ok AI require heavy fixes.especialy when some (friendly or enemy) AI had began the landing procces they will not pay attention to anything even if their oponent is directed at their 6 in low distance.This causes another error when you ask them to help they respond ( here we go attacking bandits ) but nothing.I died so many times in this way. (I think one day i will begin hunting those deserters). another nice idea is if TD creates charachters for AI and create deserters is that other friendly AI will begin hunting them.

Probably true - I'm trying to learn that myself still ... :)

Agree that ship AI doesn't need to be very complicated; even an illusion of evasive maneuver (designed with collision avoidance in mind) would be welcomed.

Experienced this as well - actually if the mission designer does not built in a lot of AAA to 'discourage' intruders you can follow a disengaged enemy flight back to their base in some relatively compact maps (short distance between enemy base and yours) and shoot them down relatively easily if you wait till they get into landing pattern.

Also tried some more match up recently - AI certainly do not fly to the advantage of the BnZ planes, making some rookie and regular AI turn fighters, the Zero for example, more dangerous than they should be.

Cheers,

This is not entirely true. Sometimes they behave like that, but there were some changes, I have see it by now a lot of times, that an attacked landing plane does floor the throttle and pulls up gear and figths back -or tries. And in former days the AI stuck to the landing circle once they entered it, and no earthquake or hurricane could change that. It was a funny day in the AIs home when I approached their field with their landing planes after one of the last patches and was ready for some easy prey, and got in turn my ass handed to me. Sometimes they still revert to that former catatonic state, and maybe that is realistic, a pilot fully concentrated on his approach and not aware of enemy planes present may have reacted the same.

One way to do this would be to allow mission builders to "copy and offset" waypoints in the FMB, and to assign them to different vehicles.

For example, say that you want to get a line of ships to zigzag in line abreast formation. You'd set the speed and zig-zagging waypoints for the first ship. Then you'd tell the FMB to copy that series of waypoints a certain number of times, offsetting each waypoint by a set direction and distance.

For example, for a formation of 5 ships, you'd tell the FMB to offset waypoints vertically (say north and south if the central ship is traveling east or west) by 300 m, centered on the first ship, with 2 iterations. That would give you a formation of 5 ships - one in the center, one offset by 300 m north, one at 600 m north, one at 300 m south, and one at 600 m south.

You could then edit each ship to make it different.

Alternately, or additionally, the FMB could allow the mission designer to include "station keeping" where certain vehicles are automatically linked in formation and are programmed to move identically to the "central" vehicle in the formation as best they can.

If the central vehicle is destroyed, or if a following vehicle cannot keep station for some reason, it automatically acquires the waypoints of the central vehicle, and attempts to follow those waypoints on its own.

This is already automatic, to some degree, for aircraft, but could be applied to any vehicle in the game. And, since simple "station keeping" routines in the FMB aren't true AI (with collision avoidance and enemy detection) they might not be that hard to program.

As a third idea, mission builders could be provided with "stock" sets of waypoints, such as zig-zagging, weaving, circling or altitude change which would modify the usual straight line path between waypoints.

For example, when the mission builder lays out waypoints, the FMB could give him the option for "zig-zag" with a set or "random within a given range" distance between zig-zags, and with a set or "random within a range" distance for each "leg" of the vehicle's path.

The mission builder would place his first waypoint normally, then "draw a line" to the second waypoint, but the FMB would interpret that as a whole series of zig-zagging waypoints and place them appropriately. That way, the mission builder just needs to place two waypoints and the FMB does the rest.

Pre-programmed movement using this option could be:

Zig-zag/weave - alternating 5 to 85 degree left and right turns with equidistant "legs" to each "zig" or "zag" and an offsetting turn of the same angle so that the vehicle consistently crosses its baseline path at the same interval of time or distance traveled.

Random zig-zag/weave - random 5 to 90 degree left and right turns that eventually get the vehicle to "point B".

Rectangular search pattern/overlapping squares/rectangles - The vehicle travels 2x meters, then turns 90 degrees left or right and travels y meters, it then turns in the 90 degrees in the same direction as it did before and travels for x meters in the opposite direction from its baseline course, it then turns again and travels back y meters, until it reaches its baseline course and turns 90 degrees again, at which the cycle repeats.

Circular search pattern/far escort/loiter - The vehicle travels 2n meters, then makes a circular turn to the left or right with a diameter of n meters.

Oval search/fare escort/loiter/"Race track" - As above, but the vehicle flies a series of overlapping ovals.

Corkscrew - aircraft makes a diving turn 5-15 degrees right or left and loses n/2 meters of altitude moving left or right until it until it reaches a point equal to (altitude to be lost/2). At that point, it reverses its turn and loses another n/2 meters of altitude until it reaches its baseline course and bottom baseline altitude. It then climbs and diverts from its baseline course until it regains (altitude lost/2) and reaches and equivalent point from its baseline course. It then reverses its turn and regains its baseline altitude and course at which point the cycle repeats.

Regular altitude change - As for zig-zag, but aircraft regularly gains and loses altitude within a set range.

Random altitude change - As for random zig-zag, but aircraft randomly gains and loses altitude within a set range. Always keeping a baseline distance above the ground.

Terrain hugging - Aircraft always adjusts altitude to remain X number of feet above the ground.

Question - does the ship AI today capable of path-finding - i.e. avoiding obstacles/hazards automatically?

If so then there are more options to be explored - if not, the third option:

"As a third idea, mission builders could be provided with "stock" sets of waypoints, such as zig-zagging, weaving, circling or altitude change which would modify the usual straight line path between waypoints."

is probably the most feasible. The first option seems to be a lot of work for the mission builder if there is a fair number of ships in the formation.

Cheers,

AI ships have no 'path-finding' abilities. They are only programmed to follow their waypoints. They will collide with anything that gets in their way.

Aviar

My humble proposition is to take into consideration my humble proposition as in #60.

The idea of having "ship packs" is a good one, and would save mission builders a lot of time since the FMB could be loaded with preset historical packs like "1942 Western Allied Convoy" or "Midway, June 4, Japanese Carrier Task Force".

The same idea could be applied to aircraft and ground vehicles as well, with formations such as "1944 U.S. Heavy Bomber Group Box Formation" or "1942 Soviet T-34 Tank Formation"

If this is implemented, another nice feature might be for the FMB to allow mission builders to create and save custom formations. That would allow TD to just include a few generic formations (e.g., "German destroyers line abreast") and let the fans create actual historical formations.

The "fun" of this starts when your formations need to turn. Without collision avoidance you will need a preprogrammed turning pattern for each formation. For player-created formations, player would need to create a pattern, too. There would be more than one mission designer willing to create and test such formation patterns I assume, so if created make them user-accessible, and let us experiment with it.

The first step would be to create pre-defined formations with fixed positions and pre-defined turning patterns. Hard-coded. If they work flawlessly, then the customization can begin, but not before. Say, you create a hard-coded formation like

_1_2
3_4_5
_6_7

Numbers here represent slots. The user can decide whether he/she fills a slot with whatever ship. If the turning pattern is defined in a parametric way (according to the slowest and worst turning ship in the pack), then it's pure mathematics to calculate each element's route (avoiding collisions).