Suggestions for AI Improvements in Future Updates

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by major.kudo

I point out another one.
http://gachopin.no-ip.info/kudo/Unreal_gunshooting.jpg
At least, I think that impossible to the pilot of rookie and average.

Even a rookie pilot will make a guess and fire a bunch of rounds to see if they can score a hit in those kinds of situations.

Prior to the AI upgrades the AI could see 360 degrees and would make these shots regardless. With the upgrade the AI could no longer see through their aircraft but that meant adding some routines to change how the AI did aiming. With the upgrade they will now estimate the target angle and make a deflection shot guess not unlike how human pilots behave.

You are probably on to something that the Rookie pilots are perhaps too successful in this area. The effect can be toned down surely. But its not unrealistic for an average to veteran to ace pilot to be able to make this shot.

With the FW190 in particular I got to a point where I was firing blind a lot of the time and destroying my target. I'd follow the target for a while and then once I was into firing position I'd pull the stick back and although I couldn't actually see the target I'd have the whole trajectory worked out in my head and I'd score a killing shot say 7 or 8 times out of 10. No reason the AI at perhaps the veteran level to be able to do that kind of shot semi-reliably. The rookie AI... maybe not as much as it does.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by IceFire

You are probably on to something that the Rookie pilots are perhaps too successful in this area. The effect can be toned down surely.

But remember, there's some dispute over what "rookie" skill actually means. Does it mean "straight from training" with about 350 hours flying time and about 50 hours flying time "in type", plus an adequate gunnery and air combat maneuver training, or does it mean "straight from the farm" with less than 50 hours total flying time and no gunnery and combat maneuver training?

Originally Posted by IceFire

But its not unrealistic for an average to veteran to ace pilot to be able to make this shot.

Agreed. Some real life pilots described doing exactly this sort of thing.

It's also the reason that Veteran or Ace pilots will also break in an unexpected direction when they're "under the nose" of an enemy. They will anticipate the firing solution their opponent is trying to achieve on them and move to counter it.

Originally Posted by IceFire

No reason the AI at perhaps the veteran level to be able to do that kind of shot semi-reliably. The rookie AI... maybe not as much as it does.

I can't imagine even a well-trained rookie being able to pull off this shot.

The most realistic fixed-air gunnery training of the period was against towed targets pulled by a target tug. But, target tugs were (mostly) slow-moving obsolete planes to begin with, even ignoring the drag produced by towing a giant wind sock or banner.

That means that (most) target tugs just didn't have the speed required for trainees to make shots that required extreme amounts of lead.

I also can't see any responsible training officer allowing novice pilots to run the risk of accidentally shooting the target tug by making a badly miscalculated high deflection turning shot. I haven't found anything really detailed about exactly how fighter pilots attacked towed targets, but my guess is that attacks mostly consisted of "pursuit curves" which ended up with "high side attacks" against the target drogue, while keeping the target and the target tug in sight at all times.

In such situations, when a "trained rookie" can mentally plot his intended shot in advance and can keep his target in view at all times, accuracy from a high-side attack at 30-60 degrees "angle off" from the target should probably be about 2-3% at 200-300 meters, maybe a bit less for 60-60 degrees "angle off. (3% was the expected accuracy standard for UK and US gunnery schools, 5% was considered to be very good.)

For an "under the nose" attack where a "trained rookie" can't see his target, accuracy should be less than 1% at best, and might result in the rookie ending up colliding with his target, getting ahead of it, or losing awareness of its location.

For pilots with no gunnery training (e.g., 1941-43 Soviet rookie pilots, post 1943 German and Japanese rookie pilots, and many pre-1944 Chinese rookie pilots) any sort of deflection shooting at much more than 20 degrees "angle off" from the target's front or rear should be a waste of ammo.

[Treetop64]

I agree that Rookie fighter pilots are still too good in the game, especially in I-16s, while Aces now often do things in certain aircraft that they definitely shouldn't be doing. For example, play any early Barbarossa scenario with AI Ace pilots flying Bf109F-2s and AI Rookies flying I-16-18s and 24s, and watch as the Aces constantly get themselves into trouble by trying to turn fight with the I-16s - and even I-153s - and get shot up in the process.

Indeed, you see this in any theater aircraft; Veteran and Ace AI pilots in BnZ type aircraft are constantly trying to turn-fight against dedicated turn-fighters, and get stomped as a result, even when their foe is Rookie or Novice. This happens far too often to be attributed to the "occasional chance of a less skilled pilot beating a more skillful one" explanation.

With all the great improvements done to the AI recently, this is the one area where things got messed up in the process.

[ben_wh]

A few observations that I hope DT would take into consideration when they decide to further refine the AI:

1) Reading the discussion again there seems to be some consensus about the gunnery accuracy of rookie and regular AI pilot. Would love to hear more thoughts from more sim pilots.

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.

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?

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 'Thach Weave' then it would truly take offline battles to a new level.

Of course whether or how DT may adopt this is up to the team, but I hope that discussion here may help stimulate ideas for future patches.

Cheers,

[Jami]

Originally Posted by ben_wh

Would love to hear more thoughts from more sim pilots.

I agree 100%. This thread has got over 750 views but only few replies.

It'is understandable that for those who fly dogfight against human pilots on line the issue of AI skills is not so interesting but for off line players it is fundamental. And for those who want to fly with their friends coop mission with AIs involved. And it comes more and more important when you try to create historically accurate missions.

[Furio]

I think that giving “more power to the player” could lessen some of the AI issues. As I see it, there should be the option to pause the game, or briefly hand your plane to autopilot, to take some decision that no AI can take.

Some examples.

In the landing pattern, Number 4 is damaged and should land first, but continues to go around leaving unnecessarily precedence to others until it crashes.
Player should be able to take over control tower and order Number 4 to be the first to land.

During an escort mission, an enemy fighter appears. All your squadron’s pilots chase it, leaving alone the escorted bombers.
Player should be able to order: “Number 5 and 6 go ahead with the chase, all other return to escort position”, or click on the selected planes to obtain the same result.

Player has damaged and enemy bomber, and is turning for the coup de grace. Three more squadron’s AI mates run to finish it, allowing other enemy planes to bomb the target undisturbed.
Player should be able to select a target to be ignored by AI pilots.

The list could go on, but the concept is clear, I think. You pay a little price in immersion, because you need to stop the action and momentarily assume the rank of god, but you avoid that immersion be killed by AI pilots unrealistic actions.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Furio

In the landing pattern, Number 4 is damaged and should land first, but continues to go around leaving unnecessarily precedence to others until it crashes.
Player should be able to take over control tower and order Number 4 to be the first to land.

This should work automatically - with no involvement of the player. Damaged planes lost due to having no priority in the landing pattern are as bad for AI only flights - and player can't watch landing approach of 10+ fights.

Originally Posted by Furio

During an escort mission, an enemy fighter appears. All your squadron’s pilots chase it, leaving alone the escorted bombers.
Player should be able to order: “Number 5 and 6 go ahead with the chase, all other return to escort position”, or click on the selected planes to obtain the same result.

Bomber escort missions are among the most disappointing as it is in this game. Either you don't get your flight to engage the enemy even if the bombers are under attack(!) - or the engage an unimportant enemy plane and don't want to let go.
And they cannot be commanded usfully when in "escort mode" You spot a group of enemy bombers heading for your carriers, and you decide to shoot them down - because a lost carrier is worse than a few lost attack planes -you are on your own. Your wingmen will not engage, they either follow you or go back to escorting the bombers.

Originally Posted by Furio

Player has damaged and enemy bomber, and is turning for the coup de grace. Three more squadron’s AI mates run to finish it, allowing other enemy planes to bomb the target undisturbed.
Player should be able to select a target to be ignored by AI pilots.

This should be automatic, too. Planes with visible crippling damage should be less important targets. And while we are at that: AI (and especially FlaK) should try to shoot at planes with only dead pilots/shot out controls, at least if they are not experienced.

[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.)