Suggestions for AI Improvements

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

But currently if in Il-2 all and any P-51 would leave their bombers pursuing a single enemy - and only return when that one is dead.

Oh, the old all chasing one of theirs, while the rest of theirs chase the player situation? I thought that had been sorted out?

You're right that's not realistic, you should have two planes at most chasing one plane, but it's not realistic for the allies to stick to the bombers either, the Germans tried that in the BoB and it wasn't particularly successful.

In real life the first German (flight) attacking the bombers would have a very bad day - and the other flights nice, yummy, juicy unprotected bombers. I bet the Allied squad leader ordering ALL of his planes after the first attacker getting the bombers slaughtered would not be squad leader the next day, but prisoner awaiting court martial.

That is a mistake, almost a bug, but IL*2 just can't deal with the numbers of planes in the real war.

AI should if numerically superior chase attackers, but only to a certain amount. If they are the only flight protecting, they should only do so once in a while (the worse the AI level, the more so).

What actually happened was patrols of fighters along the route of the bombers, if a squadron found an enemy formation they would engage the formation, and every free fighter for miles around would head for the combat.

They did have enormous numerical superiority.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

You're right that's not realistic, you should have two planes at most chasing one plane, but it's not realistic for the allies to stick to the bombers either, the Germans tried that in the BoB and it wasn't particularly successful.

It worked quite well for the Tuskegee Airmen, probably the best escort fighter unit ever.

This is not only a whish-list thread, it’s also somewhat complex to be read, at least for me. I would contribute with two small considerations.
Once in landing pattern, AIs have a constrained behaviour. If attacked, they do make evasive manoeuvres, but never fight back and return to pattern as soon as possible. This behaviour could be, perhaps, used for escort fighters, with appropriate tweaking.
Then, I would have a simple wish: the possibility to mark as destroyed… a destroyed plane, or a clearly doomed one. Something like the order: “Don’t shoot to this target anymore”. It’s not realistic, I must admit, but it is annoying to have your kill stolen by a “last bullet”, and I suspect that any shared kills system would end up with the vast majority of kills being awarded as shared.

[Derda508]

This 'last bullet kill stealing' was really annoying up to 4.11.
The shared kills system of 4.12 fixed it, at least for me. If you fly Japanese (as I do since some time) or German, there are no shared kills, so if you choose the option 'shared kills/historically' and inflict major damage to an enemy plane (more than 50 % I assume) you get the full kill, no matter whether some of your ai-friends still pour their bullets in it.
Admittedly I don´t know how it works for the red side, where kill sharing existed.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Derda508

The shared kills system of 4.12 fixed it, at least for me. If you fly Japanese (as I do since some time) or German, there are no shared kills, so if you choose the option 'shared kills/historically' and inflict major damage to an enemy plane (more than 50 % I assume) you get the full kill, no matter whether some of your ai-friends still pour their bullets in it.

Basically, yes. Although there are still a few bugs.

Originally Posted by Derda508

Admittedly I don´t know how it works for the red side, where kill sharing existed.

It works just fine for US and British/Commonwealth, where shared kills were allowed.

It's also possible to have "shared kills" for Axis and Soviet aircraft if you turn on "shared kills" but turn off "historical kill claims."

Every air force has "half kill" markings.

[Pursuivant]

This is a new post to an old thread, but here are some further wishlist ideas

AI ATTACK OPTIONS

1) Ability to Specify Targets in Advance: Currently, when ordered to attack a target that isn't in range, AI gives you an "unable to comply" message (at least in the QMB). It would be handy if you could "program" sections or divisions to perform various tasks BEFORE you get to the target, either in the FMB or as player commands.

As player commands, this option would let you fly your plane without being distracted with a lot of formation commands when things get hectic.

2) Ability to Specify Target Priority: In conjunction with Option 1, this allows you to program AI so that it will automatically "default" to certain targets after the primary target is destroyed. For example, "Flak first, then aircraft on the ground, then vehicles, then other ground targets."

3) Ability to Specify Attack Type: Currently, there's no method in the FMB or the player commands that allow you to tell AI which method of attack they should use first. There should be the following options: Strafe, Air-to-Ground Rocket Attack, Air-to-Air Rocket Attack, Torpedo Attack, Dive Bomb Attack, Glide Bomb Attack, Low Level Bomb Attack (specify altitude), High Level Bomb Attack (specify altitude), Guided Bomb Attack, [Aerial Bomb Attack, Depth Charge Attack (set depth), Mine-Dropping Attack].

Edit: Add Paratroop drop, Cargo Drop, Flare Drop, and Kamikaze to "attack" types.

4) Ability to Specify Ordinance Priority: As for Option 2, but for ordinance types. Options: Internal/centerline bombs, external/wing bombs, Air-to-air rockets, Air-to-ground rockets, torpedoes, guided bombs, fixed guns, flexible guns, [aerial bombs, depth charges, mines].

5) Ability to Specify Attack Formation: Currently, it appears that planes don't always attack at once when ordered to do so. There should be the following FMB/Player commands: Attack individually, Attack by section/Rotte, Attack by Division/Schwarm, Attack by Squadron/Staffel.

6) Ability to Specify Number of Attacks: either a number or "unlimited." Specifying just one attack is automatically interpreted as "one attack and evade/ egress" meaning just one quick attack followed by going defensive and leaving the target area at as high a rate of speed as possible. Multiple attacks defaults to appropriate ordinance attacks, followed by strafing until the number of attacks is satisfied. Unlimited is the current situation - the AI will attack indefinitely until destroyed/heavily damaged, or it runs out of ammo.

For fighter attacks vs. aerial targets, specifying just one attack means a "bounce" followed by an attempt to evade.

7) Ability to Specify Automatic Abort Conditions: AI aborts attacks, goes defensive, and returns to base when one or more conditions occur: >X% formation casualties, light damage to plane, heavy damage to plane, crew lightly wounded, crew heavily wounded, crew bleeding, <X% fuel, <X% ordinance (type), <X% ammo, >X number of hostile fighters in area, >X number of hostile AAA in area.

[Marabekm]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

This is a new post to an old thread, but here are some further wishlist ideas

AI ATTACK OPTIONS

3) Ability to Specify Attack Type: Currently, there's no method in the FMB or the player commands that allow you to tell AI which method of attack they should use first. There should be the following options: Strafe, Air-to-Ground Rocket Attack, Air-to-Air Rocket Attack, Torpedo Attack, Dive Bomb Attack, Glide Bomb Attack, Low Level Bomb Attack (specify altitude), High Level Bomb Attack (specify altitude), Guided Bomb Attack, [Aerial Bomb Attack, Depth Charge Attack (set depth), Mine-Dropping Attack].

Does this help?

From game manual. 4.08 So make sure nothing changed with patches. I don't think any of this did.

Note:
1. For dive bombers, fighters with bombs, and fighter-bombers, you have to set target
objects for the GATTACK point. Otherwise, they will attack the enemy object nearest to
the waypoint, if they can find it.
2. For transports with bombs and level bombers, set the waypoint directly over the object
that you would like to destroy, and then set GATTACK for that waypoint. Planes will drop
the bombs in that area. (You must set the GATTACK waypoint without a target object!) Do
the same if you use planes with paratroopers as loadout.
3. For dive bombers and fighter-bombers with bombs, the altitude has to be more than 1300
meters for dive bombing. Otherwise, they drop bombs as level bombers.
4. If you want any of the selected groups of planes with bombs to do level bombing, see
item 3 above.
5. Don’t set an altitude that is too low in bomb target areas for level bombers. They may be
destroyed by their own bomb explosion.
6. Don’t set the previous waypoint too close to the point of GATTACK. Planes won’t have
time to rejoin the right formation for the attack. Usually it is enough to set 7 to 10 km
between these waypoints

At least this will differentiate between level and dive bombing.

And for Kamikaze attacks:

KAMIKAZE MISSIONS
Creating kamikaze flights is very simple. Any flight whose last waypoint is a GATTACK will ram
itself into the designated target.
However, if you set up too many waypoints before the GATTACK waypoint, the planes may still
decide to use regular attacks before ramming it. Therefore, it’s recommended that you only
give the kamikaze one waypoint before GATTACK. This will ensure that it attack the target on
the first pass.
Note: If you do not want kamikaze bombers, make sure the planes have another waypoint
after the GATTACK. If you fail to do this, you may end up with the bombers behaving in a completely
unintended manner.


As for setting the level bombers to high or low level bomb, set the ground attack waypoint as described above. On the waypoint tab you will see settings for airspeed and height. This is the height the plane will fly at that waypoint. For low level attack, set the height some number under 500m. For high level, probably whatever number above 3000m.

There doesn't need to be options for torpedo or guided bomb attack. Either the aircraft has one of these weapons (and will attack appropriately, as long as mission builder set waypoints right) or it doesn't have one of these weapons. You can't have a mix of say bombs and a torpedo, or regular bombs and 1 guided bomb on the same aircraft. However the mission builder needs to set waypoints appropriate to these munitions. Low waypoints for torpedoes, and above 4000m for guided bombs.

But I do agree with you on option to fire either rockets and regular bombs. (As many aircraft can carry both at the same time)

There are no depth charges or mines currently in game, so I have no idea why this was even brought up????????

[Pursuivant]

Interesting article on US P-38 tactics, with some discussion of late-war Japanese tactics, written by Thomas McGuire, the US's 2nd highest scoring ace.

http://www.475th.org/home/475th/othe...t-pacific-area

Note the emphasis on flight (schwarme/division)-based tactics.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Furio

It worked quite well for the Tuskegee Airmen, probably the best escort fighter unit ever.

Multiple fighters chasing a single hostile aircraft, or breaking formation to go hunting on their own, was a matter of experience and unit discipline and is an old problem. It's listed in the Dicta Boelke as "a thing not to do."

As for the "Tuskeegee Airmen," the 332d FS was basically following U.S. doctrine, but they excelled because they had remarkable "esprit de corps," a superior pilot pool, a high standard of training, and good leadership. The "Redtails" had a point that they wanted to prove, and went about proving it in exemplary fashion. Although their reputation for "never losing a bomber" is a myth, they were noteworthy for low losses among bombers they were assigned to escort.

Originally Posted by Furio

Once in landing pattern, AIs have a constrained behaviour. If attacked, they do make evasive manoeuvres, but never fight back and return to pattern as soon as possible. This behaviour could be, perhaps, used for escort fighters, with appropriate tweaking.

This is another good point, and one that's easily fixed.

* Aircraft shouldn't enter the landing pattern until they're sure there are not hostile aircraft about.

* If there are hostile aircraft present, they abandon the landing behavior, and behave as if they're still in the combat zone.

This is a simple fix to the existing AI.

More advanced landing options:

* If they're forced to land (due to damage or low fuel) when hostile aircraft are present, then the rest of the flight/squadron should give top cover to the aircraft which is landing.

* If possible, aircraft should try to lure hostile aircraft into areas where friendly flak can attack them.

* Aircraft with wounded crew aboard land first. Badly damaged land-based aircraft land second. Possibly, aircraft could shoot/drop flares to indicate priority landing (radio calls weren't used to avoid giving intelligence to the enemy).

* If there are multiple airfields in the area, badly damaged aircraft which are likely to crash divert to secondary/emergency landing strips to keep the main airfield clear.

* Damaged carrier aircraft which are still capable of making a carrier landing land last. Badly damaged carrier aircraft which are incapable of making a carrier landing ditch alongside the carrier or an escorting ship rather than attempting to land.

* If a multi-crew aircraft is badly damaged so that it is unlikely to be able to land safely, and it is over friendly, populated territory, all crew but the pilot (possibly co-pilot) and badly wounded crew will bail out if it is possible to safely do so. The pilot(s) will then make an attempt to land the plane with wounded crew aboard.

* Planes with landing gear failure, which must crash land rather than landing normally, will "belly land" alongside the runway, rather than on it. This keeps the main runway clear.

Originally Posted by Furio

Then, I would have a simple wish: the possibility to mark as destroyed… a destroyed plane, or a clearly doomed one. Something like the order: “Don’t shoot to this target anymore”.

Technically, you can control AI planes in your formation by telling them to "rejoin formation." But, that's inconvenient and doesn't always work.

I've suggested a fix for friendly AI breaking off attacks on damaged or destroyed enemies, but perhaps you didn't notice it.

Currently, IL2 has an "Arcade Mode" where AI aircraft produce "cartoon thought bubbles" when they take certain kinds of damage. Messages include "I'm On Fire" (i.e., fatal damage), "Returning to Base" (i.e., severe damage) and "Bailing Out" (AI recognizes that damage is fatal).

It would be very simple for AI programming to use these messages from Arcade Mode to decide when AI crew should bail out, when attackers should stop shooting, and when a player (or AI aircraft) should get credit for a kill.

Rather than victory credit, or shared credit, going to the pilot who fired the last bullet, credit should go to the pilot who inflicted the fatal damage (i.e., the one who caused the damage that triggered the "I'm on Fire" or "I'm Bailing Out" message).

Pilots should get shared kill credit for damage which triggers the "RTB" message.

For Air Forces which tracked such things, it should also be possible to get "probable kill" credit for any damage which triggers the "RTB" message. And "damaged" credit for any hit at all to an enemy plane.

Once the scoring system is trained to recognize "damaged," "severe damage" and "fatal damage", then it would be possible to have more complex scoring systems, like those used by the Germans for awarding points towards medals.

Herausschuss (Separation) = RTB
Abschuss (Destruction) = I'm on Fire/Bailing Out
Endgueltige Vernichtung (Final Destruction) = I'm on Fire/Bailing Out result on a plane that's already received enough damage that it's RTB.

Kill claiming could be made more strict (for Air Forces which required such things) by only giving credit for kills made over friendly land territory, or in the presence of at least one other friendly unit (including ships and ground units).

Kill claiming could be made less strict by allowing pilots who achieved an "RTB" result to claim a "kill" rather than a probable. This would allow two pilots to both get kill credit for a single aircraft (and would mimic historical rates of kill claims for fighter pilots).

Kill claiming could be made much less strict by allowing pilots who inflicted any damage on an aircraft at all to count it as a kill! This would be good for "duels to the first blood" and would mimic historical rates of kill claims for air gunners and pilots in air forces where kill claims were accepted based on the pilot's word.