New planes requests (from other threads/please pin it)

[dimlee]

Originally Posted by Soldier_Fortune

Actually the AI pilots release their torpedoes from a distance to the target of less than 1200 m, even against vessels with strong AAA, when the torpedoes might be released from a longer a safety distance becuase they have ranges greater than 5000 m.
...
- Releasing all the flight's torpedoes at the same time than the human leaader like a salvo from a safe distance (not less than 3000 m), the probabilty of to hit the target would increase as well as the survival of most or all of the planes.

3000m is too much, IMHO. I doubt that torpedo bombers achieved any hits at this distance in WWII, unless flying in large numbers. On the other hand, smarter AI behaviour would be nice to have. For example, earlier torpedo releases if target ships have high skill levels and therefore AAA fire is more precise.
Distances of less 1000m are reasonable against single ships, especially light armed.

[Soldier_Fortune]

Originally Posted by dimlee

3000m is too much, IMHO. I doubt that torpedo bombers achieved any hits at this distance in WWII, unless flying in large numbers.

The USN aerial warfare doctrine during the 40's determined, for attacks against armed vessels, that dive bombers should begin the attack, and then torpedo- bombers should finish it launching torpedoes against the damaged and weakened targets.

Of course, the number of involved a/c should be really big for to achieve targets.

But, in the other hand, think about a medium bomber, like He-111 or Ju-88 or a Betty, into the role as torpedo attacker.

Against unescorted convoys they could launch torpedoes from less than 1000 m.
But against heavily escorted convoys with a good and dense screen of destroyers and also light cruisers, those big birds flying at 30-50 m @SL and at 200 km/h would mean the loss of several expensive flights or squadrons in one only mission.

No navy or air force could support such degree of attrition: the standard training for bomber's pilots demanded 55 weeks at least. Plus several weeks for specific misions like this which we're talking about.

3000 m becomes a good and safe distance if a convoy is sailing at steady speed and heading. But when enemy planes were spotted, the fleets started maneouvers for to avoid hits... and the torpedo-bombers should approach and penetrate into the dangerous range of the AAA, for to launch their attack from a shorter distance.

Therefore, the USN doctrine (and probably all the main powers involved in the 2WW had similar doctrines) was right: the torpedo-bombers should attack after the dive bombers, in big number, and from different directions.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Soldier_Fortune

Therefore, the USN doctrine (and probably all the main powers involved in the 2WW had similar doctrines) was right: the torpedo-bombers should attack after the dive bombers, in big number, and from different directions.

Good description of tactics.

One possible change to ship movement, which would them maneuver realistically, would be to make ships zig-zag (or, more accurately, S-turn) on a regular basis.

This could either be achieved by changing the default pattern for ship movement, or by allowing mission builders to specify a zig-zag movement pattern along the ship's course in the FMB.

This option could be used for other vehicles as well, so make them deviate from their overall path in a predictable manner. For example, trucks could swerve, and aircraft could "corkscrew".

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Good description of tactics.

One possible change to ship movement, which would them maneuver realistically, would be to make ships zig-zag (or, more accurately, S-turn) on a regular basis.

This could either be achieved by changing the default pattern for ship movement, or by allowing mission builders to specify a zig-zag movement pattern along the ship's course in the FMB.

This option could be used for other vehicles as well, so make them deviate from their overall path in a predictable manner. For example, trucks could swerve, and aircraft could "corkscrew".

Zig Zags were for anti torpedo tactics, anti dive bombers tactics, they turn hard all the time. You could see a confusion of circles while trying to evade bombs on a fleet under dive bomber attacks.

I prefer to be made not for mission builders, but as an automatic behaviour while under air attack.

Still, it is quite complex because it is very difficult to avoid bombing and that ships don't collide with themselves. Also some realistic movements must be added to ships. Nowadays, they just move as told, and as close as the mission builder asks.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by RPS69

Zig Zags were for anti torpedo tactics, anti dive bombers tactics, they turn hard all the time.

My idea for "automatic zig-zag" option for ship movement in the FMB would be simpler than full AI for ships. All it would do is allow the mission builder to set a ship's course from Point A to Point B, and the "zig-zag" option would automatically turn that straight line movement into a series of S-curves by automatically plotting the additional waypoints needed.

You could use a simple sine wave function and plot new way points at maximum and minimum amplitude along a line described by the ship's baseline course. If the programmers wanted to get fancy, they could give options for amplitude and frequency to control width of each "curve" and frequency of course changes.

This would be realistic for "non-combat" movement by ships in a war zone, where zig-zagging was standard submarine defense.

For "emergency" movement against air attack, it would "good enough".

If you wanted to move into "pseudo AI" for ships, there are some simple "swarming" or "flocking" algorithms which could be used for basic station-keeping and collision avoidance, as long as ships are assumed to be in a convoy or some other formation and are programmed to keep a certain distance from other ships. These could be used to make a formation of ships all turn in the same direction when under attack.

Collision avoidance, especially realistic avoidance of shallow waters, and "intelligent" tactics vs. air attack, would require a lot more effort.

Realistic ship movement is way beyond IL2's ability, since it doesn't take factors such as hull draft, turning radius, acceleration, deceleration, heeling angle, waves, wind, etc. into effect when determining ship movement.

[Asheshouse]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

You could use a simple sine wave function and plot new way points at maximum and minimum amplitude along a line described by the ship's baseline course.

Zig zag would normally be done as a series of straight lines not curves. Each leg would be for a standard time, 10min I think.

There were different "standard" zig zags. Commodore would use signal flags to order the start, thereafter each ship could work to the clock, knowing what turn was next. On each "leg" they would follow a straight line.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Asheshouse

Zig zag would normally be done as a series of straight lines not curves. Each leg would be for a standard time, 10min I think.

You're correct, but since IL2 ships don't turn realistically (they instantly pivot around their Z axis), something resembling a sine wave path is needed to simulate a realistic turn. The long, straight "legs" you describe would be almost indistinguishable from a very relaxed sinusoidal path.

Obviously, not ideal in terms of absolute realism, and a crock when it comes to giving ships actual AI, but a potentially very simple hack (just 1 line of code for the movement pattern) for a programmer, which would make it slightly more challenging for players to hit moving ships.

[dimlee]

Originally Posted by Soldier_Fortune

The USN aerial warfare doctrine during the 40's determined, for attacks against armed vessels, that dive bombers should begin the attack, and then torpedo- bombers should finish it launching torpedoes against the damaged and weakened targets.

Of course, the number of involved a/c should be really big for to achieve targets.

But, in the other hand, think about a medium bomber, like He-111 or Ju-88 or a Betty, into the role as torpedo attacker.

Against unescorted convoys they could launch torpedoes from less than 1000 m.
But against heavily escorted convoys with a good and dense screen of destroyers and also light cruisers, those big birds flying at 30-50 m @SL and at 200 km/h would mean the loss of several expensive flights or squadrons in one only mission.

No navy or air force could support such degree of attrition: the standard training for bomber's pilots demanded 55 weeks at least. Plus several weeks for specific misions like this which we're talking about.

3000 m becomes a good and safe distance if a convoy is sailing at steady speed and heading. But when enemy planes were spotted, the fleets started maneouvers for to avoid hits... and the torpedo-bombers should approach and penetrate into the dangerous range of the AAA, for to launch their attack from a shorter distance.

Therefore, the USN doctrine (and probably all the main powers involved in the 2WW had similar doctrines) was right: the torpedo-bombers should attack after the dive bombers, in big number, and from different directions.

I don't put the doctrine in question but I doubt that "3000m+" attacks could be successful, unless in rare circumstances as high ratio torpedoes/ships launched in good visibility and calm seas. I just don't understand how a pilot(navigator?) without possibility to measure distance accurately to a target could calculate angle of torpedo launch. Here my submariner's education revolts. I might be wrong, or I miss something.