Dogfighting -does 4.11-4.12 patch address this?

[Igo kyu]

Yeah, I get some alerts about dodgy URLs. Seems to depend who posted in the thread. Perhaps some new posters have something invisible and dodgy in their signatures. No, just now got it on the CloD forum with only known posters on the page, must be a hack into/onto the forum.

[Tempest123]

Overall I find 4.12.1 to be a big improvement in terms of evasive maneuvers, nice turns, half rolls, loops etc. Still there is a tendency to do an occasional vertical climb followed by a stall when being chased, which of course usually results in the stalling aircraft being shot down.
There is still the issue of the AI being unable to recognize the need to boom and zoom, for example the Karelian Hawks campaign, the p-36 can run away from the i-153 all day with an altitude advantage, but the AI insists on turn fighting, so your going to lose your whole AI flight once and a while trying to dogfight. I've think i've lost more AI P-36's than Finland even had in the war lol.
The last thing that is improved but still occurs occasionally is AI planes defying physics, pulling 9g's no blacking out, no fatigue, while you're snapping your airframe trying to pull with them, or pulling negative g outside horizontal turns or loops, which would of course be impossible except if we where flying su-31's or something. The AI still posess their "radar" and can tell friend or foe from kilometers away.
I don't know how much more AI tweaking is possible in a 13 year old game engine, but it is better than before

[Laurwin]

AI friend-foe detection probably does work like that somewhat, as in they would know upon seeing something whether its friend or foe.

Althoufh otherwise AI doesnt react to this kind of data with immediate urgency. Probably its because of formation discipline together with maybe AI skill levels.

Effectively what could happen is that once in dot range under 10km, AI probably does see you but still keeps trucking on their flight path. Happens in campaigns, youd have to be coalt at least, preferrably with alt advantage.

Hehe, feels funny when I was playing wildcat campaign i dove straight into a zeke formation. I picked first two bandits out without much reaction, then my AI buddies started attacking them also. Probably tjere were some rookie zekes though.

[Pugo3]

Was swept away with business, hence the black out on my part - interesting to see the various thread postings.

Two clarifications/corrections: I reloaded Win 7 Prof a few weeks ago, and found that the multiple AI combats are just fine.

My original posting comments were based on my combats years ago using my previous XP set up, mostly using 4.07. I mentioned in another post re a serious drop in performance from my previous XP set up to my current W7 computer, and it may be that not only my aircraft but the AI were all overamped, as the AI then were on me like angry hornets, very quick and fast. I had pretty much abandoned fighting against multiples due to the seeming rocket performance of the AI, which was enhanced with multiple AI adversaries. With my W7 reload, all is well..."nevermind", so to speak! The one respondents’ comments [Bearcat, I believe] regarding taking on multiple AI in ACE mode are also duly noted, thank you.

Regarding my statement that the majority of combats were close in dog fighting, I should have specified when the combatants have seen each other... I accept the corrections of those who contended with my posting in this regard – unseen assailants did make up the majority of combat kills. Having conceded my overstatement, no combatant would stay in the combat zone if when encountering an enemy the opposing fighter simply climbed away to set up for b&z – the German pilots often relied on their camouflage to disengage at an opportune time; always better to head home for lunch and rest than play target to an enemy fighter. So again, not realistic in the main with this scenario being the default response in the game, though by the reports I understand that the AI in 4.12 no longer possesses omniscient vision to follow you all the way back to base at high altitude…if this is the case, then eluding such tactics would be relatively easy. But would crossing aircraft having mutually seen each other climb away like this or begin to engage?

Regarding my comment re AI refusing close dogfighting against certain opposing aircraft, my request was that the option might be available to experience dogfights which are not available at present, that did in fact historically occur on many occasions. Just a request. I mentioned in another posting some time ago that perhaps a toggle switch in the set up might offer options as follows: "Dogfight", "B&Z", "Random" As it stands, the option is entirely unavailable at present, and adding this feature would enhance, not degrade the game.


If you review my original posting: you will note that I acknowledged and thanked both the originators and current developers working to improve Il-2 1946. Offering suggestions or constructive criticisms are not attacks against the developers present and past, nor attacks against Ubisoft, nor requests to degrade the game. Such comments are a reveal of certain persons lacking decency and integrity who participate in forums, a plague of our times. There is no possibility of any present developer to correct these types…that will need to wait for another developer.

p3

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Pugo3

Regarding my statement that the majority of combats were close in dog fighting, I should have specified when the combatants have seen each other...

I'd still doubt that, but at least they did happen on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by Pugo3

I accept the corrections of those who contended with my posting in this regard – unseen assailants did make up the majority of combat kills. Having conceded my overstatement, no combatant would stay in the combat zone if when encountering an enemy the opposing fighter simply climbed away to set up for b&z – the German pilots often relied on their camouflage to disengage at an opportune time; always better to head home for lunch and rest than play target to an enemy fighter. So again, not realistic in the main with this scenario being the default response in the game, though by the reports I understand that the AI in 4.12 no longer possesses omniscient vision to follow you all the way back to base at high altitude…if this is the case, then eluding such tactics would be relatively easy.

Yes, the AI that doesn't see all is a blessing, and you can catch them with thier "pants down", and you can run from them and they lose interest after some while, and you can hide in clouds. I do think the AI, especially the less capable ones have a too good situational awareness and once you are spotted it is difficult too attack even rookie AI from blind spots.

Originally Posted by Pugo3

But would crossing aircraft having mutually seen each other climb away like this or begin to engage?

Depending on numbers, pilots experience and training, planes and mission of those planes, both flights could have reason to engage or not. If both planes capabilities are close, and both sides pilots knowing that fact, they could try to get the enemy now, when he is still at equal footing. But one can also argue that when the enemy knows of your presence you have given away your greatest possible advantage - and you risk too much when engaging now. And then there are mission constraints e. g. a pilot on CAP does not have the luxury of avoiding the fight.

[Pugo3]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

... And then there are mission constraints e. g. a pilot on CAP does not have the luxury of avoiding the fight.

Yes, I've discussed this before too, events presented in such a way as to demand engagement. Others have posted accurately, as you mentioned as well, regarding not engaging certainly being the best option in many instances; however, the opposite was true as well. Mission constraints, someone in trouble, etc.

What I am proposing is simply to have the opportunity to see how one aircraft would compare in a classic dogfight with another type, and the challenge of using your aircrafts' strengths and your piloting abilities to overcome an adversary. Robert Johnson described coming upon a Spit Mk IV when flying a T-bolt with the new paddle blade props - with an exchanged look and thumbs up sign, the Brit and US pilot began a mock combat, which ended with Johnson gaining the win [established kill position, checkmate] You read such accounts from all sides, seeing how one aircraft maneuvered with another in a close in fight. It is a primal instinct of fighter pilots to want to test their aircraft against a rivals bird.

However, as I related in my original posting, presently a 51' or 47' will not dogfight a 109 or 190. A late war Japanese fighter will not dogfight a Hellcat. An Oscar will not engage a Wildcat. Never. The game presently simulates only one combat option with these match ups, no exceptions: AI flies directly away to begin an endless series of b&z jousting head on passes. Yet combat accounts of dogfights between these aircraft include close in dogfights that lasted sometimes up to 15 minutes or more. It is amazing to me how vigorously and venomously some persons argue and resist this simple truth. The game would be enhanced, not degraded, by the simple addition of close in dogfighting being included as an option for all aircraft.

p3

[X-Raptor]

+1 Pugo3! well described, I agree with you at 100%.. but hey!, you can notice that this forum isn't very friendly for people like you & me.. check this instead where other simmers like us describe and (with reasons) criticize 4.12 A.I. : http://www.mission4today.com/index.p...wtopic&t=17382

..and you will not see any reply by any "ace/teacher" like you can find here in this forum where people only tell you that A.I. 4.12 is all OK(...) and reason is just because you are a shit-player

[Notorious M.i.G.]

Originally Posted by Pugo3

The game presently simulates only one combat option with these match ups, no exceptions: AI flies directly away to begin an endless series of b&z jousting head on passes.

That's odd, because from 4.11 onwards I've noticed the AI is more averse to playing "keep-away", and they have a few more tricks other than just rolling to throw someone off.

Obviously if they're flying a plane with a speed advantage they'll tend to leg it away from you, but I've seen Fw 190s get down and dirty trying to turnfight Russians on the deck. Point in case:



That's a Fw 190F tangling at knifepoint with a MiG-3U, both Average AI. The fight went from 5000m to sea level before the 190 finally pulled too hard into a turn and spun in. Speaking of which, while AI spins are a nice inclusion, it tends to only happen with Veteran and Ace AI, while the rookies play it safe. I'd expect the Rookies to spin their aircraft in carelessly sharp turns more often and take longer to recover (or even not at all).

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Pugo3

Yes, I've discussed this before too, events presented in such a way as to demand engagement. Others have posted accurately, as you mentioned as well, regarding not engaging certainly being the best option in many instances; however, the opposite was true as well. Mission constraints, someone in trouble, etc.

What I am proposing is simply to have the opportunity to see how one aircraft would compare in a classic dogfight with another type, and the challenge of using your aircrafts' strengths and your piloting abilities to overcome an adversary. Robert Johnson described coming upon a Spit Mk IV when flying a T-bolt with the new paddle blade props - with an exchanged look and thumbs up sign, the Brit and US pilot began a mock combat, which ended with Johnson gaining the win [established kill position, checkmate] You read such accounts from all sides, seeing how one aircraft maneuvered with another in a close in fight. It is a primal instinct of fighter pilots to want to test their aircraft against a rivals bird.

However, as I related in my original posting, presently a 51' or 47' will not dogfight a 109 or 190. A late war Japanese fighter will not dogfight a Hellcat. An Oscar will not engage a Wildcat. Never. The game presently simulates only one combat option with these match ups, no exceptions: AI flies directly away to begin an endless series of b&z jousting head on passes. Yet combat accounts of dogfights between these aircraft include close in dogfights that lasted sometimes up to 15 minutes or more. It is amazing to me how vigorously and venomously some persons argue and resist this simple truth. The game would be enhanced, not degraded, by the simple addition of close in dogfighting being included as an option for all aircraft.

p3

It's odd that you say they begin an endless series of B&Z jousting... and yet my experience directly combats that. You want to see endless B&Z and I encourage you to find some highly disciplined pilots online who will do that. The AI likes to mix it up dogfight style more often than not.

The track files I posted before (conveniently located here: http://sdrv.ms/1bDuTyK ) show them doing the close in fight thing. They do that a lot.

Now... what you suggested with having the ability to give the AI a couple of different flight profiles does make a lot of sense. I can actually see that working well for both fighters and bomber/attack aircraft as it would be nice to specify to the AI that you want dive bomb, strafing attacks, single pass strafing, or level bombing. Similarly being able to tell them to do a close in fight or boom and zoom ...not exclusively but as a preference would be a neat feature. There may be further delineations but it does make a lot of sense. A good and reasonable suggestion!

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by Pugo3

The game presently simulates only one combat option with these match ups, no exceptions: AI flies directly away to begin an endless series of b&z jousting head on passes. Yet combat accounts of dogfights between these aircraft include close in dogfights that lasted sometimes up to 15 minutes or more. It is amazing to me how vigorously and venomously some persons argue and resist this simple truth. The game would be enhanced, not degraded, by the simple addition of close in dogfighting being included as an option for all aircraft.

p3

They resist it because it exposes how far the game is from reality. Also the assumption that as the war went on dogfights became rarer is false: In Western Europe, classic Boom and Zoom was the domain of the Me-109s and P-38s, and this disappeared in 1944 as the FW-190A became 70% of the frontline force against equal speed opponents. (Except for the first zoom, the FW-190A was very poor on the vertical)

Just the fact that the armament of most WWII fighters is not centralized, and is pre-set for a definite firing convergence distance, says much about their supposed predilection for Boom and Zoom...

They boom and zoomed against slower opponents, because otherwise vs faster enemies it takes up too much time to gain a proper separation, and by 1944, on the Western Front, Boom and Zoom is increasingly rare as speeds get more equal, especially when the Germans gradually learn not to use the vertical against higher-flying Allies...

That is also why one German officer said "All the Aces sent to me from the Eastern Front got shot down on the Western Front": They had been used to enjoying the higher operating altitudes and comparably better dive and zoom characteristics of their Me-109s vs Russian types (whose trim tail gave it superior dive pull-out performance, even vs the P-51, if correctly trimmed, contrary to the usual lore), and all that had to change against the Allies, especially when using FW-190As...

Also, the idea 70% of kills did not see their opponent before being shot down is complete rubbish to anyone who has read more than a handful of combat accounts...

Gaston

P.S. "Red Fleet" 1943 quotes:

http://www.lonesentry.com/arti...an-combat-fw190.html (http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/t...bat-fw190.html)

Quote: -"The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight."

-"the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."

-"By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail."

-"Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft)."

-"Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible. The Lavochkin-5 will then have, when necessary, a good vertical maneuver, and consequently, the possibility of getting away from an enemy attack"

-"In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver."

-"Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers."

http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

"FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner:
FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive. FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement."

-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2: "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their SUPERIOR TURNING CIRCLE. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence... We lost eight to their one that day..."

Quote from Hurricane pilot John Weir: LINK "A Hurricane was built like a truck, it took a hell of a lot to knock it down. It was very manoeuvrable, much more manoeuvrable than a Spit, so you could, we could usually outturn a Messerschmitt. They'd, if they tried to turn with us they'd usually flip, go in, at least dive and they couldn't. A Spit was a higher wing loading..

The Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spit and, and the Spit was probably, we (Hurricane pilots) could turn one way tighter than the Germans could on a, on a, on a Messerschmitt, but the Focke Wulf could turn the same as we could and, they kept on catching up, you know."

But what do these experienced combat veterans know...

G.