or the engage an unimportant enemy plane and don't want to let go.
And they cannot be commanded usfully when in "escort mode" You spot a group of enemy bombers heading for your carriers, and you decide to shoot them down - because a lost carrier is worse than a few lost attack planes -you are on your own. Your wingmen will not engage, they either follow you or go back to escorting the bombers.

Originally Posted by Furio

Player has damaged and enemy bomber, and is turning for the coup de grace. Three more squadron’s AI mates run to finish it, allowing other enemy planes to bomb the target undisturbed.
Player should be able to select a target to be ignored by AI pilots.

This should be automatic, too. Planes with visible crippling damage should be less important targets. And while we are at that: AI (and especially FlaK) should try to shoot at planes with only dead pilots/shot out controls, at least if they are not experienced.

[ben_wh]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Yes, AI seems to get in trouble when fighting in a much faster less agile plane - and tries to TnB -with usually disappointing results. Though in some situations they seem to get it right, F4F(good) vs. A6M often turns out okay.

I often find some planes are particular problematic - for example, AI P-38 and P-47 do not exploit the strengths of these planes and often try to turn with opponents or follow opponents to the deck. F4F is actually a very agile planes in the sim and in reality - though during training pilots were told not to engage the Zeroes unless the Wildcats have clear numerical or tactical advantages

Originally Posted by majorfailure

It's "Thach Weave". And they kinda do use that. Ever noticed how the AI tends to do their evasive turns towards their wingmans paths - so if you follow them you'll end up in front of AI's his guns? And when you are locally outnumbered, the AI that doesn't get engaged often climbs and positions itself to swoop in after you made a mistake or got dragged down by its wingmen.

I don't notice the Thach Weave as much (perhaps I should try more plane combo) although I do observe that the AI does use team tactics much better after 4.11, and human pilots will learn not to fixate on a target and watch one's six often. There has certainly been improvements here.

Regarding national difference in AI behavior - I thought about that and often wondered whether 'doctrinal behavior' can be implemented. However I can imagine the debate people will have regarding how their national AI should behavior vis-a-vis that of another country's ...

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by major.kudo

retrat = retreat?
I think about retreat.

This is a good idea, but could be taken further.

Leaders of formations which have gotten badly scattered might well retreat, even if the planes in their formation aren't actually damaged or destroyed.

Squadron and flight leaders who are outnumbered by enemy aircraft - even if they haven't engaged - are also likely to retreat or avoid contact unless they have a clear advantage. Even then, they are likely to make a single "hit and run" attack in such as way that they can disengage before the enemy can respond.

The exception would be that badly outnumbered fighters will still aggressively take on large bomber or attack plane formations and won't be intimidated by them.

Single pilots will also be very cautious about attacking anything other than another single plane unless they have a clear advantage.

Rookies and average pilots will usually avoid contact unless they have an overwhelming advantage. Veterans and Aces might attack two or more planes when they have less of an advantage, but are more likely to try to maneuver to gain an overwhelming advantage, using sun and clouds to their advantage. Even then, they're likely to make just a single hit and run attack rather than staying around to fight.

For example, an ace pilot sees a pair of hostile fighters at 12 o'clock level and about 5 km out. Rather than flying straight in as Ace AI often does, he might try to duck into a cloud at avoid being seen. Then, he'll gain altitude and maneuver based on the sun's location and the anticipated course of his opponents, so that he's above and behind his targets and can dive out of the sun to attack them.

He will then make one fast attack to cripple or kill the trailing aircraft then disengage and analyze the situation before choosing to run away or attack the surviving enemy.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by ben_wh

Regarding national difference in AI behavior - I thought about that and often wondered whether 'doctrinal behavior' can be implemented. However I can imagine the debate people will have regarding how their national AI should behavior vis-a-vis that of another country's ...

There are a few places where national differences could be implemented without too much controversy. For example, in 1939-40 the RAF insisted on tight three plane fighter formations, USN doctrine from 1942 on emphasized high side attacks and lots of teamwork at the section level, and for a number of reasons Japanese pilots preferred maneuvering to BnZ tactics and were less likely to fight as a team.

On a more controversial level, RAF pilots reported that Italian fighter pilots performed more aerobatic maneuvers than Luftwaffe pilots did, and Luftwaffe pilots noted that the Soviets were much more willing to use aerial collisions as a tactic (the "Taran") - at least early in the war. Late war Japanese and German pilots noticed that some American pilots were undisciplined and aggressive - in that some were willing to break formation or otherwise take risks to "rack up a score."

Then there are well-known situations where pilots of a particular nation had good reason to behave in a certain fashion. For example, Kamikazes were known for being not very good at maneuvering, but willing to hold formation and take massive losses when any other pilot would have maneuvered defensively.

As another example, some U.S. fighter pilots reported that in 1944-45, German fighter pilots would occasionally bail out as soon as they got into a hopeless tactical situation or took damage. (This makes sense - Germany had airplanes to spare at that point, but not enough pilots to fly them, and any German pilot the USAAF encountered was probably bailing out over friendly territory.)

[ben_wh]

OK, summarizing ideas and implications so far:

1) Gunnery accuracy refinement (toning down) of rookie and regular pilots

2) More detailed engagement/ disengagement / retreat logic based not only on plane status (damage, ammo and fuel level) but also on tactical situation, for example

- Number of opponent Vs friendly
- Whether flight/section leader is lost
- Relative height to opponents
- Skill level of the AI, among others

3) Better command/communication - ability to ask wingman to check your six, for example

4) Potentially better BnZ behavior among AIs (this may need to be considered more since this is relative to the plane match-up: one plane is an energy fighter in a match-up but may be a turn fighter in another)

5) Doctrinal/national behavior by time frame - ideas: Vic formation for Commonwealth planes in 39-40; random (infrequent, occasional) kamikaze behavior for damaged Japanese planes in 44-45 - this one will needed to be teased out more as well; not sure whether AI behavior by nation is feasible / desired by players

Would love to see this refined / expanded further by others.

Cheers,

[Furio]

This is an interesting thread, with many good ideas.

In my opinion, however, we should pose ourselves a simple question: why all these good ideas aren’t already implemented? As far as I know is because they’re anything but easy, and the most difficult issue is about decisions.

An “AI” reacts according to a string of possibilities, strictly predefined. If there is any deviation from what is predefined, AI will not take any decision, or will take the wrong one. For this reason, I suggested some sort of time out and some simple tools to allow the one and only human mind in offline missions – the player – to take decisions. I understand that is not a perfect solution, but it represents a progress, perhaps in the only viable direction.

Of course, I appreciate the effort of all other people here. This thread is a sort of brainstorming session, and something useful should come out of it.

[ben_wh]

Originally Posted by Furio

In my opinion, however, we should pose ourselves a simple question: why all these good ideas aren’t already implemented? As far as I know is because they’re anything but easy, and the most difficult issue is about decisions.

AI coding can be difficult no doubt. The challenge is not only to have competent AI but also believable AIs with behavior that feels human for the player. Still, the objective here is to stimulate new ideas - the hope is that (i) perhaps DT can find a smart way to code some of the suggested behavior mentioned, or (ii) some other current / future sim developer will come across this and influence their future work.

Originally Posted by Furio

... For this reason, I suggested some sort of time out and some simple tools to allow the one and only human mind in offline missions – the player – to take decisions. I understand that is not a perfect solution, but it represents a progress, perhaps in the only viable direction.

Interesting - can you elaborate what you mean by this and how this can be accomplished in-game? Via the command menu? (e.g. 'Attack my Target!', 'Section -> Tactics -> Hit and Run', 'Section -> Tactics -> 'Form Lufbery Circle!'?) Would like to learn more.

Regardless, I personally liked the expanded 'Drop Bombs on my Command' and related options from 4.11. It provides the human player with more options and control without breaking immersion. More control to the flight lead on flight behavior/tactics would be welcomed.

Cheers,