|
|
|
|
#1
02-03-2014, 11:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Hi all,
This is another attempt to summarize the ideas so far (in simplified form): Combat AI Behavior 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) Potentially better BnZ behavior among AIs (This issue can sometimes be seen in set-up such as Ace P-38 AI Vs. Regular A6M Zero AI. 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.) In-flight Behavior 4) Emergency Landing: potential for AI plane to automatically (or on command of the human player) divert to airfield marked as 'friendly' (e.g. same colour - red or blue - as the AI plane) 5) Potentially to implement routine to let AI recognize distance to different marked landing sites (e.g. take-off way point and landing way point) and make routing decision based on distance to site and its own condition (e.g. damage, fuel status) 6) AI flight leader can yield command if severely damaged so that the next-plane-in-command (AI wingman or section lead) can take over, to avoid the whole AI flight getting 'drag down' by a damaged leader Communication with AI 7) Better command/communication - ability to ask wingman to check your six, for example 8 ) 'Return to Base' command to individual plane which will ignore any preceding way point to get home 9) Potentially for human player to 'take control' over from the airfield tower to issue command and assign landing priority to different AI planes Other AI Suggestions: 10) 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 11) Potential simple evasive maneuver (with land avoidance) routine for capital ships when under attack Please feel free to fill in any gap you see and more suggestion welcomed. Cheers, Last edited by ben_wh; 02-03-2014 at 11:40 PM. 
|
|
#2
02-04-2014, 12:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Good summary of the discussion.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"Combat line" formation for USAAF planes in 44-45, and "section" tactics for USN/USMC planes from 42-45. Lack of formation for Soviet attack aircraft 1941-43 (they usually flew in irregular "gaggles"). Soviet fighters in 41-42 should occasionally use "taran" attacks (i.e., controlled collisions) if they're out of ammo. Japanese planes in 1944-45 will very occasionally deliberately collide with heavy bombers. Mortally wounded Japanese planes in 1944-45 WILL attempt kamikaze attacks against enemy ships. Pilots of any nationality flying mortally wounded aircraft will occasionally make kamikaze attacks against enemy capital ships. Quote:
|
|
#3
02-04-2014, 08:42 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
-Different solution: generate a level below rookie, and make them bad at everything, real bad-representing cannon fodder thrown at the enemy with zero experience and next to no training. Consider tuning down torpedo hitting ability of rookie and regulars - it may be only due to my limited statistics, but I don't see any evidence that they hit much worse than veteran and ace - even on the contrary. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#4
02-05-2014, 05:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
02-05-2014, 11:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
As to ships, why not to implement what 3rd party mission generators like DCG already do: to combine them into 'shippacks' or 'convoys'? The concept is here:
A shippack is an abstract naval unit, a fixed formation with slots for individual ships. Each slot represents a relative position to the formation centre (a vector with distance). Once a ship is assigned to a slot, it becomes a subordinated element of the formation, and from then on, the mission designer can adjust the travelling speed and direction of the whole pack all at once. Direction changes can be twofold: 1) individual elements turn, but the formation's heading remains the same (good for zigzagging or for turning into the wind while starting aircraft); 2) elements turn together with the formation (allows only minor direction changes as the 'outer' ships has to travel more/faster, while 'inner' ships less/slower). Max speed is of course equal to the slowest element's speed, max turning rate ditto. Ship formation coding on this basic level is pure mathematics, and it seems to be more easy than to 'teach' individual ships to behave more prudently when in company 
Last edited by sniperton; 02-05-2014 at 11:39 AM.
|
|
#6
02-05-2014, 03:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
ok AI require heavy fixes.especialy when some (friendly or enemy) AI had began the landing procces they will not pay attention to anything even if their oponent is directed at their 6 in low distance.This causes another error when you ask them to help they respond ( here we go attacking bandits ) but nothing.I died so many times in this way. (I think one day i will begin hunting those deserters). another nice idea is if TD creates charachters for AI and create deserters is that other friendly AI will begin hunting them.
__________________
|
|
#7
02-05-2014, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Agree that ship AI doesn't need to be very complicated; even an illusion of evasive maneuver (designed with collision avoidance in mind) would be welcomed. Quote:
Also tried some more match up recently - AI certainly do not fly to the advantage of the BnZ planes, making some rookie and regular AI turn fighters, the Zero for example, more dangerous than they should be. Cheers, Last edited by ben_wh; 02-05-2014 at 06:06 PM.
|
|
#8
02-10-2014, 02:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
For example, say that you want to get a line of ships to zigzag in line abreast formation. You'd set the speed and zig-zagging waypoints for the first ship. Then you'd tell the FMB to copy that series of waypoints a certain number of times, offsetting each waypoint by a set direction and distance. For example, for a formation of 5 ships, you'd tell the FMB to offset waypoints vertically (say north and south if the central ship is traveling east or west) by 300 m, centered on the first ship, with 2 iterations. That would give you a formation of 5 ships - one in the center, one offset by 300 m north, one at 600 m north, one at 300 m south, and one at 600 m south. You could then edit each ship to make it different. Alternately, or additionally, the FMB could allow the mission designer to include "station keeping" where certain vehicles are automatically linked in formation and are programmed to move identically to the "central" vehicle in the formation as best they can. If the central vehicle is destroyed, or if a following vehicle cannot keep station for some reason, it automatically acquires the waypoints of the central vehicle, and attempts to follow those waypoints on its own. This is already automatic, to some degree, for aircraft, but could be applied to any vehicle in the game. And, since simple "station keeping" routines in the FMB aren't true AI (with collision avoidance and enemy detection) they might not be that hard to program. As a third idea, mission builders could be provided with "stock" sets of waypoints, such as zig-zagging, weaving, circling or altitude change which would modify the usual straight line path between waypoints. For example, when the mission builder lays out waypoints, the FMB could give him the option for "zig-zag" with a set or "random within a given range" distance between zig-zags, and with a set or "random within a range" distance for each "leg" of the vehicle's path. The mission builder would place his first waypoint normally, then "draw a line" to the second waypoint, but the FMB would interpret that as a whole series of zig-zagging waypoints and place them appropriately. That way, the mission builder just needs to place two waypoints and the FMB does the rest. Pre-programmed movement using this option could be: Zig-zag/weave - alternating 5 to 85 degree left and right turns with equidistant "legs" to each "zig" or "zag" and an offsetting turn of the same angle so that the vehicle consistently crosses its baseline path at the same interval of time or distance traveled. Random zig-zag/weave - random 5 to 90 degree left and right turns that eventually get the vehicle to "point B". Rectangular search pattern/overlapping squares/rectangles - The vehicle travels 2x meters, then turns 90 degrees left or right and travels y meters, it then turns in the 90 degrees in the same direction as it did before and travels for x meters in the opposite direction from its baseline course, it then turns again and travels back y meters, until it reaches its baseline course and turns 90 degrees again, at which the cycle repeats. Circular search pattern/far escort/loiter - The vehicle travels 2n meters, then makes a circular turn to the left or right with a diameter of n meters. Oval search/fare escort/loiter/"Race track" - As above, but the vehicle flies a series of overlapping ovals. Corkscrew - aircraft makes a diving turn 5-15 degrees right or left and loses n/2 meters of altitude moving left or right until it until it reaches a point equal to (altitude to be lost/2). At that point, it reverses its turn and loses another n/2 meters of altitude until it reaches its baseline course and bottom baseline altitude. It then climbs and diverts from its baseline course until it regains (altitude lost/2) and reaches and equivalent point from its baseline course. It then reverses its turn and regains its baseline altitude and course at which point the cycle repeats. Regular altitude change - As for zig-zag, but aircraft regularly gains and loses altitude within a set range. Random altitude change - As for random zig-zag, but aircraft randomly gains and loses altitude within a set range. Always keeping a baseline distance above the ground. Terrain hugging - Aircraft always adjusts altitude to remain X number of feet above the ground.
|
|
#9
02-05-2014, 06:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
