4.13 development update discussion and feedback

[Derda508]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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."

The late 109´s certainly were rookie killers. But it happened to FW 190 pilots as well. In ´44 many rookies were trained on old, obsolete Italian fighters. In these machines you lowered throttle by pushing the lever in. As soon as they sat in much more powerful "modern" combat planes, it was just the other way round. Not much imagination needed about the effects ...
In his novel "Der verratene Himmel" (Skies Betrayed) Rudolf Braunburg gave some vivid accounts of this, based on his own experience as a rookie 190 pilot in ´45.

(By the way: he dedicated this book to all fighter pilots who never scored a kill, but just were shot down ... like himself)

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Derda508

In ´44 many rookies were trained on old, obsolete Italian fighters. In these machines you lowered throttle by pushing the lever in. As soon as they sat in much more powerful "modern" combat planes, it was just the other way round.

The French planes were also built this way - push the throttle to slow, pull it towards you to accelerate. Since the Luftwaffe also used a number of Dewoitine D.250 as fighter trainers, I could see those planes causing problems as well.

It's surprising that the Luftwaffe didn't think to fix this problem. I also have to wonder how many Free French or Italian Allied pilots flying British, Soviet or American types died because in a moment of panic they pushed the throttle the wrong way.

[Treetop64]

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. 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 ...

I do agree that Rookie AI is too competent. For instance, there is virtually no chance ever of downing Rookie AI fighters from behind without them suddenly becoming "aware" of you before you open fire, even if you initially got the jump on them without them spotting you. Also, Rookie AI are a bit too good keeping up with and downing Veteran and Ace AI, while Veteran and Ace fighter pilots are often too aggressive in turn-fights in aircraft that are definitely not suited to the job, getting themselves shot down in the process. If there is one thing that the old AI got right, it's that AI in BnZ machines stuck to BnZ, and AI in TnB machines stuck to TnB. Yet another issue is, as you stated, a formation will continue a fight against long odds (well-defended bomber formations, attacking well-defended airfields, etc.) until every aircraft in that formation is destroyed.

Another thing that has actually become quite an annoyance is how often the no.4 in the flight goes inverted and performs other gyrations checking his six and what's underneath him, even when the flight is almost at treetop level. It's just too much, and occurs way too damned bloody often. Never cared for it. That needs to be either significantly toned down or, better yet, turned off altogether. Even entire bomber formations was doing this in a previous update of the game when the community made enough noise and said it was ridiculous, before that got removed.

On the whole the new AI is an improvement, but there are some areas that really need addressing.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Treetop64

Yet another issue is, as you stated, a formation will continue a fight against long odds (well-defended bomber formations, attacking well-defended airfields, etc.) until every aircraft in that formation is destroyed.

This is part of the morale issue that IL2 AI either neglects or can't model. Historically, the sight of all sorts of tracers and/or flak shooting past the formation would have had a demoralizing effect, making all but the most determined attackers break off the attack prematurely, or make one fast attack on the target before bugging out.

There are historical examples of planes bravely slogging through fighters and flak to certain doom (e.g., Fairey Battles at the Albert Canal or the Sedan Bridge, the kamikazes), but I think they're notably rare.

Suicidal morale aside, it's also worth pointing out that all levels AI is still stupid about not using "nap of the earth" flying and other tricks to minimize flak effectiveness.

AI should also selectively take out the first vehicle in a convoy, or the locomotive, when making ground attacks against vehicles or trains. If possible, Veteran or Ace AI should also try to line up strafing attacks so that they can shoot down the length of a train or convoy, or across a line of parked aircraft.

Originally Posted by Treetop64

Another thing that has actually become quite an annoyance is how often the no.4 in the flight goes inverted and performs other gyrations checking his six and what's underneath him, even when the flight is almost at treetop level.

I think that this problem has mostly been fixed. But, the rolling behavior seems a bit odd; it's my impression that the "Tail End Charlie" mostly checked his 6 by making rudder turns and banks.

Finger four formations would often have planes in each section weave across each other's paths to check mutual blind spots.

Fighters in close escort with bombers didn't need to "check 6" since they could rely on all the eyes in the bomber formation to keep a look out for them.

In any case, "check 6" behavior should happen a lot less frequently. Some doctrine said to not fly more than 10 seconds in a straight line in the combat zone, other doctrine suggested no more than 30 seconds. I'd split the difference - Ace maneuvers or otherwise checks 6 about every 10 seconds, Veteran about every 30 seconds, Average about every 30 seconds, but often forgets, and Rookie either doesn't check or doesn't check much beyond every 1 minute.

Originally Posted by Treetop64

On the whole the new AI is an improvement, but there are some areas that really need addressing.

Agreed. AI programming is an art, and DT has mostly got it right. Certainly, it's a joy to fly offline dogfights now. Ace or Veteran AI is quite challenging, and if you can win in a 1:2 or 1:4 fight against an equally matched Ace or Veteran plane, it's a real achievement.

[Laurwin]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

AI should also selectively take out the first vehicle in a convoy, or the locomotive, when making ground attacks against vehicles or trains. If possible, Veteran or Ace AI should also try to line up strafing attacks so that they can shoot down the length of a train or convoy, or across a line of parked aircraft.



I think that this problem has mostly been fixed. But, the rolling behavior seems a bit odd; it's my impression that the "Tail End Charlie" mostly checked his 6 by making rudder turns and banks.

Finger four formations would often have planes in each section weave across each other's paths to check mutual blind spots.

Fighters in close escort with bombers didn't need to "check 6" since they could rely on all the eyes in the bomber formation to keep a look out for them.

In any case, "check 6" behavior should happen a lot less frequently. Some doctrine said to not fly more than 10 seconds in a straight line in the combat zone, other doctrine suggested no more than 30 seconds. I'd split the difference - Ace maneuvers or otherwise checks 6 about every 10 seconds, Veteran about every 30 seconds, Average about every 30 seconds, but often forgets, and Rookie either doesn't check or doesn't check much beyond every 1 minute.



Agreed. AI programming is an art, and DT has mostly got it right. Certainly, it's a joy to fly offline dogfights now. Ace or Veteran AI is quite challenging, and if you can win in a 1:2 or 1:4 fight against an equally matched Ace or Veteran plane, it's a real achievement.

I'd like to see better AI-ground attack capability for sure. It's annoying when they can barely hit targets on the ground with bombs rockets or cannon. Yet they have the mechanical precision deflection shooting sometimes LOL. 'This is annyoing when you play ground attack campaign with fighter-bomber, and your teammates suck. Well, more glory towards me I suppose.

About being outnumbered in dogfight... Some pilots became aces by exactly speaking avoiding bad situations... avoiding such disadvantages, and gaining advantages.

Erich Hartman said that it's ok to bag one or two kills per day, but survive back to home base. War continues in the next day.

Better to become ace by stacking all the advantages in your own favour, especially when in war deployment.

That being said, there exists offensive flying, and defensive flying. Defensive flying is important for surviving, but... being defensive is not usually good, but certainly it's better to be defensive than DEAD. But even so, defensive fighting is to be avoided, it's an indicator of bad things to come.

Pete Bonanni said this in "Art of the Kill" video. Pete who was an F-16 pilot, said that he wished there was some magical manouver which would tip the scales against bandit, like in the movie top gun "slamming the breaks". He said that sadly no such manouver exists which is guaranteed success in defensive flying.

Think about the so-called UFC fighting/mixed martial arts. It's always better to be the one who is giving strikes and submissions against the opponent, rather than receiving and suffering and defending.


There is also so-called neutral situation dogfight, where neither side is especially advantageous over the other.

traditionally these are some advantages that can exist in dogfight.

-detection advantage, allows you to manouver for time period against immobile bandit (he's immobile or sluggish relative to your own movements)

-positional advantage, you start behind bandit's tail (behind 3-9 line, measured from bandit's clock positions)

-energy advantage, you start with more energy than bandit

-numbers advantage, over bandits

-sun behind your own back, and the bandit in front of you. This simply causes shadow formed from your aircraft and makes it difficult for bandit to locate you against backdrop of the burning bright sun!

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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).

I think you're right. I was only speaking about Rookie gunnery in fighter vs. fighter engagements.

But, AI sucks at all levels against bombers. Even Ace AI attacking from the front will pass up easy head on attacks. Then, they pull up, take their sweet time turning around, and rather than gaining speed and position to make an overhead beam attack or have another try at a head on attack, they go straight for the 6 o'clock level attack that gets them shot to pieces.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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.

I think that bombing and rocket accuracy (or lack thereof) is about right for rookies. Certainly, they should be pathetic at high altitude level bombing.

Torpedo accuracy is a problem, though - rookies are still too good at it.

Right now, I'm seeing "Ace" level tactics and gunnery skills for Rookies in fighter vs. fighter engagements, "Rookie" level tactics and gunnery skills for all levels of AI in fighter vs. bomber engagements, Ace level torpedo bombing skills for Rookies, and appropriately lousy skills for bombing, rocket and ground attacks.

Maybe I'm being a bit too hard on Rookie AI here, but historically combat pilots were pretty useless for their first few missions, even if they had pretty good training and prior peacetime flying experience. And, poorly trained "cannon fodder" pilots, like those fielded by the RAF in Autumn of 1940, the VVS from 1941-42, Germany in 1944 or Japan in 1944-45, should be even worse.

For what it's worth, one analysis of pilot performance (for fairly well-trained pilots - JG26 in WW2, Lafayette Escadrille and Jasta 1 in WW1) - showed that a novice pilot had a 50% chance of getting shot down in his first decisive combat engagement, with his chances of getting shot down decreasing 20-fold (about 5%) after his 5th combat mission, and dropping about 50-fold (about a 2% chance) per mission after 10 missions. Stats for gunnery accuracy assumed about 2% hits in training for novices, 3% for successful gunnery school graduates, and 5% for experienced aircrew.

Rookie high level bomber crews could expect to get about 5% of their bombs within 1,000 feet of the target, up to about 50% for very experienced crews (which is why the "lead bomber" and "pathfinder" concepts were introduced.)

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find data for what level of performance was expected from rookies (i.e., training school graduates) for ground attack with rockets or bombs, or attacks against ships with torpedoes. I doubt that even the best trained rookies had much practice, though.

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

But, AI sucks at all levels against bombers. Even Ace AI attacking from the front will pass up easy head on attacks. Then, they pull up, take their sweet time turning around, and rather than gaining speed and position to make an overhead beam attack or have another try at a head on attack, they go straight for the 6 o'clock level attack that gets them shot to pieces.

Confirmed. I noticed several times that Ace AI builds up an altitude advantage over enemy bomber formations just to gain speed for a level attack from 6. Once above (or nearly above) the bomber, Ace AI doesn't directly dive on the bomber to aim for a deflection shot, but dives behind the bomber for a fast level attack. Possibly the built up altitude/energy advantage (generally 5-600 m) is not sufficient for a proper dive attack. Or the AI is coded in a way that it cannot tolerate for long the loss of visual contact to the target.
The situation is somewhat similar when the AI decides not to level out at the altitude of the bombers, but to dive below it. Instead of closing up to the bomber at that lower altitude and attacking it from a steep climb, the AI soon begins a shallow climb and makes a level attack after all.