Another question for TD..

[JtD]

Well Ice, I agree with your hypothesis, but the basic parameters are too different between real life and a computer game to have people do the same basics things.
But AI is AI, make them like human players and no air battle will appear like a WW2 air battle, make them like WW2 pilots and offline the game will a very odd experience.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

I think AI can not acknowledge the difference between a perfectly good plane and a severly damaged one that is still afloat - but will highly likely not make it far.

I think that you're right. And, I think that this is a limitation to both scoring, campaign realism and AI behavior. If the game instantly registered "minor damage," "severe damage," "crippled" and "dead" then it would offer a lot more potential in all those areas.

Scoring: You get credit for damaged (minor damage), possible kills (severe damage), probable kills (crippled) and kills.

Campaign realism: Planes which take minor damage are out of the campaign for a day or so. Planes that take severe damage are out of the campaign for a couple of days or a couple of weeks (depending on plane type and supply situation). Planes that are crippled are write-offs but can be used for parts. Killed planes are useless.

AI behavior: A human player can easily tell if a bandit is badly damaged or still fully functional, AI can't. As such, even an average human player can make decisions like, "His engine is throwing black smoke. Since the only advantage he had over me was speed, now that his engine is gone I can fight on my own terms." Letting the AI know, "primary opponent has suffered severe engine damage" allows it to adjust its parameters.

And, best of all, the minor/major/crippled status for planes already exists in the game in the form of existing damage models. Damage sufficient to trigger minor damage skin change is "minor damage/damaged". Damage sufficient to trigger a major damage skin change is "major damage/possible kill." Damage sufficient to count as a "critical hit" which causes smoke, fire, destroys the engine, or which removes entire parts of the plane counts as "crippled/probable/write-off".

The only thing that needs to change is that the game needs to recognize that flame on a plane that doesn't have a fire extinguisher, crew bailing out, wing or fuselage breaking, explosion or crash landing counts as a "kill" and should be instantly counted as such. The one exception would be that for campaigns, if a plane crashes behind friendly lines, if it's just a wheels up landing that bends the prop and damages the underbelly, or a ground loop, the plane counts as "severely damaged" rather than crippled/write-off. A crash landing that tears off parts is a write-off. And, any plane that lands behind enemy lines or in water is a "kill" regardless of its actual damage state.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by IceFire

My hypothesis is that humans are humans regardless of the situation be it real life or simulation. When presented with the same basic parameters they will do the same basic things on aggregate. In the heat of combat, target fixation becomes a concern and two guys shooting at the same burning plane can (and did) happen. There's even a gun camera shot that I saw where one Hellcat's gun camera captures another Hellcat fly in front of him while what appears to be a Zero is getting shot at by both. So, while it's less likely that point whoring would go on in real life (at least not like we see it)... target fixation looks fairly similar. At least some of the notorious kill stealing and shoulder shooting is caused by total target fixation. You can watch it happen. They are oblivious to all around them.

If both pilots were in or not much short of shooting distance, and one lights up the plane, the other then shoots it, too, that would be okay, and that is explainable as target fixation.
But AI gets target fixated from miles out, one shoots up a bomber, lights it up - and the other AI is still x km out, passes a few other bombers on its way -only to shoot on the already burning bomber.

Originally Posted by IceFire

The problem with the AI right now is that they have a switch. If the target has bailed out or lost a wing then the aircraft is considered dead. If the plane is burning but still flying then it's considered a viable target. What needs to be programmed is a a greater range of recognition.

That. And no more 1/0 switch. Humans don't always react the same way in similar situations -and AI should not, too. Have the 1/0 switch be the trigger, the result not granted, but randomised.
Say "enemy plane burning" triggers: check distance to border AND check other enemys near AND check own ammo:
-distance to border greater than 30 km AND enemys near AND own ammo <50%: stop shooting 90%
...10 other cases...
-over enemy country AND no enemy near AND own ammo plenty: continue shooting 80%

Net result: AI behaves less predictable - same AI in same situation may even do things different

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

If both pilots were in or not much short of shooting distance, and one lights up the plane, the other then shoots it, too, that would be okay, and that is explainable as target fixation.
But AI gets target fixated from miles out, one shoots up a bomber, lights it up - and the other AI is still x km out, passes a few other bombers on its way -only to shoot on the already burning bomber.

That. And no more 1/0 switch. Humans don't always react the same way in similar situations -and AI should not, too. Have the 1/0 switch be the trigger, the result not granted, but randomised.
Say "enemy plane burning" triggers: check distance to border AND check other enemys near AND check own ammo:
-distance to border greater than 30 km AND enemys near AND own ammo <50%: stop shooting 90%
...10 other cases...
-over enemy country AND no enemy near AND own ammo plenty: continue shooting 80%

Net result: AI behaves less predictable - same AI in same situation may even do things different

Agreed completely on both accounts. Would be nice to have for sure!

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by JtD

Well Ice, I agree with your hypothesis, but the basic parameters are too different between real life and a computer game to have people do the same basics things.
But AI is AI, make them like human players and no air battle will appear like a WW2 air battle, make them like WW2 pilots and offline the game will a very odd experience.

But there would be some big similarities I think too.

The bigger problem is still likely making the AI not be so... AI like Nearly impossible...even at the research computing level.

[shelby]

What is the difference between p39 and p400

[ElAurens]

The P 400 is basically the export version of the P 39 that was sold to the RAF.

After the RAF cancelled the remainder of the order, they were taken over by the USAAF. They differed primarily by having a 20mm cannon in the nose instead of the 37mm gun, and, their real issue for USAAF use in the Pacific, they had RAF oxygen systems. These British systems were different than USAAf units and limited the P 400 to low levels only, not that they had much utility above 15000 feet anyway, but it kept them pretty much below 10,000ft.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

AI does not cheat. I'd rather say, AI is naive and pragmatic.

Not the friendly AI.. although they seem to be better in 4.12

Originally Posted by shelby

Can i ask something else?
What is the difference between the pe-8 and the tb-7 or db-3f and il-4?

Personally I'd prefer that you open your own thread.. because that has nothing to do with this one...