AI vs AI Kill ratio

[Avimimus]

The major problem is the failure of the AI to disengage. If you look at historical accounts, pilots would return to base as soon as they got separated from their allies. In many cases it was easy to lose sight of both allies and enemies.

There is actually already some code that could be repurposed for this: When you call for help the AI automatically checks to see if it is in range (8000m I think) before coming to your aid.

So it should be possible to program in a check that causes aircraft to be have a certain probability of returning to base if they get even somewhat separated from allied or enemy aircraft.

P.S.
There are also checks for how much ammunition is left during an attack. So one could add a random chance of aircraft disengaging after an attack.

Of course, programming AI aircraft to retreat (especially retreating when outnumbered) could be frustrating to some players.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Avimimus

The major problem is the failure of the AI to disengage. If you look at historical accounts, pilots would return to base as soon as they got separated from their allies. In many cases it was easy to lose sight of both allies and enemies.

This depends on the mission. In many cases, there would be designated "rally points" where lost pilots could go an wait for their friends to meet them. Usually, these were big landmarks where flak concentrations were low, like a town, mountain, or major road junction.

In any case, a lost pilot, particularly a fighter pilot, is going to form up with any allied plane he encounters which is going towards home, particularly bombers.

Bombers which had to drop out of formation and/or RTB were always happy to have their own personal fighter escort, and fighter pilots were happy to have their own personal bomber to provide navigation, defensive gunnery, and look-out services.

Originally Posted by Avimimus

Of course, programming AI aircraft to retreat (especially retreating when outnumbered) could be frustrating to some players.

One way around this is to have a player-controlled option for "realistic aggressiveness". Set it for Yes, and AI aircraft act like the people inside them only get to die once. Set it for No, and AI aircraft behave as they do now.

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

One way around this is to have a player-controlled option for "realistic aggressiveness". Set it for Yes, and AI aircraft act like the people inside them only get to die once. Set it for No, and AI aircraft behave as they do now.

I'm eager to know how this 'fear of death' or 'fear of self-destruction' could be programmed. Perhaps the closest analogy is the risk-evaluating algorithm of self-driven cars where the safety of the passenger is first priority. That would give us a 'coward' AI which could be fine-tuned to take more and more risk toward the 'ace' level. But constantly running such an algorithm for multiple AI planes would be resource-heavy, I guess.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by sniperton

I'm eager to know how this 'fear of death' or 'fear of self-destruction' could be programmed. Perhaps the closest analogy is the risk-evaluating algorithm of self-driven cars where the safety of the passenger is first priority.

That seems like a considerably more complex algorithm than I was thinking of.

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.

Repeat this algorithm after every attack.

I think that the AI already does something like this.

Average or better fighters will always take a head-on shot against a level bomber if closing from the front. Otherwise, they make high side attacks or high or level beam or flank attacks, depending on relative position (although if you want to get picky, USN pilots were trained to make high side and high beam attacks, not head-on attacks). Only rookies will attack level bombers from the rear.

The exception is that flying boats/float planes will always be attacked from below - from front, beam, or flank. Attack aircraft (including strike fighters and attack bombers) will be attacked from any quarter other than head-on.

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.

It would have been better if every plane had been given a rating from 1-10 for speed, maneuverability, offensive firepower, defensive firepower, armor, and ruggedness, plus yes/no operators for various types of ordinance, commo, and radar (e.g., torpedoes, bombs, mines, rockets, heavy cannon, radio receiver, radio transmitter, tail warning radar), and modifiers for assigned role (interceptor, air superiority fighter, bomber destroyer, level bomber, level attack bomber, anti-shipping, ground assault, dive bomber, torpedo bomber, ASW, ASR, artillery spotting/FAC, low level PR, high level PR, transport, cargo drop, paratroop/agent drop, agent insertion/extraction)

Ratings like these would allow the potential for more sophisticated and flexible AI.

For example, an interceptor fighter with a serious edge in speed (a rating of 10 vs. 6), but inferior maneuverability (a rating of 3 vs. 5), is always going to try to BnZ.

Or, a plane with a high level of ruggedness and armor, plus high offensive firepower, is more likely to take a head-on shot against an opponent with weak offensive firepower.

You could also use these ratings to abstractly determine the outcome of AI vs. AI fights which take place far out of sight of the player, or missions flown just by AI during a campaign.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by sniperton

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

That's more classes than I recall, but is a good selection. The only really necessary class additions are torpedo bomber, anti-shipping, parachute/agent.

Possibly there could be another flag as to whether an airplane is fully aerobatic, to keep planes like the A-20 from looping and rolling like a fighter.

Originally Posted by sniperton

I would disregard 'relative quality' (think of the pathetic attacks of the Polish and the Finns),

This is a really good point, but could be compensated for by relative pilot quality (both Finns and Poles were good pilots, despite their planes) and "desperation factor" (defending the motherland from invasion). Aggressiveness could also be pumped up for Japanese, and reduced for "less motivated" nationalities like the Chinese.

There should also be player and/or mission builder defined aggressiveness for a particular mission - for both friendly and hostile planes of various squadrons. Every nation had their bad days and their moments of tremendous heroism.

Originally Posted by sniperton

- remaining ammo
- remaining fuel (distance to base)
- territory (friendly/hostile) and, yes,
- self-confidence (aka skill).

More good points.

Additionally, a big factor was risk of capture/death in case of a bailout. For example, American pilots attacking Japan in 1945 could be a bit more aggressive since they knew that there were rescue submarines just off shore. But, for early war missions, both Japanese and Americans had to be a bit careful since a water landing was very likely to be a death sentence.

Originally Posted by sniperton

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.

Exactly what I was thinking. You could even customize values for various pilots, making pilots in a campaign more or less courageous, ranging from foolhardy to cowardly.