1C Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official 1C Company forum > 1C Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik > Daidalos Team discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-16-2015, 06:30 AM
major.kudo major.kudo is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Japan
Posts: 63
Default AI vs AI Kill ratio

I kept thinking DT would settle this problem sometime and I waiting so far.
But it wasn't settled at all, so I decided to propose.

This is the picture I drew before.
http://gachopin.no-ip.info/kudo/Fighter_2.jpg
Maybe it was insufficient to tell my true meaning only with this picture.
The one I wanted to say is Kill ratio by a war between AI.
I experimented. In Fw-190s vs P-51Ds fight. skill is average.

16 vs 16 = 10 Fw-190s killed : 13 P-51Ds killed
32 vs 32 = 18 Fw-190s killed : 22 P-51Ds killed

The next things finds out that AI fighter in v4.13 will be observed attentively.

1. Pilots of average and rookie are shoot there guns strangely correctly.
2. AI can't avoid the bullets by AIs gun fires. Even if maneuver is performed, bullets hits.
3. A lot of planes are falling down one after another consequently.

I think Kill ratio between AI in v4.13 is too distant from a real war.
I hope hard repair this problem.

Everyone. What do you think?

-

Maybe this will be helpful reference data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confir...g_World_War_II
Airplanes aren't shotdown so much in once of air combat.

Sorry my poor English.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-16-2015, 11:13 AM
gaunt1 gaunt1 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: India
Posts: 282
Default

I think you are completely right about this! Average and especially rookie AI are way too accurate. They also really like head on shooting, and they are also extremely accurate in this.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-16-2015, 12:13 PM
Furio's Avatar
Furio Furio is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 299
Default

In my opinion, overkill has little to do with the topic of AI kill ratios. Personally, I always considered kill claims simply not credible, period.

Returning to topic, I think the problem is combat duration. In real life, air combats were usually very brief, often lasting just a few seconds, and usually ending with opponents losing sight of each other. In game, AI pilots never lost sight of each other, and never quit combat when they should, because of damage, bad tactical position or low fuel level. In my opinion, these are the main reasons of abnormally high kill ratios. As a consequence, I don’t believe an easy fix could be implemented in game, at least one that pleases everyone. A typical, realistic mission will entail long, boring navigation and very brief combats, often inconclusive, followed by another long and boring return home.
My preference, for what is worth, would be to try some steps toward realism. AI’s eyesight could be gradually reduced or – better yet – player could have the option to choose different distances, the same way as AI pilots experience is chosen.

Also, I would like a “combat quitting” routine implemented. I know that’s difficult to determine an exact sequence of conditions that trigger quitting, but at least some could be tried. Any engine damage, particularly in the cooling system, should trigger a “Return to base immediately”.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-17-2015, 02:54 PM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,400
Default

Its no secret that AI vs. AI kill ratios reflect unrealistically aggressive pilot behavior.

That is necessary to make a fun game, but isn't at all realistic historically.

Historically, at least for the USAAF, only 1 in every 10 fighter pilots shot down a single plane during their entire military career! Only something like 1 in 1000 made ace. Numbers were roughly comparable for other nations. That means you have a very few "eagles" and a whole lot of "turkeys."

Furio makes good points, but in addition to all the other advantages that AI aircraft have they never have moral problems about killing, they never get scared, they never get tired (air combat - especially a hard turning dogfight - was quite fatiguing), and they never think about their overall mission or tactical situation (i.e., "Am I going to get attack while I'm attacking?" "Will I have enough fuel after this dogfight to get home?")

There should be an option in the QMB or FMB to allow historical levels of pilot aggression, with the vast majority of pilots being quite cautious, and very aggressive pilots (the sort that become aces or die trying) being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-23-2015, 03:05 PM
major.kudo major.kudo is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Japan
Posts: 63
Default

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

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

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

Isn't there a way which raises the survivability of these other AI?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-25-2015, 10:33 PM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by major.kudo View Post
- Gun shooting of AI more inaccurately. In particular, Rookie and Average.
Possibly. I think that AI accuracy levels for fighters are more or less right, but rookies still seem to be too good at estimating distance and deflection.

I've also argued that there should be a level of quality below Rookie to simulate pilots who have no business being in a combat zone. (e.g., RAF fighter pilots fresh from training school in summer of 1940, many Soviet replacement pilots in 1941-42, and most Japanese and German replacement pilots from 1944 on).

Quote:
Originally Posted by major.kudo View Post
- AI Decision to "return to base immediately" by more less damage.
Two issues here.

First, in the heat of combat you might not be aware that your plane has has taken some types of critical damage - other than obvious signs like fire or sudden loss of power output or maneuverability.

Second, in a dogfight, unless you can plan your disengagement and successfully implement it, you don't have any option other than to fight until the end.

But, I don't think that IL2 is modeling either of those things. Any engine damage, any fuel leak, any pilot injury, or serious damage to any other aircraft systems should be an automatic disengagement from a dogfight for all but the most aggressive or desperate pilots.

Average or rookie pilots should have the strong possibility of panicking when their plane is damaged, meaning that they disengage even when it is tactically unfavorable to do so.

Exceptions might be made for bombers, where often it made more sense to stick with the formation than fly back to base alone through hostile territory.


Quote:
Originally Posted by major.kudo View Post
- If the prudence of AI can be set at QMB and FMB, it's more better.
I'd love to see this and I've been nagging TD for it for years. Currently, individual AI pilot qualities are modeled within the game, but there's no way for mission builders to access them. I don't know if the limits of the game engine prevent this, or if TD just doesn't have the resources to build the necessary user interfaces.

Quote:
Originally Posted by major.kudo View Post
Isn't there a way which raises the survivability of these other AI?
In the game, no, other than aggressive management of your wingmen to make them break off attacks.

For the future:

1) Option in FMB (possibly QMB) for certain aircraft to fight more defensively than normal.

- Extremely Defensive - Avoid enemy planes, break off combat if attacked, don't take anything other than the easiest shots (e.g., less than 10 degrees of deflection, within 100 meters for most weapons, 50 meters for LMG).

RTB if pilot or crew is injured, if there's engine damage or fuel leaks, if the radio is shot out, or if there's serious damage to other aircraft systems.

- Defensive. Avoid enemy fighters unless you've got numeric, altitude, and positional advantage, don't make repeated attacks, break off from dogfights if it is safe to do so, don't take anything other than easy shots (e.g., less than 20 degrees of deflection, within 200 meters for most weapons, 100 meters for light MG).

Against bombers, only attack if you've got altitude and positional advantages. Make a single attack from a quarter where the bombers' defensive fire is weakest, at maximum effective range for your weapon (300-500 meters for cannons, 300 meters for HMG, 200 meters for LMG) and then disengage.

Return to Base if there's engine damage, injury to pilot or crew, serious fuel leak, or serious damage to any other aircraft system.

- Aggressive. Avoid enemy planes unless you've got at least one of numeric or altitude advantage, break off from dogfights if you're disadvantaged and its safe to do so.

RTB if there's engine damage, serious fuel leak, serious damage to pilot or crew, or serious damage to any other aircraft system.

- Very Aggressive. Current AI.

2) Introduce more "Human Factors"

- Rookie and Average pilots might "freeze" or hesitate rather than taking shots. (This can also simulate pilots forgetting to charge their guns due to over excitement.)

- Rookie and Average pilots might lose their nerve - especially when attacking large formations of enemy planes. They either refuse to attack or take shots from excessively long ranges.

- Rookie and Average pilots, and possibly hard pressed Veteran pilots, might panic, causing them to break off combat even though its tactically disadvantageous to do so. This is particularly true if the pilot is wounded, his plane is damaged, and/or he is attacked by surprise.

- All pilots should suffer the effects of fatigue during prolonged combat, particularly at altitude, or in fights where they pull lots of Gs. Once fatigue reaches a certain level, maneuverability and ability to pull further Gs suffers. When fatigue reaches a critical level, pilots will attempt to disengage from combat.

- Introduce Discipline Levels.

- Undisciplined. Pilots will regularly ignore their superiors' commands, particularly if doing so would endanger their lives. They will automatically break formation if attacked. If they break off combat, or refuse to engage in combat, they will ignore commands to return. If they engage in combat, they will refuse commands to disengage. If they break formation, they will eventually rejoin in their own good time.

Undisciplined + Aggressive pilots will break formation to chase enemy planes, assuming other conditions are favorable.

- Disciplined. Current AI.

- Very Disciplined. Pilots automatically obey their superiors' commands unless physically unable to do so. If they RTB, they can be ordered back into combat, even if it is suicidal.

3) Introduce more tactical options in the FMB.

- Alter course to avoid: fighters, bombers, flak, ships, ground vehicles, cities. This option allows planes to be even more defensive, as well as simulating planes which are trying to avoid being spotted.

- Seek & Destroy: fighters, bombers, flak, ships, ground vehicles. Planes will go out of their way to find targets of the specified types, and will attack them preferentially.

- Ignore: fighters, bombers, flak, ships, ground vehicles. This option allows for suicidally heroic "straight in" attacks.

- Hold formation: Planes hold formation no matter what, unless incapable of doing so, or ordered to break formation by their commander. Typical behavior for most bombers, doctrine for early war British and Soviet fighter pilots, and for early to mid-war Japanese fighter.

- Maneuver to avoid: fighters, flak. This option allows planes to maneuver within formation, or break formation, if attacked. If "hold formation" and "maneuver to avoid flak" options are combined, the entire formation will randomly "zig zag" to spoil flak gunners' aim.

Last edited by Pursuivant; 08-25-2015 at 10:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-26-2015, 07:37 AM
gaunt1 gaunt1 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: India
Posts: 282
Default

I'd add one point: Eliminate the willingness of taking other planes head on, except for ace AI. Or except maybe against bombers.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-26-2015, 09:17 AM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gaunt1 View Post
I'd add one point: Eliminate the willingness of taking other planes head on, except for ace AI. Or except maybe against bombers.
I wouldn't eliminate it outright, but I agree that it needs to be modified.

In addition to the situations described, a head-on attack is a safe shot if taken from outside of the enemy's cone of fire. It's also a "fairly safe" shot if you're flying a heavily-armored, radial engine plane against a lightly-armed opponent.

For example, if I'm flying a P-47, F6F or F4U vs. a Ki-43, then I won't hesitate to take 12 o'clock level shots. It saves the hassle of trying to shoot an agile target using BnZ tactics.

When flying a well-armored but sluggish plane like the Buffalo Mk I, F2A2, or IL2, head-on shots are just about your only hope of shooting down faster or more agile opponents.

* In all cases, if AI initiates or accepts a head-on attack, an attack from 12 o'clock high or low (or whatever angle avoids the most fire) is preferred.


- AI Head-on attack preferred:

Average or better quality fighter pilots vs. heavy bombers (as long as the bombers have effective rear quarter defenses).

Aggressive or Very Aggressive Veteran or Ace pilots flying planes which are inferior to their opponents in both speed and maneuverability. (Cautious or Very Cautious will attempt to flee/hide in the clouds and use ambush tactics. Aggressive or Very Aggressive Rookie or Average pilots will attempt to use maneuver or BnZ tactics to gain a rear-quarter shot and die trying.)


- AI Head-on shot accepted if initiated by enemy/occasionally used:

Aggressive or better Veteran or Ace pilots flying planes which are superior in armor, firepower and engine durability. Chances increase if the plane they are flying is inferior in speed or maneuverability to their opponent.

Average or better pilots flying planes against light or medium bombers, but only if the plane they are flying is superior in armor, firepower and engine durability. (Rookies will attempt rear quarter or beam attacks.)

Sometimes, Very Aggressive or Aggressive Average or Rookie pilots will initiate or meet head-on shots rather than breaking, even if their plane is inferior in armor, firepower, or engine durability, or is superior in speed and/or maneuverability. (That is, their aggression will get the better of them, so that they make the mistake of playing the enemy's game.)


- AI Head-on shot avoided/never initiated:

Almost any pilot flying a plane which is inferior in frontal armor, forward firepower or engine durability, or superior in speed and/or maneuverability, except as described above. (The idea here is that AI should almost never accept a clearly unfavorable tactical situation if it's possible to get a better firing solution on the target.)


* In any case, all but the most aggressive and experienced pilots will start head-on attacks too soon (at 1,000-600 meters) and break off the attack to avoid fire and maneuver for position before they get within about 200 meters. Aggressive or better pilots of Veteran or higher quality will start the attack within 600 meters and will only break off the attack at the minimum distance required to avoid a collision.


* Rookie and Average pilots will have extra trouble with range and deflection estimation for head-on shots, since it wasn't typically part of gunnery training. They might even fail to line themselves up for the shot!

* All but Aggressive or better pilots will break off head-on attacks if they take any damage during the attack run.

Last edited by Pursuivant; 08-26-2015 at 09:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-26-2015, 09:39 PM
majorfailure majorfailure is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuivant View Post
First, in the heat of combat you might not be aware that your plane has has taken some types of critical damage - other than obvious signs like fire or sudden loss of power output or maneuverability.

Second, in a dogfight, unless you can plan your disengagement and successfully implement it, you don't have any option other than to fight until the end.

But, I don't think that IL2 is modeling either of those things. Any engine damage, any fuel leak, any pilot injury, or serious damage to any other aircraft systems should be an automatic disengagement from a dogfight for all but the most aggressive or desperate pilots.

Average or rookie pilots should have the strong possibility of panicking when their plane is damaged, meaning that they disengage even when it is tactically unfavorable to do so.
What totally works against any and all attempts to disengage is the omniscient AI, who when once has acquired a target only loses it when out of range. Humans and AI cannot disengage at will - and even trying is pointless. If there would be a chance that AI loses track of their target, because of it flying into a blind spot, or getting distracted by other potential targets, or because their leader commands them to do so - then RTB could be worth the risk when you are damaged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gaunt1 View Post
I'd add one point: Eliminate the willingness of taking other planes head on, except for ace AI. Or except maybe against bombers.
Against bombers with good defensive fire from the rear all but dumbest rookie should do head on or slashing passes, given plane allows for that.
Against fighters it should not depend on skill level -only on agressiveness - I'd bet the average Japanese pilot was quite willing to take the head on shots - despite sitting in a lightly armored plane. And while sitting in a heavily armed, heavily armoured plane may make you more confident to go head-on, an ace in just such a plane may avoid it unless any other maneuvre will favour the enemy.

I do not accept head on exchanges against AI fighters - except if I'm in
a) a massivley better armed plane - and not in a very good position, e. g. the possible quick kill is worth the risk. E.g. Fw190 vs. Yak.
or
b)my plane is just so much worse, I can only go for head-ons. Typically used for IL-2 vs fighters.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-27-2015, 01:03 AM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by majorfailure View Post
What totally works against any and all attempts to disengage is the omniscient AI, who when once has acquired a target only loses it when out of range.
I'm not sure this is true. 4.12 finally got AI "target acquisition" more or less right, and it seems that Rookie or Average pilots can be pretty clueless if you get into their blind spots.

What doesn't seem to be modeled is loss of Situational Awareness (SA) due to target maneuvering, information overload, and other factors.

A "simple" way to make loss of SA possible would be this:

Baseline ability to retain SA is based on pilot quality.

When an enemy aircraft flies into a plane's blind spot, there's an x% chance every second that AI will lose SA with respect to that plane, based on the target's range and speed. (Elements like target size, camouflage, visibility, etc. don't apply because this algorithm attempts to model the human ability to mentally track targets you can't see.)

This base chance is modified upwards if the spotting plane is damaged, under attack, or pulling Gs, or if the pilot (or some of the crew) are wounded. If the other plane is pulls Gs, or gains or loses altitude while in a blind spot, there's also an upward modifier. (This is also a simplification which represents that its harder to keep track of a fast or wildly maneuvering target.)

If the other plane is smoking, leaking fuel or coolant, or contrailing, there's a big downward modifier. (This represents a pilot's ability to track a plane, and follow its path, by using its smoke or vapor trail.)

There's also a big downward modifier if the other plane is firing on the plane attempting to sight it. (Simulating the fact that a human can easily extrapolate a firing plane's position from the angle of the tracers going past the cockpit.)

Finally, there's a cumulative penalty to keep track of targets after the first, based on pilot skill. This represents "information overload" of SA, with more distant and faster-moving targets being lost first.

A simple but arbitrary formula for maximum number of objects a pilot can track at once might be (pilot skill level)^2. With Rookie pilots being assigned a skill level of 1 and Ace pilots being assigned a skill of 4. (The very high number of objects an Ace can potentially track represents the fact that ace pilots tended to excel at the sort of spatial reasoning tasks represented by SA.)

If AI loses SA and is attempting to disengage, Rookie pilots will fly straight and level at top speed. (They assume that they're safe, even if they're not.) Average or better pilots will dive or climb at full power, as appropriate, while gently maneuvering to establish visual confirmation that they're not being pursued.

All pilots will use clouds and terrain as cover when attempting to disengage.

All pilots will fly towards friendly flak and fighter formations as a method of discouraging pursuit.


If AI loses SA and is attempting to engage, it will attempt to reestablish visual contact by maneuvering.

Rookie pilots will maneuver to establish line of sight to the target's last known position. Average pilots will attempt to regain line of sight by turning towards the target's last known line of travel.

Veteran or better pilots maintain some degree of SA with respect to lost targets and will usually turn towards the quarter of the sky which the target currently occupies. The exact percentage depends on pilot skill, say 60% for Veteran, 90% for Ace. Otherwise, they behave like Average pilots and turn towards the target's last known line of travel. (This represents a gross simplification of the mental calculations that a human would make regarding the opponent's energy state, speed, direction of travel, maneuverability, etc. Its not intended to make AI omniscient, just to give them a better than even chance of being able to reestablish Tally.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by majorfailure View Post
Against fighters it should not depend on skill level -only on agressiveness.
As I imagined it, Aggression doesn't mean stupidity or bad tactics, it just means willingness to do battle. In some cases, it also means a willingness to force the opponent to play your game rather than accepting his.

While any pilot will take front quarter shots if they come his way, like you said, most pilots won't go out of their way to set them up.

If an enemy sets up a head-on pass where both planes can shoot each other up, even an aggressive pilot might not choose to reciprocate if it puts his plane at a disadvantage.

In such cases, the "aggressive" maneuver is to briefly go defensive, rolling or diving out of your opponent's line of fire and using your opponent's commitment to the attack to gain an advantage so you can attack him from a more favorable angle.

For the Japanese, it really depends on the plane. I could imagine a skilled and aggressive A6M2 pilot taking a head-on long-range shot against an allied fighter - particularly one with an inline engine - before rolling or diving out of the line of fire. The Zero driver is betting that his superior gunnery and heavy weight of his cannon fire will let him get in a fight-ending shot before his opponent can bring his guns to bear.

But, I can't imagine a sensible Ki-43 pilot doing the same thing. Unless he's got laser-like gunnery skills, he's got little to gain and everything to lose.


Quote:
Originally Posted by majorfailure View Post
I do not accept head on exchanges against AI fighters - except
That's the sort of "accept/refuse the head-on attack" decision tree I'm trying to outline as suggestions to improve AI programming.

Factors that weight AI decision towards "accept" (in order of importance): Presence of frontal armor/armor glass, superior engine durability (i.e., radial vs. inline, includes current engine damage), inferiority maneuverability vs. opponent, weight of forward firepower, self-sealing fuel tanks, superior airframe durability, inferior speed vs. opponent, inferior climb vs. opponent, fighting over friendly territory, fighting over land.

Factors that weight AI decision towards "refuse" (in order of importance): Lack of frontal armor, inferior engine durability, superior maneuverability vs. opponent, inferior forward firepower, lack of self-sealing fuel tanks, inferior airframe durability (includes damage), superior speed vs. opponent, superior climb over opponent, fighting over hostile territory, fighting over water.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:15 PM.

Based on a design by: Miner Skinz.com

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 1C Company. All rights reserved.