AI vs AI Kill ratio

[Avimimus]

The major problem is the failure of the AI to disengage. If you look at historical accounts, pilots would return to base as soon as they got separated from their allies. In many cases it was easy to lose sight of both allies and enemies.

There is actually already some code that could be repurposed for this: When you call for help the AI automatically checks to see if it is in range (8000m I think) before coming to your aid.

So it should be possible to program in a check that causes aircraft to be have a certain probability of returning to base if they get even somewhat separated from allied or enemy aircraft.

P.S.
There are also checks for how much ammunition is left during an attack. So one could add a random chance of aircraft disengaging after an attack.

Of course, programming AI aircraft to retreat (especially retreating when outnumbered) could be frustrating to some players.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Avimimus

The major problem is the failure of the AI to disengage. If you look at historical accounts, pilots would return to base as soon as they got separated from their allies. In many cases it was easy to lose sight of both allies and enemies.

This depends on the mission. In many cases, there would be designated "rally points" where lost pilots could go an wait for their friends to meet them. Usually, these were big landmarks where flak concentrations were low, like a town, mountain, or major road junction.

In any case, a lost pilot, particularly a fighter pilot, is going to form up with any allied plane he encounters which is going towards home, particularly bombers.

Bombers which had to drop out of formation and/or RTB were always happy to have their own personal fighter escort, and fighter pilots were happy to have their own personal bomber to provide navigation, defensive gunnery, and look-out services.

Originally Posted by Avimimus

Of course, programming AI aircraft to retreat (especially retreating when outnumbered) could be frustrating to some players.

One way around this is to have a player-controlled option for "realistic aggressiveness". Set it for Yes, and AI aircraft act like the people inside them only get to die once. Set it for No, and AI aircraft behave as they do now.

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

One way around this is to have a player-controlled option for "realistic aggressiveness". Set it for Yes, and AI aircraft act like the people inside them only get to die once. Set it for No, and AI aircraft behave as they do now.

I'm eager to know how this 'fear of death' or 'fear of self-destruction' could be programmed. Perhaps the closest analogy is the risk-evaluating algorithm of self-driven cars where the safety of the passenger is first priority. That would give us a 'coward' AI which could be fine-tuned to take more and more risk toward the 'ace' level. But constantly running such an algorithm for multiple AI planes would be resource-heavy, I guess.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by sniperton

I'm eager to know how this 'fear of death' or 'fear of self-destruction' could be programmed. Perhaps the closest analogy is the risk-evaluating algorithm of self-driven cars where the safety of the passenger is first priority.

That seems like a considerably more complex algorithm than I was thinking of.

A simpler way might be for AI to count up all the enemy planes in sight, compare them to the number of friendly planes in sight, multiply or divide by factors such as favorable/unfavorable position (altitude advantage/ disadvantage, advantageous/ disadvantageous attack position as defined by QMB), relative quality of planes involved, damage to plane and crew, and assigned mission.

If the resulting number is above a certain threshold, AI aircraft will attack. Otherwise, they will avoid contact or disengage.

Repeat this algorithm after every attack.

I think that the AI already does something like this.

Average or better fighters will always take a head-on shot against a level bomber if closing from the front. Otherwise, they make high side attacks or high or level beam or flank attacks, depending on relative position (although if you want to get picky, USN pilots were trained to make high side and high beam attacks, not head-on attacks). Only rookies will attack level bombers from the rear.

The exception is that flying boats/float planes will always be attacked from below - from front, beam, or flank. Attack aircraft (including strike fighters and attack bombers) will be attacked from any quarter other than head-on.

I think that one of the problems that IL2 AI suffers from, which might not be correctable, is that it only defines three classes of aircraft - level bombers, attack, and fighters.

It would have been better if every plane had been given a rating from 1-10 for speed, maneuverability, offensive firepower, defensive firepower, armor, and ruggedness, plus yes/no operators for various types of ordinance, commo, and radar (e.g., torpedoes, bombs, mines, rockets, heavy cannon, radio receiver, radio transmitter, tail warning radar), and modifiers for assigned role (interceptor, air superiority fighter, bomber destroyer, level bomber, level attack bomber, anti-shipping, ground assault, dive bomber, torpedo bomber, ASW, ASR, artillery spotting/FAC, low level PR, high level PR, transport, cargo drop, paratroop/agent drop, agent insertion/extraction)

Ratings like these would allow the potential for more sophisticated and flexible AI.

For example, an interceptor fighter with a serious edge in speed (a rating of 10 vs. 6), but inferior maneuverability (a rating of 3 vs. 5), is always going to try to BnZ.

Or, a plane with a high level of ruggedness and armor, plus high offensive firepower, is more likely to take a head-on shot against an opponent with weak offensive firepower.

You could also use these ratings to abstractly determine the outcome of AI vs. AI fights which take place far out of sight of the player, or missions flown just by AI during a campaign.