[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

While most of your statements are true, I think it may be too much to ever include.

Agreed. This IS a wish list thread!

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

AI in a plane truckloads faster than the enemy slows down and slowly turns, because then its so much easier for the enemy to catch up - its just baaaaaad to have a whole flight of Fw190 killed by I-16 due to this.

This is because AI currently doesn't alter formation turn behavior based on whether it's in combat or out.

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Bomber attacks are still generally from 6, though now they sometimes get high and dive on the bomber. Beam attacks and head ons should be in the repertoire, especially when flying a faster plane, a head on approach is easy to do.

I've almost never seen an AI plane make a beam or flank attack, and I've never seen them make head on attacks against bombers. Veteran or Ace AI will make head-on attacks against fighters, however.

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

AI is near incapable of being unaware of an attack carried out against them - no matter how many enemies are currently close. Their SA is almost perfect, even for rookies.

I've achieved "bounces" against unaware AI fighters, but I think you're mostly right.

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

AI pilots in same flight crash into each other or you just because they TOTALLY INSANELY want to fly formation in every maneuvre - and you cannot even tell them to get lost, and stay away until you are done with the maneuvre.

Yep.

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Bombers sometimes switch into high gear and then behave like fighters - not too funny.

But, sometimes realistic. Admittedly, bomber AI is often screwy but occasionally a single bomber would fly defensively in ways that surprised the attackers. Saburo Sakai was most impressed by a RAAF Hudson which managed to avoid being shot down for over 20 minutes because of its (unknown) pilot's remarkable acrobatics.

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

And while their shooting is beyond contempt now (lower AI grades, low deflection shots - they shoot a long burst high, correct their aim, and shoot high again, and so on...), they still occassionally have a tendency to serve 600m one shot kills.

Ace flexible gunner AI is still too good.

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Better AI is insanely good at high deflection shots - though when parked behind bombers they still shoot a lot of ammo in the air.

I think that fighter AI is still a bit too good at setting up high deflection shots "below the nose" - that is, estimating where an enemy aircraft will be when you can't see it.

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Bomber gunners get shots in the dead centre of your plane, and while they may do so more often when attacking from 6, results are more critical when attacking from other directions - as usually dead centre hits from off angle injure or kill pilot.

How is this not realistic? During WW2, every air force advised its gunners to aim for the engine, cockpit and fuel tanks. Conveniently for gunners, in most planes those parts are all arranged around the aircraft's center of gravity - AKA center of mass.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Given a sturdy plane it is usually easier to pick up a lot of speed and go for the dead six approach, at least that gives you a good shot and you can try to take out gunners.

AI planes already have a depressing tendency to make suicidal stern attacks against bombers. Against fighters, it usually makes sense to make attacks from stern or rear to get a lower deflection shot that keeps the target in your sights for longer. In that regard, fighter AI does a good job.

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Something else that is troublesome - AI always pursues severly crippled enemies that are largely out of the fight (e. g. shot out controls/control surfaces/engine smoking/severe fuel leaks/on fire) with no regards to any other enemies present or possibly arriving soon, and often end up bogged down for only the gain of putting an already largely harmless out of position enemy out of its misery.

This is somewhat realistic. There's always a tendency for a fighter pilot to get "target fixation" and a smoking, crippled plane is an obvious target.

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.