AI vs AI Kill ratio

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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.

If my memory serves, Il2 has the following basic classes:

Transport
Scout
Seaplane
Ground Attack ('Stormovik')
Level Bomber
Dive Bomber
Fighter
TNB Fighter
BNZ Fighter

Each plane is defined as belonging to one or more classes, e.g. the 190 is a 'Fighter', a 'BNZ Fighter', and a 'Stormovik'. New classes could be defined and added, I'm pretty sure, but all this would only affect tactics, not aggressivity.

I think this is the way to go, and this is basically what I had in mind:

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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.

I would disregard 'relative quality' (think of the pathetic attacks of the Polish and the Finns), but would add
- remaining ammo
- remaining fuel (distance to base)
- territory (friendly/hostile) and, yes,
- self-confidence (aka skill).

Once you calculated the success/risk ratio (which shall be higher for an ace pilot), you can define a kamikaze to attack even with zero chance, a braveheart with 50% chance, and a cautious pilot only with 75% (or higher) chance.

As a result, a cautious British pilot over Kent will be more aggressive than his braveheart German adversary. The crucial point is, I think, to define the conditions when a plane has to disengage and RTB.

[Verdun1916]

My biggest issue with the AI at the moment is the AI's reluctance to strafe groundtargets unless they have dropped bombs or fired rockets first. When flying fighters or fighter-bombers against a ground target, say a column of vehicles or a train, and the only armament is your machineguns and/or cannons the AI doesn't seem to want to play ball. You order your comrades in your flight to attack the vehicles or the train and they answer "Roger" or something similar yet they don't actually attack. They only fly low over the target instead of strafing it. And if there are any kind of AA-protection they usually get themselfs shot down in the process. And this is very annoying!

I know others have mentioned this before but I want to lift this issue again. I would love the AI to be adjusted, if possible of course, so they will strafe ground targets when ordered to no matter if they have been armed with bombs or rockets earlier in the mission or not.

My second biggest issue is as so many others the far to accurate gunners on multicrew aircraft. They are freaking snipers at extreme distances!!! (They even put Simo Häyhä to shame, and he was the best sniper in the history of war! 500 - 742 kills within 105 days during the Winter War) It would be lovely if this "sniper skill" could be dialed down a bit.

[dimlee]

Originally Posted by Verdun1916

My second biggest issue is as so many others the far to accurate gunners on multicrew aircraft. They are freaking snipers at extreme distances!!! (They even put Simo Häyhä to shame, and he was the best sniper in the history of war! 500 - 742 kills within 105 days during the Winter War) It would be lovely if this "sniper skill" could be dialed down a bit.

I love to hunt bombers, offline and online. I learned to accept those uber snipers as another "feature" and I try to stay calm when another B-17 gunner kills the pilot of my interceptor during high head on attack (up to 1000 kmh relative speed). Try...stay...calm...
But what really annoys me is a lack of logic. ShVAK gunner freezing in open cockpit of MBR-2 (TB-3, etc.) looking through fogged glasses and aiming with primitive iron gunsight can be more precise than ball turret operator of B-17/B-24 or computer operator of B-29.

[sniperton]

I made some comparative tests and my impression is that 'rookie' gunners in IL2 are better than 'average' gunners in CLOD. One must also take into consideration that damage boxes in IL2 are probably bigger and coarser and this way 'fatal' hits are more common.

Taking down a Blenheim or a Heinkel takes more hits in CLOD, for sure, but it's compensated by smoother controls and better aiming accuracy. A 40% hit ratio is something I could never achieve in IL2. My aiming is either shaky or I don't have the needed control authority in dogfight. The same applies to throttle and trimming. I always feel I applied too much or too less, while in CLOD I find them just OK. This is not only the different AI, but also the different flight physics that counts, I think, and CLOD with its thicker air feels more natural. I wish if IL2 could be made alike.

[dimlee]

Originally Posted by sniperton

I made some comparative tests and my impression is that 'rookie' gunners in IL2 are better than 'average' gunners in CLOD. One must also take into consideration that damage boxes in IL2 are probably bigger and coarser and this way 'fatal' hits are more common.

Taking down a Blenheim or a Heinkel takes more hits in CLOD, for sure, but it's compensated by smoother controls and better aiming accuracy. A 40% hit ratio is something I could never achieve in IL2. My aiming is either shaky or I don't have the needed control authority in dogfight. The same applies to throttle and trimming. I always feel I applied too much or too less, while in CLOD I find them just OK. This is not only the different AI, but also the different flight physics that counts, I think, and CLOD with its thicker air feels more natural. I wish if IL2 could be made alike.

Interesting observations, thanks. But - taking physics model aside - can we really claim what is more "realistic"? Smoother controls of one airsim or shaky ones of another?
I have no experience in CLOD. But then I wonder how many players of CLOD and IL-2 have experience of real life dogfight.

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by dimlee

But - taking physics model aside - can we really claim what is more "realistic"? Smoother controls of one airsim or shaky ones of another?
I have no experience in CLOD. But then I wonder how many players of CLOD and IL-2 have experience of real life dogfight.

I wrote 'natural', not 'realistic'. This is all about the feel, the illusion of reality. In IL2 I feel the need for a long stick to fly these planes correctly, while CLOD seems to be better optimized for short sticks. Another point at issue is the fine balance between throttle/thrust and air drag. A weak engine with little drag (IL2) give a different feel than a strong engine with strong air drag (CLOD). Strong drag also contributes to a better longitudinal stability and to less wobbling when aiming.

A related issue is torque. When speed is low and the stabilizers don't get enough airflow (typically on the ground, when taxiing or during takeoff), the torque effect is very strong in CLOD (and BoS); but once you get airborne and your speed increases, the stabilizers become more and more effective and minor throttle changes do not result in significant and sudden torque changes as they do in IL2. When you reduce throttle in CLOD (or BoS), the nose drops a bit, but there's no urgent need for applying rudder and aileron to re-adjust your aim, which are responsible for most of the wobbling experienced in IL2.

[Daniël]

Interesting discussion about the feel of flying. I only have 30 minutes of flight in a piston powered airplane, so I guess I can't really comment on the effects of throttle and torque, but I have around 200 flights in gliders now (around 30 hours). In my opinion the flight model in CloD resembles the feel of flight better than Il-2 1946. It's difficult to explain, but I think that Il-2 1946 is not as smooth as CloD (and how a glider feels).

In my opinion by far the biggest difference in the flight models of Il-2 1946 and CloD is the handling on the ground. CloD is a lot more sensitive in that aspect and I think it feels better than Il-2 1946.

I like the flight models of DCS and Falcon BMS too. DCS depends on the module of course and I can only give my opinion about the stock planes, the Su-25 and TF-51 as I don't have any modules for DCS yet, but out of those two I think the SU-25 feels the most natural.

Regarding BoS: The planes in BoS are very sensitive (nothing wrong with that), but I think that they're far too wobbly and I feel that the stall characteristics are not realistic compared to what I have experienced in gliders. In a spin in a glider a wing drops and the plane kind of "flips over". However in BoS the "flipping over" action stops way too early I think. I think that the other simulators that I named do a better job at simulating a spin, including Il-2 1946.

Please bear in mind that I have not flown any of the planes in these simulators in real life so my opinion is probably subjective and influenced from flying gliders and I have not played Il-2 1946 in couple of months, so maybe I don't remember all characteristics exactly. I mainly fly CloD and Falcon BMS at the moment.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Verdun1916

My biggest issue with the AI at the moment is the AI's reluctance to strafe groundtargets unless they have dropped bombs or fired rockets first.

+1!

There should be an command to "attack ground targets with guns" and by preference well-armed fighters and ground attack planes should attack "soft" vehicles with guns or rockets rather than bombs - save the bombs for better targets like AFV, bridges, or trains.

There should also be some sort of option to "strafe along this axis" so that you can make your wingmen strafe down the length of a convoy, the deck of a ship, or along a line of parked aircraft.

Originally Posted by Verdun1916

My second biggest issue is as so many others the far to accurate gunners on multicrew aircraft. They are freaking snipers at extreme distances!!!

I think that this has gotten a bit better with each new release. In particular, the U-2 (which used to be a flying flak tower) has been fixed in the last release.

Even so, long range flexible gun accuracy is still too good for some planes and some gun positions. I think that slipstream buffeting of guns, vibration, and turbulence aren't factored into gun accuracy algorithms.

Additionally, AI gunners can instantly detect and react to an airplane flying into their view, which makes fire from gun positions with a narrow field of view too effective (like the dorsal guns on the Ju-88, or some ventral gun positions). Realistically, it should take a gunner some fraction of a second to identify and track a hostile plane before opening fire once it comes into view.

[sniperton]

Transport
Scout
Seaplane
Ground Attack ('Stormovik')
Level Bomber
Dive Bomber
Fighter
TNB Fighter
BNZ Fighter

These are the basic IL2 aircraft classes, period. As taken from in-game class files. Later on some others were added, e.g. for planes carrying anti-ship missiles or having only a two-stage prop. But these are the base classes which are defined internally and on which the AI may rely. No more, no less. That's what the AI has.

[dimlee]

Originally Posted by sniperton

As a result, a cautious British pilot over Kent will be more aggressive than his braveheart German adversary.

And both will be more aggressive at fight over the landmass then over the water...
Good ideas, I agree with everything.