AI vs AI Kill ratio

[Ice_Eagle]

Regarding "unrealistic" head-on attacks:

Rule 6. If your opponent dives on you, do not try to get around his attack, but fly to meet it. The instinctive reaction of many rookies was to turn and flee from an approaching attacker—especially a diving one. This simply presented their tail to the attacker, usually with disastrous results. Boelcke taught that a pilot had to conquer that instinct. Turning to face the attack could force the attacker onto the defensive, or at least keep the situation unsettled, which was far better than presenting your tail. Even though climbing to meet an attack would reduce speed, it was better to try to bring one's own guns to bear than to flee, and approaching the enemy still increases the relative velocity between the two fighters and thus reduces the time during which the enemy can fire. Furthermore, if both fighters miss, the diving attacker must now pull out of his dive, while the defender is now in position to circle around and counter-attack with his own dive.

Still taught to this very day.

Luftwaffe pilots learned early on with the introduction of the -17's in the ETO that head-on attacks were far more effective then attacking from any other position, even though more dangerous. Less time spent in the bomber gunners sight.

The AVG, despite the wonderful BnZ tactics, often turned to meet an enemy head-on rather then diving away. In A2A combat, you don't think, you react. You think, your dead. Thats why these rules are taught over and over so pilots don't have to think.

Overall the 4.12 AI is pretty good. especially when Ki43's & Zero's snaproll and stall, you go sailing right by them, they recover and now there on your 6

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

It seems to me that in real life, it would be more difficult to keep track of a particular aircraft if there were more planes in the air, and that is what the AI ought to be emulating.

That's what I meant, sorry I didn't say it more clearly.

Ace pilots should be able to track lots of planes even if they can't see them. Rookies can lose track of even one.

[major.kudo]

Last suggestion decided as a result of the argument.
The following improvements are needed to make more realistic Kill ratio between AI.



About gun shooting

- The deflection shooting is made more and more inaccurate. In particular, Rookie and Average.

- head on between the fighters is made more inaccurate.



About behavior

- AI Decision to "return to base immediately" by more less damage.

- The enemy who took Serious damage doesn't attack any more.

- If the prudence of AI can be set at QMB and FMB, it's more better.

- AI loses sight of an enemy more easily.
Rookie pilots don't have as much knowledge as aces.
It is much harder to lose knowledge of where a particular airplane is if there are many airplanes in the area.
Ace pilots should be able to track lots of planes even if they can't see them. Rookies can lose track of even one.

- AI fighters does not attack a bomber of heavy armament from just behind.





And, if it's possible more!

- http://gachopin.no-ip.info/kudo/Bombers_formation.jpg

[Ice_Eagle]

Hello,
I seen AI attack heavy bombers from all directions, including head-on
attacks in v4.12, v4.13. I do notice that bomber do not hold formation
on the ground attack waypoint, when they should. Very annoying

[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.

[baball]

Originally Posted by major.kudo

Everyone, thank you for your very good opinion.
I interpreted as follows.


about gun shooting

- Gun shooting of AI more inaccurately. In particular, Rookie and Average.

- The deflection shooting is made more inaccurate.

- head on between the fighters is made more inaccurate.


Behavior

- AI Decision to "return to base immediately" by more less damage.

- The enemy who took Serious damage doesn't attack any more.

- AI loses sight of an enemy more easily.

- AI stop to attack a bomber of heavy armament from just behind.

- If the prudence of AI can be set at QMB and FMB, it's more better.


As far as it's possible, I make all opinion simple.　
And I'm thinking I'll show that to DT in the future.
It's necessary to be change as simple as possible for it.
When being complicated, that wouldn't be achieved.

Another behavior I'd be really glad to see added to the game would be the ability for pilots of heavily damaged aircrafts to bail out over friendly territory instead of trying to crash land over some forest. Goddam tree huggers.

[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.