Dogfighting -does 4.11-4.12 patch address this?

[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

[K_Freddie]

You know the AI is still easy, It is different to the previous versions and more aggressive. This is very much what a human rookie pilot would be like.

I find myself having to fly a bit more harder, but nothing spectacular. That I leave for human opponents online.

[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!

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by 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

I (and others) encouraged you to improve your flying skills and were even willing to provide examples of how... I certainly didn't call you a "shit player".

[Derda508]

I know, that the initial question was about dogfighting in QMB, but I just had an experience in a campaign, that I want to share.
Presently I am flying two blue campaigns parallel: Desaster at the Frontiers (Europe) with Bf 109 and later Fw 190, and Asia for the Asians (Pacific) with Ki-27 and later Ki-43. I am late in 1941 in both campaigns and it is quite unbelievable that the 109 F2 and the Ki-27 were in the air and fighting at the same time.
But to the point: In the pacific campaing with Ki-27 against I-153 and I-16 you get all the dogfighting that you can wish for. The plane set of both sides is build for this. The Russian I-16 would love to get you to dogfight in your Bf 109 as well, but you would be pretty unwise to do it. So, what kind of fight you get, depends very much on the aircraft you choose. With P-47 vs. Fw 190 it seems pretty unlikely to get a dogfight, with the rice bowls against the Ratas you will have it. And, thanks to the new patches, some of the AI will surprise you even after years of playing: yesterday evening, close to the end of a mission, I encountered a pair of I-16 in my Ki-27. After some wild curving I managed to get behind one of them, tried to get it into that miserable gunsight .. and was shot down by the other one. I watched the track and yes: it really looked as if they did me in with very well coordinated drag and bag tactics. I repeated the mission several times (well, I had to, because I was shot down ...) but whenever I met these two Ratas, they did the same thing, even when I still had some wingmen with me: picking me out as the flight leader, one playing the bait, the other one getting behind me for the kill. And then they tried the same with the rest of my flight. Well, I think that this is VERY impressive for AI behaviour and certainly a most exiting dogfight.

[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.

[gaunt1]

-"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."

The turn rate of the La-5/7 series is clearly overmodeled ingame. (you can actually turn with an A6M Zero in a La-7!) But with realistic turn rates, it still shouldnt have any problems outturning the Fw. According to NII VVS tests, the worst of the Lavochkins, the basic La-5 had 0.5 seconds advantage over the best Fw, the La-5F had 2, and the La-5FN had 3 seconds.