Suggestions for AI Improvements in Future Updates

[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.

[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 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,

[Furio]

Originally Posted by ben_wh

Interesting - can you elaborate what you mean by this and how this can be accomplished in-game?

First of all, I’m not an expert in AI coding, so my suggestions can be only generic. That said I would start from the simplest problem (or from the one that looks simplest to me): the damaged plane in the landing pattern. The rationale of the solution is simple: when the situation is so complex that AI pilots and control tower are unable to take the right decision, the player should take over. To say it with more details:
The player sees a plane smoking being sent around by control tower, or the player’s plane is smoking, or leaking fuel, and is sent around.
The player hits a key meaning: “Taking Over Mode”.
He hits a second key meaning: “Controller”. He assumes the controller role, the same way as shifting through crew positions.
He hits a third key meaning: “This Plane Must Land First.”
He hits the call number of the plane.
He hits again the first key, returning to his pilot’s position.
The controller’s voice imparts the correct orders, and AI planes shift positions allowing the correct landing sequence.
It’s perhaps possible to make the whole thing even simpler, but the only real issue I see is… numbering of the planes, when there are several planes with the same call number. A smart and realistic numbering would be of help in many other situations, but is outside the scope of this post.
Another situation is absurd concentration of AI planes on the same target. Again, we can think of an appropriate list of commands.
First key: “Taking Over Mode”.
Second key: AI pilots behaviour.
Call numbers of AI controlled planes’ affected by order.
Third key: order: “Ignore your present target”.
First key again: exiting “taking over mode” and returning to your pilot’s position.

I say it again: I’m not expert and I’m using just common sense, but the whole thing looks reasonable to me, and can be reduced to just one concept: player takes decisions.

[6BL Bird-Dog]

Would it be possible to alter the default behaviour of formations of aircraft when a mission is started to match that as set in the mission builder .For example I am working on a missions for the Solomon islands and have a Squad of B-17 air start in 2 v formations .By Default the game always spawn in echelon right formation so the two second flights from each v have to drift across into echelon left .The Ai seem to do it ok after trial and error in the FMB but for a large group of players this leads to all kinds of confusion unless a detailed explanation is given in the brief and those joining actually read it . It would be far easier to write the brief also .
eg .Mission Air start at 6000ft: Heading 270deg :indicated airspeed 160mph :
Starting positions follow...
B-17 5th Bombardment Group 70% Fuel 20x250lb Bombs
flight 1 echelon right in starboard section of lead v:
fligh2 echelon left in port section of lead v:
flight3 echelon right in starboard section of v :
fligh4 echelon left in port section of trail v.
Target etc........ Bird

[sniperton]

As I see the main problem now is that issuing orders in real-time in any other way than voice communication is handicapped due to the fact that we have only two hands (already busy with flying and doing all the 'engeneering work').

[Furio]

Originally Posted by sniperton

As I see the main problem now is that issuing orders in real-time in any other way than voice communication is handicapped due to the fact that we have only two hands (already busy with flying and doing all the 'engeneering work').

In my opinion, that’s a minor problem: it can work the same way as shifting crew position. Surely the player can briefly leave his plane to autopilot. Or, the whole thing can be done in a timeout condition (sort of pause, but with the game still running).

I understand that some aspects of my idea are detrimental to immersion, but some AI behaviour can be even worse. The choice is up to the player, as always, and I would surely prefer the ability to take decisions to the frustration of helplessly watching a good mission going nuts.