Suggestions for AI Improvements in Future Updates

[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

[major.kudo]

Originally Posted by ben_wh

AI emergency landing has been a problem fro day one.
For the landing back at a friendly field issue, perhaps, as Pursuivant mentioned, having airfield marker one can assign side to (Red Vs Blue) would allow a plane to look for friendly airfield close by to land. May still need substantial coding to achieve such AI improvement though.

If AI Decision for landing airfield is range within enemy artilleries, what does AI do?

-

another one.
http://gachopin.no-ip.info/kudo/Bombers_formation.jpg
I have continued thinking that "this is a little strange".

[Furio]

Originally Posted by major.kudo

If AI Decision for landing airfield is range within enemy artilleries, what does AI do?

This is just one of the possible questions. For what I know (I can be mistaken), AIs don’t really take decisions. They react to a list of conditions with pre-set actions.

If the condition is 1, action is A, if condition is 2, action is B, and so on.

Some of the proposals require a rather more complex listing. Something like: if condition here is 1, condition of the plane is 7, condition of the pilot is 14, condition of the nearest friendly field is 2, condition of enemy planes is 16, condition of artillery is 5, then the AI’s action is C, followed by E, followed by B. Change any of the conditions (numbers) and you’ll change the actions (letters).

This is just an example, of course, and I would be glad to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable than me.

If I’m more or less right, this thread is precious, because it shows us how much complexity is required in AIs “decisions” and subsequent actions to obtain a realistic behaviour.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by major.kudo

If AI Decision for landing airfield is range within enemy artilleries, what does AI do?

The same thing applies if an airfield is under attack by enemy planes.

Historically, if they had to, planes would try to land in spite of the bombardment. Otherwise, they'd divert to another airfield or wait until the bombardment was over.

AI planes could be warned to divert or delay landing if the game registers damage to objects on or near the airfield where they were going to land.

Damaged AI planes would still go straight in for landing, regardless of whether the airfield was under attack.

Originally Posted by major.kudo

http://gachopin.no-ip.info/kudo/Bombers_formation.jpg

This is another excellent idea. Currrently, if a lead bomber in formation is damaged, the rest of the planes in the formation will follow it until it is destroyed or the crew bails out. In a few cases, I've seen formations of bombers follow a mortally wounded leader almost down to the ground.

Realistically, if the lead bomber can't hold speed or altitude, it should drop out of formation and leadership of the remaining planes in the formation should pass to the #2 plane in the formation.

Players should also have the option of passing off command of a formation to an AI plane, or taking over command of a formation if they have sufficient rank.

[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').