Quote:
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.)