4.13 development update discussion and feedback

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Pugo3

The part I wrote about my plane veering down or away and the subsequent "magic bullets" is the aspect I mostly question. If you try this a few times in Invulnerable mode, and watch the tracers from the AI, you'll notice a pattern somewhat as if you spread your fingers of your hand as wide as possible, then altered the angle of various fingers upward and downward.

I think that what you're seeing here is bullet dispersal. That's normal and it's a welcome bit of realism.

All weapons have an "inherent accuracy" which represents their ability to consistently put shots into the same location. Less than perfect accuracy means that bullets get randomly scattered around the aiming point. The smaller the amount of scatter, the better the weapon's inherent accuracy.

Realistically, due to imperfections in the gun barrel, recoil, differences between individual cartridges, wind, and other factors, even a perfectly "zeroed" gun in a bench rest is going to have less than perfect inherent accuracy. Weapons fired from a vibrating, bouncing vehicle traveling at high speed are going to have much lower inherent accuracy, so a larger scattering pattern.

Effects of errors in inherent accuracy become more obvious at increasing ranges, giving that scattering effect you're seeing. As an example, fly a QMB mission against an Ace Wellington III and try attacking it from the rear. It will start shooting at about 500-600 meters, but rather than seeing a perfect rectangle pattern of tracers from the tail turret guns, you'll see an irregular pattern.

Additionally, in a dogfight, an enemy attacking while simultaneously moving in all three axes (i.e., shooting while making a diving, banking turn) will also be scattering tracers across the sky, since each individual bullet is actually going to be aimed in a different direction. That will also give the scattering effect you're seeing.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

You will notice that "rookie" pilots consistently close with their targets, try to maneuver onto their opponent's tail, hold fire until proper firing ranges, correctly compute simple deflection shots, and fire in 2-3 second bursts. All those traits are consistent with a very well-trained, highly aggressive pilot.

This means that a 4 vs. 4 rookie encounter usually results in complete destruction of one side, with at least one "rookie" pilot achieving multiple kills.

While that makes for a satisfying game experience, realistically that level of aggression and shooting skill is VERY rare, and is consistent with what one would expect from an Ace (or future ace) pilot. Historically, most pilots (i.e., anyone other than Veteran or Ace pilots) were absolutely terrible at ranging and deflection shooting, especially when shooting at distant targets or at high deflection angles.

Usually that is not what I see, the agressiveness and the will to get into any fight is there (and maybe too much so), but the accuracy is often not. At least when firing at nearly static targets, e. g. bombers and or ground targets. I've seen it quite often that rookies approach bombers from dead six (okay as rookie doesn't/shouldn't know this is bad), and start firing at 800m out (maybe okay -rookies tend to underestimate distance to big targets), and usually shoot below, but instead of readjusting their aim they fire away till around 300m distance , and most of the times do not hit at all(not okay - at least not for most rokies IMHO). And non moving ground targets with guns - usually not doable for rookie - and lets not get started about rockets and bombs - but give them torpedoes and the enemy can expect to lose a ship.

[Woke Up Dead]

Could be that you two (majorfailure and Pursuivant) have experiences with different AI planes. I found that Ace AI pilots in mid-war 109s seem to be a lot smarter and use their planes' strengths much better than mid-war Spit AI Aces, for example.

[stugumby]

Keenly interested in New bombs rockets and flares. Flare usage in fmb can be quite tricky, current swordfish does bizarre acrobatics and won't drop flares over ships without trying to attack by itself. Any info out there on the ordnance cam?

Any upgrades to the hurricane field mod,rockets both wing and rear firing for pe 2/3?

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

Could be that you two (majorfailure and Pursuivant) have experiences with different AI planes. I found that Ace AI pilots in mid-war 109s seem to be a lot smarter and use their planes' strengths much better than mid-war Spit AI Aces, for example.

That's possible. I'd bet that even an AI that can't hit the broadside of a barn will destroy a few bombers with a Fw190 or Bf110 given they are not shot down -with that armament and ammo supply. But I've often seen flights of I-153M/I-16early/I15 etc that could not shoot down more than one German bomber with all their combined efforts - and sometimes even not one. Worst I've seen is 4 I-15 vs. 1 Fw189, net result 2 dead I-15 -and seemingly all ammo gone.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

At least when firing at nearly static targets, e. g. bombers and or ground targets. I've seen it quite often that rookies approach bombers from dead six (okay as rookie doesn't/shouldn't know this is bad), and start firing at 800m out (maybe okay -rookies tend to underestimate distance to big targets), and usually shoot below, but instead of readjusting their aim they fire away till around 300m distance , and most of the times do not hit at all(not okay - at least not for most rokies IMHO).

I think you're right. I was only speaking about Rookie gunnery in fighter vs. fighter engagements.

But, AI sucks at all levels against bombers. Even Ace AI attacking from the front will pass up easy head on attacks. Then, they pull up, take their sweet time turning around, and rather than gaining speed and position to make an overhead beam attack or have another try at a head on attack, they go straight for the 6 o'clock level attack that gets them shot to pieces.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

And non moving ground targets with guns - usually not doable for rookie - and lets not get started about rockets and bombs - but give them torpedoes and the enemy can expect to lose a ship.

I think that bombing and rocket accuracy (or lack thereof) is about right for rookies. Certainly, they should be pathetic at high altitude level bombing.

Torpedo accuracy is a problem, though - rookies are still too good at it.

Right now, I'm seeing "Ace" level tactics and gunnery skills for Rookies in fighter vs. fighter engagements, "Rookie" level tactics and gunnery skills for all levels of AI in fighter vs. bomber engagements, Ace level torpedo bombing skills for Rookies, and appropriately lousy skills for bombing, rocket and ground attacks.

Maybe I'm being a bit too hard on Rookie AI here, but historically combat pilots were pretty useless for their first few missions, even if they had pretty good training and prior peacetime flying experience. And, poorly trained "cannon fodder" pilots, like those fielded by the RAF in Autumn of 1940, the VVS from 1941-42, Germany in 1944 or Japan in 1944-45, should be even worse.

For what it's worth, one analysis of pilot performance (for fairly well-trained pilots - JG26 in WW2, Lafayette Escadrille and Jasta 1 in WW1) - showed that a novice pilot had a 50% chance of getting shot down in his first decisive combat engagement, with his chances of getting shot down decreasing 20-fold (about 5%) after his 5th combat mission, and dropping about 50-fold (about a 2% chance) per mission after 10 missions. Stats for gunnery accuracy assumed about 2% hits in training for novices, 3% for successful gunnery school graduates, and 5% for experienced aircrew.

Rookie high level bomber crews could expect to get about 5% of their bombs within 1,000 feet of the target, up to about 50% for very experienced crews (which is why the "lead bomber" and "pathfinder" concepts were introduced.)

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find data for what level of performance was expected from rookies (i.e., training school graduates) for ground attack with rockets or bombs, or attacks against ships with torpedoes. I doubt that even the best trained rookies had much practice, though.

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

Could be that you two (majorfailure and Pursuivant) have experiences with different AI planes. I found that Ace AI pilots in mid-war 109s seem to be a lot smarter and use their planes' strengths much better than mid-war Spit AI Aces, for example.

DT already stated previously that even within each of the separate AI skill ratings (Novice, Rookie, etc.) there are randomly selected AI sub-routines. One Veteran AI pilot might have different behavioral characteristics to another Veteran AI pilot flying the same aircraft type, though they both have the same general skill level.

You could simply be noticing the result of this, coupled to better performance usually associated with late-war machinery, though it is possible that the AI is written to be "smarter" as the war progresses. Don't know if the latter is in fact the case, however.

[Derda508]

Again, I think, we have to seperate between historically correct and reasonable for a gameplay. Current fighter AI (below ace level) is much to agressive. Lots of real pilots will have prayed for a mission were they dit not have an engagement with enemy fighters. Also, from what I read, it was extremely rare for a (German) fighter pilot to try more than one attack run on bombers. The stress to face all these dozens of machine guns was just not managable, only a few aces were ablöe to do that. The typical thing was: trying to get on higher altitude (if there is enough time), rushing down on the bombers (if you find them), while hoping that the covering fighters look elsewhere, pouring all ammo onto one target (if it was possible to get close to one) and then dive to get the hell out of there. AI in contrast attacks again and again until each one of them is killed. A behaviour that fat Göring would have loved, but did not happen usually. I remember from an interview with Günter Rall that from 44 on only every fifth rookie survived his tenth mission. The most frequent cause of death was not being shot down, but accidents during landing and take off ...

[Pursuivant]

This article, written by a noted wargame designer and air war historian gives some data on hit percentages for torpedoes and dive bombing against ships.

DT might find it helpful in establishing baselines for dive bombing and torpedo bombing accuracy, since it involves pilots of known skill aiming against targets of a known size from known altitudes.

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/arti...en_it_counted/

Takeaway

Japanese at Pearl Harbor (i.e., excellent torpedoes, Veteran or better crew who had trained extensively for the mission, and who were attacking static, battleship-sized targets) achieved 37% overall accuracy - which was exceptional.

Level bomber accuracy for all other skills and nationalities was 1-3% in 1941, but Japanese pilots preparing for Pearl Harbor were getting hits 14% of the time, from 8,500 feet. At Pearl Harbor, they hit 43% of the time with level bombing attacks.

Up until 1941, German Stukas (all skill levels) achieved 25% accuracy in dive bombing attacks. Japanese dive bombers were hitting practice targets 30% to 34% of the time; at Pearl Harbor, under fire, their accuracy rate was at least 26%. So, 25% dive bombing accuracy while under fire is probably appropriate for Veteran pilots.

By late 1944 the US Navy was pleased to achieve a 40% accuracy rate for practice torpedo bombing (i.e., presumably Rookie level pilots). In training the Japanese torpedoes were hitting 70% to 80% of daylight targets and 50% to 75% at night; at Pearl Harbor their accuracy rate was 51%.

According to the US Navy 20 torpedoes hit American ships. Only the 40 Mitsubishi 'Kate' torpedo bombers of the first wave carried torpedoes. The USS Nevada shot down one 'Kate' before it could release its load, so only thirty-nine torpedoes were dropped. Twenty found their mark = 51% hits.

So, 50% or so can be taken as the maximum accuracy level for a Veteran or Ace torpedo bomber aiming against a static battleship while under light and inaccurate AA fire. Assuming that combat effectiveness of torpedo attacks is reduced by 30% compared to training runs, perhaps 10% hits for Rookies making daylight attacks, and 1-3% for night attacks would be realistic

In the first wave 21 of the 49 800kg high altitude bombs scored direct hits on the battleships USS Arizona, California, Maryland, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and West Virginia; three more damaged the USS Oklahoma with near misses. The Japanese pilots targeting battleships had a 43% accuracy rate, 49% including near misses. In either case, the Nakjima B5N 'Kate's' level bombing was far better than predicted and much better than the 13%-14% achieved before intensive training.

In the second wave, of 80 bombs, 21 were effective, a 26-27% accuracy rate which is still less than the 30%-34% scored in practice. The difference is accounted for by the fact that the pilots were diving into smoke and evading flak.

So, medium-altitude level bombing by light bombers piloted by Veteran aircrew should have about 43-49% accuracy in combat, reduced to 26-27% if the target is obscured by smoke and/or planes have to deal with flak. Average to Rookie level level bombing in 1939-41 should have dismal results with just 1-3% accuracy, especially if dropping bombs from higher levels or in combat conditions.

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

But, AI sucks at all levels against bombers. Even Ace AI attacking from the front will pass up easy head on attacks. Then, they pull up, take their sweet time turning around, and rather than gaining speed and position to make an overhead beam attack or have another try at a head on attack, they go straight for the 6 o'clock level attack that gets them shot to pieces.

Confirmed. I noticed several times that Ace AI builds up an altitude advantage over enemy bomber formations just to gain speed for a level attack from 6. Once above (or nearly above) the bomber, Ace AI doesn't directly dive on the bomber to aim for a deflection shot, but dives behind the bomber for a fast level attack. Possibly the built up altitude/energy advantage (generally 5-600 m) is not sufficient for a proper dive attack. Or the AI is coded in a way that it cannot tolerate for long the loss of visual contact to the target.
The situation is somewhat similar when the AI decides not to level out at the altitude of the bombers, but to dive below it. Instead of closing up to the bomber at that lower altitude and attacking it from a steep climb, the AI soon begins a shallow climb and makes a level attack after all.