4.13 development update discussion and feedback

[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.

[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.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes. There is a point where "realistic" isn't "fun" and IL2 is a game as much as a simulation.

Right now, I think that DT has gotten the "fun" aspect of rookie fighter vs. fighter AI right. They're clumsy but aggressive, making it easy for an experienced human player to shoot down a lot of them. Other aspects of Rookie AI are very frustrating, however, and should be fixed. Note that "fixing" could be as simple as telling players, "Yes, they really were this bad."

I've always maintained that the solution to different interpretations of "rookie" is to have a level of AI below rookie, called "cannon fodder." They would behave like old, pre-DT rookies in combat, but with no SA or deflection shooting skills at all, and very limited sighting skills.

That way, Rookie AI is reserved for your average "nugget" straight from a well-run training school. Clueless, and needing lots of polishing to turn him into a decent air warrior, but with the basic skills he needs to succeed.

If possible, it would also be nice to be able to set pilot aggression levels in the FMB or campaign setting, from "reckless > aggressive > cautious > cowardly".

Most pilots would fall into the "cautious" range, attacking only when they have several clear advantages like height and position, and they clearly outclass their foes. Ace AI plus "cautious" gives your classic high-scoring "sniper" ace like Manfred Von Richthofen, Eric Hartmann or George Beurling.

Cowardly pilots will avoid contact, will fail to carry through attacks and might well panic when fired on. Combine that with Rookie AI and you get your classic "turkey" pilot. Combine it with Ace AI and you get a "burnout" who's on the ragged edge of Combat Fatigue/PTSD, or who believes that the war is lost and his main job is to keep himself alive (typical of many French pilots in 1940 after the Blitzkreig really started to bite).

Reckless pilots will charge right in regardless of the odds and are otherwise utterly fearless - basically dead heroes waiting to happen. With Ace AI that gives you classic posthumous medal winners like Frank Luke or Werner Voss in WW1 or Greg Boyington in WW2 (I know - not posthumous Medal of Honor, but the Marines thought he was dead when they gave it to him). With Rookie AI, you get kamikazes.

Originally Posted by Derda508

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.

This is the effect of morale, which isn't well modeled in IL2. Had the Germans known just how inaccurate all those guns were, they would have charged right in. But, seeing all those tracers, all "aimed at you" freaked out all but the bravest. For this reason, German bomber gun loadout included some practice explosive rounds specifically to make attackers think that they were under a greater intensity of fire than they actually were.

Of course, having Rookie AI refuse to engage bombers would be "not fun." That's where "bravery levels" can be used to balance between realism and fun. Rookie but Reckless = current Rookie vs. Bomber AI, Rookie but Cautious/Cowardly = realistic German rookie bomber intercept behavior.

Originally Posted by Derda508

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 ...

Rall's interview squares with the data I've posted previously (taken from Spick's "The Ace Factor," but repeated in Bungay's book on the BoB).

The high number of accidents on landing and takeoff might be due to evil habits of the late model Bf-109 - lots of engine torque and a narrow landing gear - plus landing on improvised or bomb damaged fields. But, again, losing 10-20% of your pilots due to landing and takeoff accidents on every mission is "not fun."

[TexasJG]

May have mentioned this before, for 4.13 or 4.14
be nice to have analog controls for the X-4, Fritz, and for the Mistel bomber (along with any other guided munitions).
As is, the X-4 and Fritz are a digital control, and the Mistel has none.

And speaking of the Mistel, it would be cool to have an Mistel FW-190/Ju-88 combo static object, and the ability to use this weapons system in Dogfight mode.

Just one of a million request..
Thanks Daidalos Team!!

[Laurwin]

Best way to deal with tough manouvering AIs is to understand the following tips from real American F-16 pilot Pete Bonanni.

-BFM manouver is always flown "in the future" as it were. In order for a high yoyo to become effective, the bandit must fly according to your prediction of future.

Time happens on a different basis compared to BFM drawing on a piece of paper. Time happens in definite way, the present moment becomes the past, and this continues on and on. The definite version of future is always some kind of abstract assumption of future events. Future in the abstract becomes the present, and present becomes the past. etc...

When you deal with simple and short-term assumption of future event, this is always easier to define compared to long-term future event. When you look at a fast flying bandit, it follows that the bandit's turn circle is larger, therefore, the bandit will not be able to turn so easily... Fast flying bandit = more difficult for bandit to turn aircraft... G force limit of bandit pilot and bandit aircraft form a limitation to turning circles... This assumption derives itself from physics of inertia. But you still cannot exactly predict bandit's future course, you can only assume within certain parameters.

The F-16 modern gunsight operates on this similar kind of principles. EEGS Gunsight. Radar-gunsights should be theoretically better, because radar beams are light-speed, so it doesn't take very long time to find the target in the sky with the radar. But computer still must calculate the lead for the gunshot, at the end of the day, I think...

With WW2 gunsights it's the pilot himself who calculates the lead.

The only consistently possible way to dogfight, is to employ following measures.

1. observe bandit

2. predict bandit's future position

3. fly your aicraft based on this prediction of future.

4. if something changes, react to changes.

Those four lines form the so-called OODA loop by the way.