![]() |
#11
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
![]() Quote:
But, the purpose of a wish list thread is to inspire. If TD or a mod team look at even one of the many ideas on this thread and think "Hey, we could do that!" then this thread has served its purpose. Quote:
While it wasn't uncommon for planes, especially fighters, to cruise at high speeds (or maximum speed that could be sustained without overheating the engine) in the combat zone, outside of the immediate combat zone planes typically throttled back as much as possible to conserve fuel. Also, fighter AI doesn't grab altitude as a matter of course. Unless you're Unqualified or Rookie AI, if you're being "bounced" from behind by a slower plane, the only logical move if you want to fight is to go into a climbing turn, achieve your desired altitude, separation distance and angle, and then come down in a screaming BnZ attack. In a one-on-one, you get 300-500 meters of altitude, perhaps 600 meters of distance, and come down in a beam attack which converts to either a flank or rear attack depending on how the enemy breaks. For a section or squadron attack, you might do things a bit different. You leave one flight or section to slow down while flying straight and level to act as decoys and sucker the enemy in. One flight or section serves as top cover for the attackers. One flight or section attacks once the ambush is sprung. When the trap is sprung, the "decoy flight" accelerates and dives away. If the situation is good, they might be freed to go after damaged enemies and/or enemies who are trying to dive away. Once it's clear that the flight/squadron won't be bounced. The top flight and the attack flight might take turns making BnZ attacks against the surviving enemy. Quote:
Other than that, cue up a flight of any Ace AI fighter you choose in the QMB and send them against a flight of bombers. Even in a slow plane that has no hope of catching the bombers in a stern attack, the AI will always pass up the head-on attack. They will then engage in a hopeless stern chase. For slightly faster fighters, they'll stern chase until they get shot to pieces. My suggestion for player commands that "turn on" or "turn off" certain sorts of AI attacks was specifically designed to correct this problem. "Turn on" head on attacks, and "turn off" all the other types of attacks, and you'll get sensible AI attacks by slow fighters vs. fast bombers. "Turn on" head on, beam and overhead attacks, and "turn off" attacks from the rear and flank and you'll get intelligent AI behavior against bombers with armament mostly to the rear. Quote:
It's tricky and is almost impossible to achieve surprise against formations of fighters, even when attacking from the rear. It's impossible to achieve against bombers, but that's realistic for daylight attacks against a bomber formation. (At night, against a single bomber, it's a different story.) Something that I don't think that AI currently models is the amount of attention required to keep station while formation flying. In close formation, a pilot spends something like 60% of his time keeping a lookout on the other planes in the formation in order to avoid collision and to respond to speed or formation changes. But, the amount of time the AI spends scanning the sky is pretty impressive. I'd alter things as follows: Unqualified: Blind to any plane not in their front 60 degree arc and within 1,000 meters. Doesn't maneuver to check blind spots. Doesn't react when fired up until bullets actually hit the aircraft and then likely to panic. Doesn't recognize hostile or friendly aircraft as such until they are clearly obvious (i.e., 300 meters for fighters). Rookie: Blind to any plane not within 1,000 meters. Very limited ability to detect aircraft outside of their 60 degree front arc. Doesn't maneuver to check blind spots. Doesn't react immediately until fired upon and might panic. Doesn't immediately recognize hostile or friendly aircraft, but always recognizes them when they are clearly obvious. Average: Normal sighting distances (modified normally by superior/inferior Vision and Gunnery). Occasionally maneuvers to check blind spots. Reacts immediately when fired upon, but might occasionally panic. Sometimes fails to recognize hostile or friendly aircraft until they are clearly obvious. Veteran: Improved sighting distances. Maneuvers every 30 seconds to check blind spots. Reacts immediately when fired upon, seldom panics. Rarely fails to recognize hostile or friendly aircraft. Ace: Improved sighting ranges (even beyond Veteran). Maneuvers every 15-30 seconds on a random basis to check blind spots. Reacts immediately when fired upon and never panics. Always recognizes hostile or friendly aircraft. Quote:
This is why there needs to be "by the book" section, flight and squadron maneuvering, where trailing and outside elements within a formation cross over during a hard turn. And, if you're a wingman, this is why the AI leader needs to call out formation maneuvers. But, that said, there were a few air forces where formation flying was stressed above personal survival, and/or where close formations were valued over individual freedom to maneuver and to keep a lookout. In particular, early war Soviet and Japanese bombers and attack planes were noted for holding formation no matter what. In those situations, you can easily have collisions, especially if you've got tight formation and the leader is suddenly disabled and/or doesn't call out the maneuver. Quote:
Lt. Charlie Brown, a B-17 pilot on his first mission, managed to hold off an entire gaggle of FW-190 and Bf-109, by aggressively maneuvering his damaged aircraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie...igler_incident That said, it's insane for AI bombers to break formation and try to maneuver as fighters as they sometimes do. Proper tactics are to close up and let concentration of defensive firepower to its work. Only rookies, panicked pilots, and stragglers should break formation. I also hat the default formations in the QMB - too widely spaced and initially in echelon left in line abreast. At the very least the spacing between flights should be closer. And, as an option, the player should be able to choose from a few common formations to get proper historical formations. Quote:
I don't think that the gunnery model includes things like slipstream effects (winds buffeting the gun barrels or the gunners), vibration (big engines spinning big propellers will make the entire machine vibrate), and minor wind turbulence (the plane is almost never actually flying straight and level, there will always be a bit of "bouncing" and "rocking" as it flies). While these effects aren't really noticeable under normal conditions, they WILL affect long range gun accuracy. I know that the gunnery model doesn't model historical gunnery doctrine very well. At least in the FMB, it should be possible to set the range at which gunners open fire. If you're flying a multi-crew plane, you should also have the option of commanding your gunners: Open fire, cease fire, attack at close range, attack at medium range, attack at long range, attack my target (a padlocked ground or air target). In my initial barrage of posts, I deliberately didn't include suggestions for AI bomber crew behavior, since I get the impression from TD that the ability to command a bomber crew wouldn't just be an upgrade to existing AI, but would represent a whole aspect of the game. Quote:
It might also be a bit too quick to make deflection shots when an enemy plane "pops into view". Realistically, it takes a human a fraction of a second to "acquire" the target and identify it before opening fire. Quote:
Quote:
Your point about going for the gunners is one that the AI doesn't seem to do. Instead, AI fighters vs. bombers seem to go for the engines or wing fuel tanks. Unqualified and Rookie pilots should shoot "at the plane" (i.e., center of mass, ignoring vital parts). Average pilots should shoot at an easy, obvious target (i.e., the engine or cockpit). If they repeat an attack from the same quarter, they should keep attacking that part until it's clearly destroyed. Veteran and ace pilots should shoot at vital targets (fuel tanks, engines, cockpit). But, if making a rear attack against a single bomber, they should take out the tail gunner first, then go for the vital target. If they know that a gunner is down, they should make attacks from sectors that they know aren't defended. Quote:
In particular, late war US pilots were notorious for wanting to "rack up a score" (i.e., confirm that an enemy was destroyed) so less disciplined pilots might very well chase a badly wounded enemy to their ultimate detriment, or to the detriment of the mission. My suggestion for "close escort" defense - where escorting fighters always let retreating enemies go without following - would fix this problem. Currently, you have to be very strict when you command your AI, using the "rejoin me" on a regular basis in order to get them to break off attacks or to stop chasing enemies. Remarkably, the pilots under your command always hear you, and always obey your orders! Maybe realistic for authoritarian air forces like the Soviets, Japanese or Luftwaffe, but not so much for democratic air forces like the Americans, French or UK. You also bring up a valid point here, in that AI is currently quite "stupid" about recognizing what's a valid target. Currently, the "Arcade Mode" has a plane send out a message when it's heavily damaged ("Returning to Base"), destroyed/too badly damaged to fly ("Bailing out"), and/or on fire ("On Fire"). It would be very easy for this information to be relayed to any AI plane within 300-500 meters of the stricken aircraft, representing the range at which it's possible to determine that an airplane is too badly damaged to fly. It should be possible to recognize that a plane is on fire at longer ranges - perhaps 2,000 meters or more. It should also be possible to determine that the crew of a plane is bailing out at similar ranges. That would then allow player/FMB commands for: Don't pursue destroyed aircraft, Don't pursue badly damaged aircraft. |
|
|