4.13 development update discussion and feedback

[Music]

My only gripes with A.I. is their tendency to all focus on my plane, seems every mission, first pass onto the furball, and half the A.I. have decided to target me, not my wing men, just me, shoulder shooting and even colliding when there are four (4) or five (5) 100m off my 6.
(I fly invincible, & unlimited ammo off line, so I just wait them out)

And their ability to see through the tail of their plane, even when they are chasing a target.

And I had a bunch of B-29 gunners targeting me through a cloud today, right through, neither of us was in the cloud, it was between us, and all these tracers flying out of it.

They tend to stay in burning planes too long, and they pull a lot of neg G's.

But some times, most of the time, they act like, or seem to act like real planes, and you forget it's a game.

.2 is Dl'ing now, thanks DT

[shelby]

WIP

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS4dpUza7-M

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Music

My only gripes with A.I. is their tendency to all focus on my plane, seems every mission, first pass onto the furball, and half the A.I. have decided to target me, not my wing men, just me, shoulder shooting and even colliding when there are four (4) or five (5) 100m off my 6.
(I fly invincible, & unlimited ammo off line, so I just wait them out)

Have you ever tried not entering the fight first? Should work, AI tend to focus on first plane in view. And even if they focus on you, it should not happen that you get them all on your six. Are you familiar with the concept of energy fighting? You may want to have a look at this:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/.../inpursuit.pdf
Short summary is:
You enter a fight only if you have clear picture how to disengage if all goes south. That is easy if you are in a plane that has either a clear advantage in top speed or climb rate (You in a Bf109F(any)/g-2, enemy in a Yak-1/Hurricane/P-40/...). Then you can enter a fight even with a slight disadvantage in altitude. With other plane combinations you have to have an altitude advantage or numerical superiority to even stand a chance. And you try to use maneuvering that does not cost energy, when the enemy turns in a plane that turns better than yours you do not follow, you pull up, roll, pull down, level out and are behind and above the enemy again. You never give up position willingly, so if an enemy does a split-S or dives, you usually do not follow him, at least as long as there are other possible enemies around.

Originally Posted by Music

And their ability to see through the tail of their plane, even when they are chasing a target.

They cannot see through tails any more, but they still seem to have perfect and instant coverage of their field of view as soon as they are in combat.
While i flight their vision seems to be limited now, it is possible but rare to shoot them down unaware, dive below their six out of their field of view, and use your energy to catch them from the lower rear. Works best with planes that have a blocked rear view, e. g. Macchi 205.[/QUOTE]

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by CzechTexan

OK, maybe I was jumping the gun by condemning the A/I. Maybe the situation in my mission put the Veterans in a bad position to counter effectively.

I'm not questioning your experience. I think there are situations where Ace or Veteran AI isn't as "smart" as it should be, and where Rookies are too good. But, initial conditions and altitude might make a big difference.

In the "furball" missions I generated, I noticed a tendency for the Ace Bf-109 to follow Rookie I-16 pilots down to near ground level (albeit later in the fight when odds were massively in favor of the Germans), rather than maintaining their altitude. Early in the fight, the Bf-109 weren't as aggressive about getting and maintaining an altitude advantage as they could be.

In all cases, Ace wingmen weren't as good as they could be about covering the lead plane's rear. The one Bf-109 shootdown I saw could have easily been prevented had the lead plane's #2 maintained proper position, or if the AI was trained to do a proper "drag and bag" or "Thatch weave" team attack.

While it's realistic, there were also a few cases where I observed "shoulder shooting" by AI planes - especially late in the fight when there were lots of Germans and few Soviets. But, Aces should have better situational awareness and fire discipline, both to stay out of the way of a friendly plane's line of fire, and to stop shooting when a friendly plane pops up between them and the target.

[eduzk]

An idea that I would find interesting: formation tactics, according to historical situation.

A flight's tactics would be set for each flight pre-mission (and be found in your mission briefing). The leader-wingman -pair system, that every fighter AI currently uses, was historically one of the Axis' tactical advantages early in the war.

Apparently the Soviet doctrine, before they learned from their experiences, was that a flight of three would stay in close formation in combat, and everyone would fire their guns when the leader did.

A rookie AI could of course get excited and completely ignore any tactics he's supposed to follow.

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by eduzk

Apparently the Soviet doctrine, before they learned from their experiences, was that a flight of three would stay in close formation in combat, and everyone would fire their guns when the leader did.

The VIC formation from the british when attacking bombers applied the same tactics. Particularly with the Hurricanes.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by RPS69

The VIC formation from the british when attacking bombers applied the same tactics. Particularly with the Hurricanes.

There are many improvements which could be made to AI, particularly when it comes to flight, section, and squadron tactics.

The most fundamental change, seemingly simple, but probably a lot of work to implement, is to give the mission builder (in FMB) or player (in QMB and formation commands) the ability to designate whether the "base unit" for formations is 1, 2 or 3 planes.

If the base unit is one plane, each plane maneuvers on its own. If the base unit is 2 planes, they use "rotte" or "loose deuce" tactics, and sections maneuver using "finger four" or "schwarme" tactics. If the base unit is 3 planes, they maneuver in "vics" or "line abreast" using bomber or early war fighter tactics.

Realistically, planes without radios are limited to single plane base formations, and player commands don't work unless the planes within the player's formation are within 100 m or so of the lead plane and have visual on him.

Other commands for AI, which would be easier to implement, would be "Attack with guns/rockets/bombs/torpedoes/guided bombs." and "Attack on my command". For unguided bombs, there would be an additional command: "Attack type dive bomb/glide bomb/level bomb/skip bomb." These commands could be linked to "Attack X" target, to make AI planes in the player's formation attack a particular target using a particular type of weapon, and "hold fire" until commanded to attack.

Example, for medium bombers with strafing capacity. "Attack Ground" > "Attack with bombs" > "Level bombing" > "Attack on my command" gets the entire formation to drop bombs from level bombing formation on the target of the lead plane's choice, as soon as the lead plane drops its bombs.

Or, for fighters flying in "vic" formation of 3, "Attack my target (air)" > "Attack with guns" > "Attack on my command" gets all the planes in the player's formation to start shooting as soon as he does.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Realistically, planes without radios are limited to single plane base formations, and player commands don't work unless the planes within the player's formation are within 100 m or so of the lead plane and have visual on him.

That would finally give a meaning to planes equipped with good radios beyond their single plane capabilities. Especially the Soviets early war would be hurt quite bad.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

That would finally give a meaning to planes equipped with good radios beyond their single plane capabilities. Especially the Soviets early war would be hurt quite bad.

If you want to get into details, there are actually three aspects to period radios.

First, many early war aircraft (notably Soviets and Chinese) didn't have radios. Realistically, any aircraft without a radio can't be commanded or warned via radio.

Second, 1940s radios were temperamental. They were prone to failure, they had limited range, and the number of frequencies on which they could transmit or receive was quite limited. The low quality radios - like those produced by the Soviets or the Japanese - had unacceptably short range and/or so produced so much static that they were functionally useless. High quality radios had better range and a clearer signal (but even then, jamming and other factors could interfere with range and signal clarity).

Third, in many cases, aircrew had no way of knowing if their radio was working properly, and had little recourse if their radio stopped sending or receiving. In particular, the radio on most fighters was mounted behind the armor-plating behind the pilot, so there was no way to fix the radio if it was broken, or even determine if it was damaged. Even for multi-crew aircraft, most aircraft didn't carry spare radios, or spare parts, which means that they were out of luck if their radio broke.

[71stMastiff]

Hi, Team I was wondering since allot of us play Pacific theaters, is there any way to add Boats and ships to the QMB?

Also can we have the FOV bubble turned off. like it used to be> I hate seeing the buildings popping in and out.