Another question for TD..

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by IceFire

I definitely understand this and how it doesn't make any sense at all to shoot at a burning bomber. I curse the AI while I'm offline... and then I take a step online and what do I see? Three guys all jockeying for position shooting at a burning bomber.

Offline, I think that this problem has more to do with how the game recognizes kills than AI. For example, sometimes the game doesn't credit you with a kill even when you've set a plane on fire and seen the crew bail out.

Online, it has more to do with "vulching" and the natural tendency to fixate on a single target. That, plus the fact that the game doesn't credit your team with a kill until the plane blows up or crashes.

But, even so, target fixation is a rookie/average pilot mistake. Veteran and ace pilots shouldn't just chase a single plane while ignoring every other bandit in sight. Instead, they should choose their targets more carefully.

A very simple algorithm which would aid AI team behavior immensely would be "lead pair takes nearest appropriate target, next pair takes next closest appropriate target, etc."

And, even if they are trying to take out a single plane, veteran or ace AI should use section, flight or squadron tactics. I have yet to see even Ace AI use a simple "drag and bag" technique where the lead plane in a section breaks to give his wingman a shot at an enemy plane on the leader's tail.

In a 4-1 fight one section should try to "box" the enemy plane to "herd" it into the other section's guns. In a 6-1 or 8-1 fight, veteran or ace AI should "envelope" the plane attacking from multiple angles at once.

Against heavy bombers, Average or better AI should always try high-side or head-on attacks if possible (using some algorithm which measures relative time required to get into position for the shot). Failing that, they should try level or low beam attacks - from the front quarter if possible, otherwise from the side and then from the rear if nothing else is possible. If only stern chase attacks are possible, they should target the tail gunner first.

When a flight of average or better AI planes attacks a formation of heavies (or a single heavy bomber), they should all attack at once with different sections attacking from different angles in order to split the defensive firepower.

OTOH, Rookie AI will do stupid things like attack one at a time vs. a formation of heavies. Yes, that really happened. A friend of mine's father was a B-24 pilot and told a story about how his flight was bounced by Zeroes. The Americans thought they were dead for sure, but the Japanese peeled off and attacked one at a time.

[Lagarto]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

For example, sometimes the game doesn't credit you with a kill even when you've set a plane on fire and seen the crew bail out.

By the way, I always found it strange that this game - a Russian game! - doesn't credit you with a ramming kill (intentional or not), unless the victim of your 'taran' crashed first. I remember my disappointment years ago when I tried reenacting those famous ramming attacks by VVS pilots, and wasn't getting victory credits for them.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

And, even if they are trying to take out a single plane, veteran or ace AI should use section, flight or squadron tactics. I have yet to see even Ace AI use a simple "drag and bag" technique where the lead plane in a section breaks to give his wingman a shot at an enemy plane on the leader's tail.

They do sort of do that. At least rookie AI does. They almost always exclusivley do guns defence turns in a direction that leads you towards their wingman.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Offline, I think that this problem has more to do with how the game recognizes kills than AI. For example, sometimes the game doesn't credit you with a kill even when you've set a plane on fire and seen the crew bail out.

I think AI can not acknowledge the difference between a perfectly good plane and a severly damaged one that is still afloat - but will highly likely not make it far.
As for personal score, I loathed the AI for killstealing, and I tended to finish off my kills so they were unstealable. Nowadays I think of it as a team sport, as long as my team scores, I don't care who shot the goal. In the end I do think I even get more personal kills by that...

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

I think AI can not acknowledge the difference between a perfectly good plane and a severly damaged one that is still afloat - but will highly likely not make it far.

I think that you're right. And, I think that this is a limitation to both scoring, campaign realism and AI behavior. If the game instantly registered "minor damage," "severe damage," "crippled" and "dead" then it would offer a lot more potential in all those areas.

Scoring: You get credit for damaged (minor damage), possible kills (severe damage), probable kills (crippled) and kills.

Campaign realism: Planes which take minor damage are out of the campaign for a day or so. Planes that take severe damage are out of the campaign for a couple of days or a couple of weeks (depending on plane type and supply situation). Planes that are crippled are write-offs but can be used for parts. Killed planes are useless.

AI behavior: A human player can easily tell if a bandit is badly damaged or still fully functional, AI can't. As such, even an average human player can make decisions like, "His engine is throwing black smoke. Since the only advantage he had over me was speed, now that his engine is gone I can fight on my own terms." Letting the AI know, "primary opponent has suffered severe engine damage" allows it to adjust its parameters.

And, best of all, the minor/major/crippled status for planes already exists in the game in the form of existing damage models. Damage sufficient to trigger minor damage skin change is "minor damage/damaged". Damage sufficient to trigger a major damage skin change is "major damage/possible kill." Damage sufficient to count as a "critical hit" which causes smoke, fire, destroys the engine, or which removes entire parts of the plane counts as "crippled/probable/write-off".

The only thing that needs to change is that the game needs to recognize that flame on a plane that doesn't have a fire extinguisher, crew bailing out, wing or fuselage breaking, explosion or crash landing counts as a "kill" and should be instantly counted as such. The one exception would be that for campaigns, if a plane crashes behind friendly lines, if it's just a wheels up landing that bends the prop and damages the underbelly, or a ground loop, the plane counts as "severely damaged" rather than crippled/write-off. A crash landing that tears off parts is a write-off. And, any plane that lands behind enemy lines or in water is a "kill" regardless of its actual damage state.