PDA

View Full Version : A *MUST* for BoB and following sims



XyZspineZyX
06-10-2007, 03:34 PM
AI recognition of friendly and target state. It's not very good in the sim, we know this. Yes, we demand more and more but honestly, this is something that needs attention, and it needs to be basic

When an enemy bomber falls behind the stream, on fire, all friendly aircraft capable of attack swarm it right now. Well, they have for a long time

First: on fire means: stop attacking, for the AI. Pretty much period. Break off attack, find legitimate target

Second: AI needs to recognise and respond to friendly states- whether other friendlies are in danger, or cannot cover a flight leader. The AI pays literal lip service, but does not respond most times

What SoW needs, is a way to script AI behavior. Whether it's by options you click, or by putting in code, it needs it

Is anyone familiar with the OFP editor? How you can set friendly and enemy state? Safe to Alert? And you can change it from waypoint to waypoint? And how you can script its special behaviors?

Whether it's elegant or difficult to use, SoW needs a comparable- actually a much better- system than that

Enemy all-seeing eyes- not just in clouds or the dark- must go.

Friendly insitance of attacking your target must go

Friendly ignorance of friendly peril must go

Friendly ignornance of player in command must go

being incapable of alerting your squadron to danger must go

But most importantly, the 'swarm' method of AI attacks must absolutely go, and for good. No 4 on one attacks when the target is on fire already. I just watched 8 friendly planes pursue a single flaming bomber from 12,000 feet down to the deck, while absolutely ignoring legitimate targets numbering over 2 dozen, at their initial co-altitude. Blasting away like the thing was alone

Very, very very old and very wrong. This must change. It really is a fun-killer

Dtools4fools
06-10-2007, 04:20 PM
Agreed, there sure is room for improvment in AI matters.

Others:

- AI crews abandon planes which are burning firecly instead of flying along and crashing later with the plane.
- AI crews abandon damaged plane once it is doomed (like steadily loosing altitude, not able to stop descend) instead on staying and crashing to death.

****

fly_zo
06-10-2007, 04:34 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

DuxCorvan
06-10-2007, 04:37 PM
With your permission, a few more:

Mr. I-Follow-You-Till-The-End-Of-World AI who never tires of chasing his target even alone deep inside enemy airspace even to base and keeps insisting on and on and on till he runs out of fuel, or everyone dies... must go.

AI should recognize enemy flight strength and compare it with own, and try to avoid combat or disengage if in clear disadvantage -a moral value should be useful, too. Suicidal against-all-odds behavior must go, at least it should be not that way always.

BTW, not only should go shooting at enemy crippled aircraft till the deck, but burning AI aircraft should stop fighting *themselves*. It's funny how fighters in flames go on quietly turning and zooming as if nothing happened.

AI gunners should point at some circle around your aircraft, tighter depending on gunner ability, but should not always matematically calculate the precise deflection path of your very head.

Bombers not releasing payload when leaders do, gone.

Too obvious cheating AI -i.e. fighters not suffering damage in savage dives- must go.

Handsome muscular guys wandering around my nearby pubs and lifting all the good-looking babes must go.

Freelancer-1
06-10-2007, 04:53 PM
AI needs work yes, but have any of you tried hitting the Tab key and telling them what you want them to do.

So they are jumping all over a flamer, tell 'em to break off. It's three key taps, for gods sake!

That covers half the issues in the first post right there.

As for the rest, definitely would like to see the AI black out, not see through clouds, have an engine overheat once in a while, etc.

LEXX_Luthor
06-10-2007, 05:06 PM
Dux::
AI should recognize enemy flight strength and compare it with own, and try to avoid combat or disengage if in clear disadvantage -a moral value should be useful, too. Suicidal against-all-odds behavior must go, at least it should be not that way always.
hehe, if aircraft didn't attack when numerically inferior, the RAF would have sat out the Battle of Britain. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Oleg has responded to this when he talked about VVS pilots attacking in numerical inferiority. Chuck Yeager has written about attacking dozens of Luftwaffe fighters with only one (1) wing person.

What kind of "enemy flights?" One or two interceptor pilots attacking a greater number of bombers happened all the time.

None of these numerically inferior offensive actions were "suicidal" but all did have an advantage -- Yeager and wingperson attacking in surprise with better eyesight and experience for example. Another example would be 4 Flying Tiger P-40s diving out of the sun on a dozen Ki-21s and a dozen Ki-43s. Flying Tigers were always outnumbered, and they always attacked when they had tactical advantages that overcame the ever present numerical disadvantage.

Now, you have a point about suicidal behavior. The Flying Tigers didn't stay to dogfight like Oleg's AI does, although on his first FT combat encounter, Boyington tried just that, but he got smart real fast and escaped to survive. There has to be huge advances in AI programming before combat flight sims can become mainstream successes. The overly simplistic "rule" of AI not attacking if outnumbered is not among those advances, and would be a collossal blunder to use.

Stew278
06-10-2007, 05:35 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Maybe more control in the radio commands too. Such as if you are flying in a 4 ship and encounter an enemy 8 ship have a command to tell 2nd element to target one flight while you take the other.

Also having the AI not have 100% accurate situational awareness; it'd be nice to be able to bounce an AI flight once and awhile.

WTE_Moleboy
06-10-2007, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Dux:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AI should recognize enemy flight strength and compare it with own, and try to avoid combat or disengage if in clear disadvantage -a moral value should be useful, too. Suicidal against-all-odds behavior must go, at least it should be not that way always.
hehe, if aircraft didn't attack when numerically inferior, the RAF would have sat out the Battle of Britain. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Oleg has responded to this when he talked about VVS pilots attacking in numerical inferiority. Chuck Yeager has written about attacking dozens of Luftwaffe fighters with only one (1) wing person.

What kind of "enemy flights?" One or two interceptor pilots attacking a greater number of bombers happened all the time.

None of these numerically inferior offensive actions were "suicidal" but all did have an advantage -- Yeager and wingperson attacking in surprise with better eyesight and experience for example. Another example would be 4 Flying Tiger P-40s diving out of the sun on a dozen Ki-21s and a dozen Ki-43s. Flying Tigers were always outnumbered, and they always attacked when they had tactical advantages that overcame the ever present numerical disadvantage.

Now, you have a point about suicidal behavior. The Flying Tigers didn't stay to dogfight like Oleg's AI does, although on his first FT combat encounter, Boyington tried just that, but he got smart real fast and escaped to survive. There has to be huge advances in AI programming before combat flight sims can become mainstream successes. The overly simplistic "rule" of AI not attacking if outnumbered is not among those advances, and would be a collossal blunder to use. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Giving mission builders the ability to decide a pilot's level of aggression would be an excellent feature for SOW: BOB. You could give a pilot high aggression as part of the RAF during the Battle of Britain so that th AI attack regardless of the odds or you could give a pilot low aggression so that they turn away if they do not have height/speed on their side.

slipBall
06-10-2007, 05:53 PM
In a recent interview with Oleg, the interviewer was quite surprised at the level of how SOW addresses the criticisum leveled at IL2...I hope that mean's AI & game sounds among a few other issues

XyZspineZyX
06-10-2007, 08:02 PM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Lexx-</span>

Do you ever read what I post? I actually DARE you to make less sense.

Your reply to me is almost beyond any ability to understand. It's as if I'm talking to a man who just came out of a coma. I know you like to argue and play devil's advocate, but wtf are you playing at here? You persist in treating me like I'm an idiot, and you have all the answers. This is hardly the first time you have gone off on some wild tangent while "replying" to me. Let's look at your reply, shall we?

hehe, if aircraft didn't attack when numerically inferior, the RAF would have sat out the Battle of Britain. Wink2

Wonderful. What the holy hell does this have to do with the situation I describe, exactly? The RAF did not send two flights to attack an already burning He-111 when 24 other targets were heading to target. What kind of BS are you trying to tell me, exactly? Did you even bother to glance at my post? You're incredible sometimes, and I mean that literally: you are beyond credibility

Oleg has responded to this when he talked about VVS pilots attacking in numerical inferiority. Chuck Yeager has written about attacking dozens of Luftwaffe fighters with only one (1) wing person.

Really? That's wonderful. But what the hell are you talking about?

The VVS didn't run the world. That said, I am not talking about small numbers of fighters attacking large numbers of bombers. Hello? Earth to Lexx, Earth people are trying to communicate. Both your VVS example AND your Chuck Yeager example are completely OPPOSITE of the situation I describe. Do you know that? Yeager's two flight section attacks dozens of enemies with only two planes...

Great news! But you know I'm talking about 8 fighters attacking one single, already doomed bomber, correct? Or did I hallucinate typing that up? If I did, it's a particularly vivid hallucination because I seem to recall having typed these words earlier, and I quote myself here:

"When an enemy bomber falls behind the stream, on fire, all friendly aircraft capable of attack swarm it right now."

That's what I THINK I typed. Why don't you actually read my post, and check for me? Many fighters attacking one burning enemy bomber at the exclusion of other viable targets- not small units attacking large ones. But you turn around and tell me I mean small numbers of fighters attacking large numbers of bombers- which I demonstrably did NOT do. Are you for real?

What kind of "enemy flights?" One or two interceptor pilots attacking a greater number of bombers happened all the time.

For the third time, I typed that this was a large number of fighters attacking a lone, doomed and on-fire enemy bomber to the exclusion of other, legitimate targets en route to their own targets. I typed this, I think. I mean, I thought I did, maybe I was wrong, but:

"I just watched 8 friendly planes pursue a single flaming bomber from 12,000 feet down to the deck, while absolutely ignoring legitimate targets numbering over 2 dozen, at their initial co-altitude."

And yet, you act as if I think that numerically disparate groups never engaged. Again: how f'n stupid do you think I am? And how much of my post did you read? A sentence? A single word? Any of it at ALL?

None of these numerically inferior offensive actions were "suicidal" but all did have an advantage -- Yeager and wingperson attacking in surprise with better eyesight and experience for example

This is wonderful. But I am, AGAIN, not talking about numerically inferior offensive actions. Are you on drugs?

Another example would be 4 Flying Tiger P-40s diving out of the sun on a dozen Ki-21s and a dozen Ki-43s. Flying Tigers were always outnumbered, and they always attacked when they had tactical advantages that overcame the ever present numerical disadvantage.

I can cite you chapter and verse on AVG tactics and actions- which you know. On one hand, you are only looking at only their tactical outlook in the air for their success, which is only part of the story. On the other, this has nothing at all to do with what I am talking about. Again: read what I post before you reply

Now, you have a point about suicidal behavior. The Flying Tigers didn't stay to dogfight like Oleg's AI does, although on his first FT combat encounter, Boyington tried just that, but he got smart real fast and escaped to survive. There has to be huge advances in AI programming before combat flight sims can become mainstream successes. The overly simplistic "rule" of AI not attacking if outnumbered is not among those advances, and would be a collossal blunder to use.

I have a point about suicidal behavior? <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Where??</span> I NEVER mentioned suicidal AI behavior Lexx. You are free to actually READ what I posted and see that for yourself. Give it a try, Lexx: read what I posted. I don't know WHAT it is that you read but it sure wasn't my post on this subject.

NO airforce with the possible exception of the Japanese at times would fight to the bitter end in the air, but I will not even discuss it, because it has precisly ZERO to do with what I'm talking about. Also, NOWHERE do I mention that it should be a rule to have the AI avoid attacking when outnumbered. No-freaking-where, today or any other day have I EVER said that.

I think this is the last straw with me, Lexx. I cannot take you seriously anymore. This pantload is just one time too many for me to maintain good humor about you. Good day sir

Blood_Splat
06-10-2007, 08:19 PM
Escort missions can be a nightmare. They'll all chase after one flight element and leave the bombers with no protection. I have to stay with the bombers and help defend them. Because ten fighters are chasing after two enemy planes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I would love to see enemy fighters run for it based on odds.

Divine-Wind
06-10-2007, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
Agreed, there sure is room for improvment in AI matters.

Others:

- AI crews abandon planes which are burning firecly instead of flying along and crashing later with the plane.
- AI crews abandon damaged plane once it is doomed (like steadily loosing altitude, not able to stop descend) instead on staying and crashing to death.

****
And vice-versa:
- AI crews jumping when they lose an engine or aileron must go.

Would also like to see bomber crews dropping with the leader, as someone said earlier. And the follow-the-leader-into-the-ground behavior definitely needs to be looked at as well.

Freelancer-1
06-10-2007, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Lexx-</span>

Do you ever read what I post?



Cid, he might ask you the same thing.

It looked to me like he was responding to something Dux said and not your post at all. I have to say I didn't see your name or a quote from you anywhere in his post.

Just sayin'

ElAurens
06-10-2007, 09:54 PM
BBB,

Just ignore Lexx. I do.

And I agree 100% with you on the problems with AI.
It's why I just cannot bring myself to fly the offline game anymore, and a big reason I could not bring myself to finish my bit of work for you.

I just cannot tolerate the AI after 5 odd years of flying against the best... real human beings.

I would love for the offline game to be as good as the online one. But it isn't, and untill the state of home computers improves drastically, I don't think it ever will be, sorry to say.

buddye1
06-10-2007, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
BBB,

Just ignore Lexx. I do.

And I agree 100% with you on the problems with AI.
It's why I just cannot bring myself to fly the offline game anymore, and a big reason I could not bring myself to finish my bit of work for you.

I just cannot tolerate the AI after 5 odd years of flying against the best... real human beings.

I would love for the offline game to be as good as the online one. But it isn't, and untill the state of home computers improves drastically, I don't think it ever will be, sorry to say.

I think the AI can be improved significantly. It is just a question of time, manpower, and attention to detail. It all boils down to priority and where you want to spend your development $. Most of the problems can be tackled with todays processors and PC's IMHO. The basic problem is the AI is not just a design problem but a trail and error process that takes alot of test manpower so that you can refine it. It is not the type of problem that developers enjoy addressing because you can spend so much and you may have poor results and little return.

It is much safer to put your money into graphic, objects, online capabilities, landscape, additional A/C and other eye candy.

A big problem with SOW will be simulating all the very large an famous air battles with very large number of A/C. The RAF is usually outnumbered in most of these battles. The AI will need to be managed if the historic kill rates are to be achieved.

I am making the above statements based on my 2+ years of working on the AI in BOBII.

msalama
06-10-2007, 10:33 PM
How about giving the buggers realistic approach and landing patterns at last, i.e. finally get rid of that cretinous panic go-around BS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Shouldn't be too tedious to do it right this time I'd guess...

tagTaken2
06-10-2007, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Enemy all-seeing eyes- not just in clouds or the dark- must go.




Also having the AI not have 100% accurate situational awareness; it'd be nice to be able to bounce an AI flight once and awhile.

Totally agree. They can have their spacecraft manoeuvrebility if I can creep up on them.

I wish Oleg would hire the programmers, or license the AI programming (possible conflict of interest? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif ) from BoB:WoV. I've loaded it recently, and getting really sucked into the fight. And I mean really, have woken up my partner by shouting at foes.

Something else while I think of it- is Oleg going to do like the complex AI bubbles in the rowan engine? There was some problems with the moviemakers, but seemingly no reason why the "bubble" couldn't follow the camera.

Mysticpuma2003
06-11-2007, 12:21 AM
I hope, of all the AI they fix (and yours is all well documented so please Oleg consider it!), is the spiral of death!

Chase an enemy and watch the endless spiral, as they dodge you....into the ground.....forever! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Just watch the AI in BoB by Shockwave...that'll do it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers, MP.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2007, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by Freelancer-1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Lexx-</span>

Do you ever read what I post?



Cid, he might ask you the same thing.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He might. I can't tell who he responds to anymore. I know he quoted Dux. Lexx drives me a touch nuts

JohnnyBlademan
06-11-2007, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
With your permission, a few more:

AI gunners should point at some circle around your aircraft, tighter depending on gunner ability, but should not always matematically calculate the precise deflection path of your very head.

Handsome muscular guys wandering around my nearby pubs and lifting all the good-looking babes must go.

#1 That drives me crazy that I get popped in the head a kilometer away!

#2 Sorry Bro, I know I take more than my fare share, but I can't help myself!

Cheers,
JB

raaaid
06-11-2007, 06:43 AM
i think ai is kind of similar to online for what you describe

everybody ignoring appropiate targets and going for a flaming bomber just to get more points even though it means bad for the team

you know that unless you shoot a wing off or make it explode all your team will go for it(thats why i love ki84lc)

maybe ai tries to simulate eagerness for victories in detriment of the team

EAW was great because you could give orders to your whole squadron

if they were chasing a flaming bomber you could order them to switch target

now it is you who thinks the dev team may listen to us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
06-11-2007, 08:14 AM
Wow! raaaid isn't it time for a query about the dark side of the moon not really being dark?

or something anyway.

Glad to see less spam bro. Good work even if it is defeatest.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

As far as AI behavior...I tend to agree with El Aurens. The AI in offline campaigns is soooo tiresome that I don't even fly offline anymore against them aside from the occassional 'test'. But even that is usually against friendlies because they fly nice and straight and make better targets.



TB

DuxCorvan
06-11-2007, 09:53 AM
Sorry grampa, LeXX was quoting me.


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Dux:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AI should recognize enemy flight strength and compare it with own, and try to avoid combat or disengage if in clear disadvantage -a moral value should be useful, too. Suicidal against-all-odds behavior must go, at least it should be not that way always.
hehe, if aircraft didn't attack when numerically inferior, the RAF would have sat out the Battle of Britain. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Oleg has responded to this when he talked about VVS pilots attacking in numerical inferiority. Chuck Yeager has written about attacking dozens of Luftwaffe fighters with only one (1) wing person.

What kind of "enemy flights?" One or two interceptor pilots attacking a greater number of bombers happened all the time.

None of these numerically inferior offensive actions were "suicidal" but all did have an advantage -- Yeager and wingperson attacking in surprise with better eyesight and experience for example. Another example would be 4 Flying Tiger P-40s diving out of the sun on a dozen Ki-21s and a dozen Ki-43s. Flying Tigers were always outnumbered, and they always attacked when they had tactical advantages that overcame the ever present numerical disadvantage.

Now, you have a point about suicidal behavior. The Flying Tigers didn't stay to dogfight like Oleg's AI does, although on his first FT combat encounter, Boyington tried just that, but he got smart real fast and escaped to survive. There has to be huge advances in AI programming before combat flight sims can become mainstream successes. The overly simplistic "rule" of AI not attacking if outnumbered is not among those advances, and would be a collossal blunder to use. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyway, grampa has a point when he says LeXX doesn't read a post completely. Because he missed this:


AI should recognize enemy flight strength and compare it with own, and try to avoid combat or disengage if in clear disadvantage -a morale value should be useful, too.

1) For 'strength' I don't mean just outnumbered, I mean tactical disadvantage. This is, chance of success and survival. Three Spits chasing a dozen Stukas down low is OK. Three Spits climbing up to taunt a dozen 109s is stupid. Strength means (relative numbers+type of aircraft+fuel, ammo and damage status+relative heights and speeds). It's a series of simple variables that can be calculated easily by a PC (calculating is what they do best) and are not so terribly complex as to need a supermachine.

2) Morale values or variables could be set for a mission or campaign (according to historical events, discipline, etc.), so veteran pilots flying better types over own land, etc, would be more eager to stand negative odds than rookies flying in enemy airspace, with heavy losses, etc.

For example, British pilots with very high morale flying three expert Spits climb to meet four veteran 109s above, even if the odds are against them. But if 109s shoot down two Spits, the remaining Spit pilot will suffer a penalty in morale, which adds to the clear numerical disadvantage and energy loss, in a similar aircraft type. Hence, under his 'morale limit', he will try to disengage and escape.

But if the climbing Spits manage to shoot down two 109s, then the German pilots, punished in their morale, outnumbered, low in fuel and over enemy land, will try to cross back the Channel.

Similar types in similar numbers, and both with same very low morale, flying at same level and speed, etc., may decide to ignore one each other. Those very same flights, with high morale, will attack in an agresive way at the same time.

Bombers are different. They are 'passive'. This means that they don't decide to attack enemy fighters, but to attack their ground target. They have a mission/campaign established 'morale limit'. If they suffer many losses and many threats are present, they may reach their 'morale limit', and decide to abort mission, release bombs and RTB.

Fighter flights would attack bombers depending on the presence of friendly cover or enemy fighter escort, number and type of objectives. This means something like 1x109=20xBlenheims while 1x109=5xB17s, etc, apart from other flight calculations.

Example, a single schwarm of veteran, mid morale 109 interceptors meet a flight of 15 B-17s over Belgium, and decide to attack. As they approach they enter within range of six ace very high morale P-51s escorts flying high above. The new situation compels the mid morale 109s to disengage and stay far, while escorts chase them to keep away. Suddenly, the apparition of another schwarm of ace Fw 190s flying cover changes the tactical situation. Given the escort mission assigned to them (which means a mission-build high morale) and the need of returning fire, P-51s fight despite odds. Now in advantage, the 109s decide to continue mission and attack the B-17s, while P-51s try to engage them but are forced into combat by the 190s. B-17s lose two thirds of their bombers, they reach their 'morale limit', release bombs, and head for home. 109s go on hunting them down, but three of the P-51s get back from above, after having dispatched the 190s. Being low in fuel and ammo, and in disadvantage, the 109s leave the chase. One of them is downed before they get out of the scene, while the P-51s get back to the bombers to escort them home.

That's how it should be done, and despite appearing too complex, it isn't so much (games like 'combat mission' use this calculations in real time without much resource consumption). But it requires very well planned and thoughtful AI programming.

thefruitbat
06-11-2007, 09:58 AM
You can make the ai switch targets, but only if you use padlock.

One of my favorite sorties that has alwasy stuck in my mind, was just a stock dgen i think, anyway i had run out of ammo after all the enemy fighters were down, and there was just bombers left. I flew about a klick above, keeping them alwasy in view, and then just padlocked the futhest one back, and gave the attack my target command. Lo and behold they did, it was actually great fun ordering them up the line untill they were all down.

I admit having to padlock them is a pain, espescially if you use track ir like i do, but how else is the ai suppossed to know what your on about.

As for most of the other points, i hope we will see most of these 'fixed' in SoW.

cheers fruitbat

buddye1
06-11-2007, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by JohnnyBlademan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
With your permission, a few more:

AI gunners should point at some circle around your aircraft, tighter depending on gunner ability, but should not always matematically calculate the precise deflection path of your very head.

Handsome muscular guys wandering around my nearby pubs and lifting all the good-looking babes must go.

#1 That drives me crazy that I get popped in the head a kilometer away!

#2 Sorry Bro, I know I take more than my fare share, but I can't help myself!

Cheers,
JB </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From my limited experience the AI seem to start shooting very far out in a head-on. They must be using the XYZ of the enemy AI (me) to shoot as I have a hard time seeing his A/C. I wonder what the gun range is for the AI?

The accuracy of the AI makes head-on's a very poor strategy for the player.

VFS-214_Hawk
06-11-2007, 09:07 PM
All thats funny because I made a pearl mission with at least 120 IJN types. I, just for the heck of it, decided to fly...alone...right into the middle of them. Every single fighter locked on to my 6.

I couldnt even get the fighters to bomb thier targets with any allied fighters in the area because they drop thier load and attack the allied fighters.

Huxley_S
06-11-2007, 09:18 PM
BBB I agree with your original post but you are asking a lot. We can't have sentient beings running on our Intel and AMD processors just yet. I'm quite amazed at times that the AI isn't plummeting into the ground at every opportunity. Obviously the AI cheats http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The AI has to be improved but when you think about it, sometimes the AI in IL2 acts pretty smart for the technology it has to get by on.

But yeah, the things you talked about... perhaps the technology is ready to add those imperatives to their modus operandi. It would be cool!

M_Gunz
06-11-2007, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
What kind of "enemy flights?" One or two interceptor pilots attacking a greater number of bombers happened all the time.

I dunno about "all the time" but out of umpteen combats there were many like that.

When you have pilots that ram enemy bombers to stop them from attacking it really should be
hard to limit AI to "be reasonable". What would AI Kamikazes do???

Yet OTOH, plane on fire and not into ram-mode the pilot really should be either trying to put
the fire out (was done or at least tried in steep dives) or to bail out. It gets HOT inside
a burning plane as the fire spreads INSIDE often. Also, aluminum gets weak with such heat.

IMO an AI that operates by modes might work out fine. What modes? Attack, extend, run like H,
ram-mode, fire-mode, etc, that last more than a few seconds. Modes as in the major strategy
behind what maneuvers and tactics the pilot will be making for a while... Decision Modes.

----------------------------------------------
BUTCH O'HARE!


Saving the Lexington

On February 20, 1942, Butch O'Hare demonstrated in real life, and when it counted most, the fighting skills he had mastered. The carrier Lexington had been assigned the dangerous task of penetrating enemy-held waters north of New Ireland. From there her planes were to make a strike at Japanese shipping in the harbor at Rabaul. Unfortunately, while still 400 miles from Rabaul, the Lexington was discovered by a giant four-engine Kawanishi flying boat. Lieutenant Commander John Thach, skipper of the Lexington's Wildcat fighters, shot down the Japanese "Snooper," but not before it had radioed the carrier's position. That afternoon Commander Thach led six Wildcats into the air to intercept nine twin-engine enemy bombers. In a determined attack each of the Wildcats destroyed a bomber and damaged two more. The ship's anti-aircraft guns finished off the rest. In the meantime, nine more Japanese bombers were reported on the way. Six Wildcats, one of them piloted by Butch O'Hare, roared off the Lexington's deck to stop them. O'Hare and his wingman spotted the V formation of bombers first and dived to try to head them off. The other F4F pilots were too far away to reach most of the enemy planes before they released their bombs. As if this weren't bad enough, O'Hare's wingman discovered his guns were jammed. He was forced to turn away. Butch O'Hare stood alone between the Lexington and the bombers.

O'Hare didn't hesitate. Full throttle, he roared into the enemy formation. While tracers from the concentrated fire of the nine bombers streaked around him, he took careful aim at the starboard engine of the last plane in the V and squeezed his trigger. Slugs from the Wildcats six .50-caliber guns ripped into the Japanese bomber's wing and the engine literally jumped out of its mountings. The bomber spun crazily toward the sea as O'Hare's guns tore up another enemy plane. Then he ducked to the other side of the formation and smashed the port engine of the last Japanese plane there.

One by one he attacked the oncoming bombers until five had been downed. Commander Thach later reported that at one point he saw three of the bombers falling in flames at the same time. By now Thach and the other pilots had joined the fight. This was lucky because O'Hare was out of ammunition. The Wildcats took care of several more bombers and Lexington managed to evade the few bombs that were released. It was an amazing example of daring and shooting skill. Afterward Thach figured out that Butch O'Hare had used only sixty rounds of ammunition for each plane he destroyed. He had probably saved his ship. He was promoted to Lieutenant Commander and awarded the highest decoration of his country, the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Bakelit
06-12-2007, 02:50 AM
This (AI) is actually the feature I am MOST interested in with the upcoming sim.

I "know" SOW will be visually stunning, I "know" it will have a good Multiplayer part.

What interests me most however are better AI and engine management. We wont get FS like functionality but I would like to see "CEM" improved or at least implemented somewhat better. But thats another point.

The BoBII:WOV AI as it is now with 2.06 is very nice for me as a mostly offline player. As it runs well on my aging machine SOW AI should look at it closely.

The 1946 AI could use help sometimes. Although to be fair, it also has its good or believeable moments sometimes so the foundation to improve should be there.

Blue-summers
06-12-2007, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Mr. I-Follow-You-Till-The-End-Of-World AI who never tires of chasing his target even alone deep inside enemy airspace even to base and keeps insisting on and on and on till he runs out of fuel, or everyone dies... must go.

I hope Oleg finds a way to get rid of this kind of behaviour in real people too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
06-12-2007, 09:54 PM
Thanks for more detailed AI ideas Dux. Those are many of the features needed for an immersive air war simulation.

BBC's original idea -- yes it would help sims if some AI behavior could be modded by the community or customer.

buddye1
06-12-2007, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Thanks for more detailed AI ideas Dux. Those are many of the features needed for an immersive air war simulation.

BBC's original idea -- yes it would help sims if some AI behavior could be modded by the community or customer.

Yes, I agree with Dux's ideas. The AI need to be based on Skill (how well the AI maneuvres, attacks, evades, situational awarness[odds, advantages, disadvantages], gunnary, etc. In orher words, skill is how well he performs the above. I think we have Skill now but I can not really see a big difference as yet (but I am new).

Morale is a measure of how committed he is to fight and complete his mission. These are human characteristics like:
Is he tired, was his leader killed, his peer pilot deaths, his kills, his squads kills, was his air based attacked, etc.

If the above requirements were implemented in a player campaign the AI would be more Human like but they could still be aggressive and killers at higher morale and skill levels (assuming the bugs are fixed that make the AI not equal to the human (blackouts, engine overheat, etc).

The cost to implement some of these requirements is high and may require too much deverloper manpower to implement, however.

LEXX_Luthor
06-12-2007, 11:37 PM
Yes, alot of these ideas would take alot of time. The best things usually do.

We have "skill" now, but I think its more technical skill like gunnery or dogfight ability -- not sure obviously. Not so much tactics used. Although, higher skill levels do attack head on, a feature that I always enjoyed, although these were always consistengly a bit too good I think. But, you never knew they would attack you head on or not if you didn't know the skill level of a particular aircraft's AI pilot.

Dtools4fools
06-13-2007, 11:32 AM
Indeed the AI should take some tactical decisions.

Maybe some sort of *action cards* should be used.
Once a certain tactical situation occurs a *action card* should be used and dictate the tactic used by AI flights.
Various set and variants could help that not for each similar situation same tactic is used.
Depending on losses, moral, pilot skill, advantage/disadvantage situation. Plus a small percentage of random madness decisions...

*****