AI gunnery mod

[Stonehouse]

5.204 status:

• AI Gunnery - should be ok for WW1, needs updates for WW2 due to Ta152 being added
• AI gunnery pilot despawn delay - ok for WW1 needs an update for WW2 due to new bot definition for Ta152 pilot.

[Stonehouse]

Both mods updated for 5.204, see first post for new versions.

[Spidey002]

I LOVE what this mod has done for fighters! They actually dogfight instead of sniping me at 500 yards. 
 

The turret gunners are now too deadly for my personal taste. 
 

What file do I edit/delete to restore bomber turret ai to stock value (but keep fighter ai)?

[Stonehouse]

24 minutes ago, Spidey002 said:

I LOVE what this mod has done for fighters! They actually dogfight instead of sniping me at 500 yards. 
 

The turret gunners are now too deadly for my personal taste. 
 

What file do I edit/delete to restore bomber turret ai to stock value (but keep fighter ai)?

 

Not sure it is easily unpicked like that. I can put together a list of instructions for you, but I think it will disappoint you as I spent a lot of time balancing the two aspects and getting people to play test the beta versions before releasing the current format. Likely if you return to stock for the bombers fighters will get zapped at quite long range or bombers fall like raindrops. One of the biggest enhancements was to remove the stock ability of bomber gunners to fire out to 3x normal range while they had enough ammo.

 

I guess before you go that route - are the bombers skill set to novice? Is your method of attack simply coming up the bombers 6 o'clock with little overtake? I've mentioned before that your best defense is to have a large difference in velocity vector between your aircraft and the bomber. If you are doing stern attacks and there is little difference in aircraft speeds the difference in velocity vector between the bomber and you is small and therefore so is the error in aiming for the bomber gunners.

[Spidey002]

2 minutes ago, Stonehouse said:

 

Not sure it is easily unpicked like that. I can put together a list of instructions for you, but I think it will disappoint you as I spent a lot of time balancing the two aspects and getting people to play test the beta versions before releasing the current format. Likely if you return to stock for the bombers fighters will get zapped at quite long range or bombers fall like raindrops. One of the biggest enhancements was to remove the stock ability of bomber gunners to fire out to 3x normal range while they had enough ammo.

 

I guess before you go that route - are the bombers skill set to novice? Is your method of attack simply coming up the bombers 6 o'clock with little overtake? I've mentioned before that your best defense is to have a large difference in velocity vector between your aircraft and the bomber. If you are doing stern attacks and there is little difference in aircraft speeds the difference in velocity vector between the bomber and you is small and therefore so is the error in aiming for the bomber gunners.

Not sure what the AI of the bombers is set to (I'm playing a campaign), but it doesn't seem to matter what angle I come at them, they shoot the crap out of me. 
 

But I don't just want to remove the mod, because I love the way enemy fighters aren't snipers anymore. 

[Stonehouse]

Ok so campaign is novice by default I believe. The mod tries to balance the two aspects so that if you are flying a bomber you are not just a kill marker waiting to be painted but also so it is possible to shoot down bombers if you use real life tactics. Challenging but possible.

 

From point of view of advising how to revert to stock gunners - does the lack of the ability to sit in the navigator or co-pilots seat bother you?

 

It's the difference in velocity vectors that's important. If you attack from dead astern the only difference is the difference in speed of the two aircraft - which is usually fairly small. If you attack from the beam etc then your velocity vector is at an angle to the bomber's so there is a larger difference. The biggest parameter in terms of generating error in a gunner's aim is the size of the difference in velocity vectors. Not speed. Speed is not a vector by itself. Speed plus a direction in 3d space makes up a velocity vector.

[RedeyeStorm]

And do not attack alone. Coordinate with the AI so you attack simultaneously. It really makes a difference. Attacking B25’s and B26’s is really hairy now but survivable. 
 

survival tip. Attack and break off immediately if you come under attack. Rinse and repeat and you will find that bomber fire reduces when they run low on ammo. Be patient.

[Spidey002]

7 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

From point of view of advising how to revert to stock gunners - does the lack of the ability to sit in the navigator or co-pilots seat bother you?

No. Not terribly. 

I didn’t realize that was an option until just recently when I found myself in the nose of the A20. 😂

[Stonehouse]

1 hour ago, Spidey002 said:

No. Not terribly. 

I didn’t realize that was an option until just recently when I found myself in the nose of the A20. 😂

 

Ok I don't recommend the approach but absolutely your choice. You need to disable the mod in JSGME first. Then:

• Open the mod folder in windows explorer
• Open the data folder to see two folders luascripts and swf
• rename the swf folder to something like swfx
• open the luascripts folder to see three folders ai, snapviews and worldobjects
• rename snapviews to something like snapviewsx
• rename worldobjects to something like worldobjectsx

Re-enable the mod in JSGME

 

I've suggested renaming rather than deleting as I suspect you may get sick of very easy bomber kills and the other not so good stock behaviour of gunners and may decide to revert. Renaming allows you to simply undo your changes. I guess you could also make a copy of the mod so you have two versions and remove the folders I suggest renaming instead in one of the versions.

 

The things you will lose or perhaps gain depending on your viewpoint:

• Gunners will no longer fire different length bursts according to their ammo supply. Stock gunners all fire the same length bursts regardless. So some gunners will go through their ammo in their first burst. 
• Gunners will be able to fire out to 3x normal range as long as they have enough ammo - so you will have them start shooting out past 1km range early in the engagement and they will very quickly run out of ammo and overheat their guns. At that point it's a turkey shoot and you'll be able to singlehandedly wipe out whole formations. Conversely with the changes I made to fighters you may find that AI fighter pilots will now get shot down before they get into range due to this stock feature.
• Gunners will tend to fire extremely wildly at times which I personally find destroys immersion. It's like they're drunk or high at times.
• They will be able to fire at higher G loads.
• When they are higher skill, they will tend to hit you accurately at improbable ranges when they get the shot right. Even low skill guys can get lucky and pepper you at over a km sometimes. Ironically, they will also miss unmissable shots at times in stock or completely fail to fire. eg point blank range and times when they have melted their gun. 
• You'll lose the gunner despawn delay and despawn delay for some other crew members. So for example, when you kill a gunner they will despawn very quickly as per stock. As I recall maybe 15 secs is the stock delay.
• Will not be able to man stations like A20 nav or Mosquito navigator etc.

There are other things like how well they react and locate targets etc.

Edited June 23, 2024 by Stonehouse

[Stonehouse]

On 6/21/2024 at 9:23 AM, Stonehouse said:

Both mods updated for 5.204, see first post for new versions.

 

ok after 5.204b

[OSIW]

Many thanks for the info. You seem to be a pretty dedicated modder.

[jollyjack]

Thanks for all your work. Eager to try this!

Tester, AQMB slightly modded: I16 vs He111 v1 Gunnery A1 mod stonehouse.zip

Edited July 30, 2024 by jollyjack

[Stonehouse]

On 7/31/2024 at 4:19 AM, jollyjack said:

Thanks for all your work. Eager to try this!

Tester, AQMB slightly modded: I16 vs He111 v1 Gunnery A1 mod stonehouse.zip

 

Sorry a little confused - was this for me? an issue? I did download the mission and it appeared to work correctly as far as I could see. All the He111s are high skill veterans so will not be easy kills. Ditto the 109s and VVS units. It seemed like a fairly equal swap in damage handed out from what I saw which is as expected.

[jollyjack]

It was a test, and to do with your Ai Gunnery installed.

[michellecorneliu]

On 6/3/2022 at 7:53 AM, Stonehouse said:

Did some tests with the P38. I'm not sure if it is just that it's a bigger aircraft than say a Spitfire or 109 and so less nimble or if it is something with the AI and how it handles dogfighting. They seem to generally get stuck in but I see things like they don't want to continue dives too far.

 

I have not so far seen the AI pop air brakes in a dive in a dogfight, doesn't mean they can't just I haven't seen it at a time I think using it would allow a dive to continue to prosecute an attack and instead I see the AI usually rollout of the dive and gain height instead allowing the enemy to escape. It's possible that if it is true that the AI doesn't use the dive recovery airbrakes that the P38J25 is limited to the combat moves of the earlier less successful models and this is what you are reporting. When working with AI, the main task is to stay informed about new products. That is why it is worth reading https://ddi-dev.com/ to learn about all the new subtleties of working with AI and beyond. I think you will definitely enjoy their service!

 

Anyway will do some more tests and do some more looking at what the AI does 

The differences you’re noticing could indeed be related to the P38’s size and less nimble nature compared to aircraft like the Spitfire or 109. The AI’s behavior, such as not continuing dives or using air brakes, might suggest that it's not fully optimized for the specific flight characteristics of the P38J25

Edited August 19, 2024 by michellecorneliu

[Stonehouse]

On 8/16/2024 at 9:51 PM, michellecorneliu said:

The differences you’re noticing could indeed be related to the P38’s size and less nimble nature compared to aircraft like the Spitfire or 109. The AI’s behavior, such as not continuing dives or using air brakes, might suggest that it's not fully optimized for the specific flight characteristics of the P38J25

 

That's pretty much what I was (probably badly) trying to say in that post from 2022. In real life P38 pilots had to be cautious of compressibility and use their dive recovery airbrakes and watch their speed to follow enemies in a dive. The game AI avoids the issue by not following the diving enemy so as to honour their max dive CAS. If they made use of their dive recovery brakes they could follow but the AI routine doesn't appear to cater for it. Otherwise, as you say it's a larger heavier aircraft so while (based on some refs I've seen) it should be able to approx keep up with a 109 in a turn especially with use of combat flaps, it will roll slower which is a handicap in combat. It was pretty fast due to twin engines and clean aerodynamics. Later models had aileron boost to specifically increase roll rate by helping with high control loads. Anyway, in summary - the aircraft could be better in game if the AI flew the aircraft accordingly.

[Stonehouse]

Both mods updated to 5.504 in first post. Changes as per changelog. 

 

Very sketchy testing sorry but it was really just following the same recipe for the new aircraft, new turrets, new gunners and new pilot and triple checking I have the Tempest and Ta152 AI definition correctly sync'd with stock 5.504. Therefore, I am fairly confident you are good to go with the new versions. Obviously let me know of issues. 

 

Re8 oversight was that I had somehow missed assigning the correct gunner bot definition according to the ammo supply and the previous version of the mod was using stock bots for gunners. Now fixed. German WW1 pilots may notice the difference now I guess when they attack Re8s.

 

<edit> one other thing is I rolled the unique skins mod into AI Gunnery. This was because since adding the other positions as playable in some aircraft there was a clash at the file level for the Ju52. Much easier from my viewpoint going forward to merge the mods and avoid the issue.

 

Still got lots of mod checking and updating to do.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2024 by Stonehouse

[Stonehouse]

Believe fine post 5.504b

[Stonehouse]

AI Gunnery resync'd to games files (109 engine mods and corrections to Mosquito info.txt) plus included weapon LMG 08/15 (WW1 German aircraft MG) in order to reduce rate of fire 450 rpm as discussed in post below. AI Gunnery Pilot Despawn delay mod ok as is post 5.505

 

Edited December 19, 2024 by Stonehouse

[KodiakJac]

Hi @Stonehouse

 

One question about this mod.  I see mention of skins in your description of your updates.  I've got about 4000 skins downloaded from various sources.  What are the considerations I need to be thinking about regarding skins and this mod?

 

Thanks!

[Stonehouse]

5 hours ago, KodiakJac said:

Hi @Stonehouse

 

One question about this mod.  I see mention of skins in your description of your updates.  I've got about 4000 skins downloaded from various sources.  What are the considerations I need to be thinking about regarding skins and this mod?

 

Thanks!

 

That was a fairly recent thing. I (and other authors with their versions) had a mod that unlocked the unique skins released with the game for those people that pre-ordered certain modules. So, there was a unique skin for the 109F2, Ju52 and some others.

 

During the evolution of the AI Gunnery mod, I added the ability for a human to occupy the 2nd pilot/navigators' seat for certain aircraft like the Mosquito for example. This functionality and the unique skins had some common files so trying to use both mods caused problems as well as being a maintenance headache for me. Therefore, I decided to merge the unique skins mod into the AI Gunnery mod eliminating file clashes.

 

The unique skins are all stock game skins but just locked to users who didn't pre-order, I've just unlocked them. Nothing new to download for you in terms of skins.

 

FYI pics of unique skins here Unique skins mod - Mods - IL-2 Sturmovik Forum

 

[KodiakJac]

@Stonehouse

 

Thanks for the explanation.  All sounds good with some Easter Egg skins included with this mod.  Will give it a try now 

 

P.S.

I'm also interested in the AI gunnery pilot despawn delay mod.  Is it included in the AI gunnery mod and then also offered separately, or are they two entirely separate mods?  If they are two separate mods, is there a required order of installation or does the order of installation not matter?  Thanks!

 

Edited February 1 by KodiakJac

[Stonehouse]

4 hours ago, KodiakJac said:

If they are two separate mods, is there a required order of installation or does the order of installation not matter?  Thanks!

completely separate no specific order.

[Stonehouse]

AI file for the Lagg3 series 29 changed in 5.506 so I will need to resync the main AI Gunnery mod. As long as you don't use this aircraft you are fine in the meantime. Should not take too long to do the update.

 

AI gunnery pilot despawn delay is fine post 5.506

Edited February 12 by Stonehouse

[Stonehouse]

AI Gunnery mod updated in first post.

[KodiakJac]

I love the way I'm seeing AI fighter behavior with this mod, but I'm still wondering about AI turret/rear gunner accuracy.  But rather than offer an opinion, I thought I would just post the results I'm seeing with my wingmen after a mission where we attack aircraft with turret/rear gunners.

 

Today my 6 x MC.202 fighters attacked 6 x Li-2 transports we found in the air behind enemy lines.  I got the only Li-2 kill (1), while two of my MC.202 wingmen were shot down by them.  They did better than we did...lol

 

Not being critical at all, just reporting results.  I'm retired and fly way too much IL-2 Great Battles...lol  So, I'll just keep reporting as I go 

[Aapje]

Yeah, I also tested it out a bit and don't like how accurate the turret gunners are. Even if you make slashing attacks or stay on target very briefly, they get a lot of hits in, which feels unrealistic.

[Stonehouse]

@KodiakJac or @Aapje  Can either of you advise what the bomber skills were? What skill were your wingmen?

 

Are you able to provide an example mission I can use to run tests with to see the behaviour you mention and so I can try to use that mission as a basis for adjusting things? 

 

Be advised I test for averages over many test runs when I try to adjust things. So typically, I will do many QMBs across different skill match ups and look for trends when trying to adjust gunner or fighter behaviour. It may be something below where I can see has changed in patches or perhaps you are experiencing a particular combo of skills or situation that I have missed considering as a test case. It is a very fine line to walk if you consider that people do play bomber careers as well as fighter careers and the mod attempts to cater for each. I would expect that human fighter pilots should do better than AI and that particularly if the fighter AI is lower skill than the bomber then the fighters will not get a turkey shoot as typically the low skill AI fighters attack in a fairly dumb fashion. It does sound like something might be up considering the Li2 case mentioned. It would definitely help to see a track or mission.

 

In case you weren't aware the last QMB or career mission flown is always _gen.mission in folder IL-2 Sturmovik Great Battles\data\Missions and the mission file is embedded in any track you record. However, if you provide a track be aware that you need to include both the trk file and the matching folder and contents.

 

eg:

Warship-Mod-test-ger-1-ship_vs_ship_LOW.2025-02-03_14-56-16_00.trk plus folder warship-mod-test-ger-1-ship_vs_ship_low.2025-02-03_14-56-16_00 and it's contents.

 

tracks are found in IL-2 Sturmovik Great Battles\data\Tracks

 

Are any other users of this mod experiencing the same thing? Please provide your feedback either way. I need real data to work with in order to attempt to improve things. Anecdotal info is useful but it doesn't take me very far and I am left trying to guess whether I am seeing what other people see.

 

Thanks

Edited February 17 by Stonehouse

[Aapje]

I was flying the Blazing Steppe Campaign, the transfer mission. Did a continuous climb from the start to 5000 m, to intercept a single PE-2 that crosses the line of flight at 4500 m or so.

 

 

[Stonehouse]

9 minutes ago, Aapje said:

I was flying the Blazing Steppe Campaign, the transfer mission. Did a continuous climb from the start to 5000 m, to intercept a single PE-2 that crosses the line of flight at 4500 m or so.

 

 

Ok I'm not familiar with that one. I may be able to get the mission from the gtp files but you'd need to tell me the mission number.

 

Hmmm nope just checked and all the missions are protected. So I think my only hope would be a track recording to try to get a mission file.

 

Are you playing a modded version of the campaign? From what I am seeing from the mission 1 briefing you are flying for the VVS not the Luftwaffe - was Pe2 a typo?

Edited February 17 by Stonehouse

[kraut1]

6 hours ago, KodiakJac said:

I love the way I'm seeing AI fighter behavior with this mod, but I'm still wondering about AI turret/rear gunner accuracy.  But rather than offer an opinion, I thought I would just post the results I'm seeing with my wingmen after a mission where we attack aircraft with turret/rear gunners.

 

Today my 6 x MC.202 fighters attacked 6 x Li-2 transports we found in the air behind enemy lines.  I got the only Li-2 kill (1), while two of my MC.202 wingmen were shot down by them.  They did better than we did...lol

 

Not being critical at all, just reporting results.  I'm retired and fly way too much IL-2 Great Battles...lol  So, I'll just keep reporting as I go 

 

2 hours ago, Aapje said:

I was flying the Blazing Steppe Campaign, the transfer mission. Did a continuous climb from the start to 5000 m, to intercept a single PE-2 that crosses the line of flight at 4500 m or so.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

Ok I'm not familiar with that one. I may be able to get the mission from the gtp files but you'd need to tell me the mission number.

 

Hmmm nope just checked and all the missions are protected. So I think my only hope would be a track recording to try to get a mission file.

 

Are you playing a modded version of the campaign? From what I am seeing from the mission 1 briefing you are flying for the VVS not the Luftwaffe - was Pe2 a typo?

Hi,

Small idea:

-If we don`t have access to the missions.

-Maybe the missions with very high ailevel have been created or updated in ca. end of 2023 when bomber gunners were extremely inaccurate

-I would try to create a small bomber mod with only "turretcontrollerai.txt" modified (I am using since 6 months a similar mod to improve the "low" / "med" gunners to "high").

From my experience the current "high" is still not too difficult, so I suppose the bombers in the campaign missions have "ace" ailevel.

My suggestion:

CoefLow        = 10.0f;
CoefMed        = 4.0f;
CoefHigh    = 2.0f;
CoefAce        = 0.7f; change to 2.0f

 

SearchDistanceLow   = 0.70f;
SearchDistanceMed   = 1.00f;
SearchDistanceHigh  = 1.20f;
SearchDistanceAce   = 1.50f;  change to 1.20f;

 

SearchDistanceMinLow   = 0.5f;
SearchDistanceMinMed   = 0.75f;
SearchDistanceMinHigh  = 1.00f;
SearchDistanceMinAce   = 1.25f; change to 1.00f;

 

This would be a very small mod, only one text file changed.

And as required you could use of course the Med abilities too.

 

Added later: Maybe for missions with MC202 (not very well protected) "Med" values to be used.

 

Added later:

bomber-gunner-ace-changed-to-high.zip

(I have tested this with Quick Mission 3 normal MC202 vs 4 x Ace Li2)

Edited February 17 by kraut1

[Aapje]

10 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

Ok I'm not familiar with that one. I may be able to get the mission from the gtp files but you'd need to tell me the mission number.

 

Hmmm nope just checked and all the missions are protected. So I think my only hope would be a track recording to try to get a mission file.

 

Are you playing a modded version of the campaign? From what I am seeing from the mission 1 briefing you are flying for the VVS not the Luftwaffe - was Pe2 a typo?

 

Sorry, I misremembered the name. It's the Steel Birds campaign featuring the FW 190. Mission 5: Jonah and the Iron Whale.

Edited February 17 by Aapje

[KodiakJac]

Hi @Stonehouse here is the MC.202 vs. Li-2 mission files.  It is from an MC.202 Career.  You have to ignore the MiGs that pass in front of you and fly to the red "Attack" waypoint to find the Li-2 formation.

 

Cheers!

 

_gen.zip

[Stonehouse]

9 hours ago, kraut1 said:

 

 

Hi,

Small idea:

-If we don`t have access to the missions.

-Maybe the missions with very high ailevel have been created or updated in ca. end of 2023 when bomber gunners were extremely inaccurate

-I would try to create a small bomber mod with only "turretcontrollerai.txt" modified (I am using since 6 months a similar mod to improve the "low" / "med" gunners to "high").

From my experience the current "high" is still not too difficult, so I suppose the bombers in the campaign missions have "ace" ailevel.

My suggestion:

CoefLow        = 10.0f;
CoefMed        = 4.0f;
CoefHigh    = 2.0f;
CoefAce        = 0.7f; change to 2.0f

 

SearchDistanceLow   = 0.70f;
SearchDistanceMed   = 1.00f;
SearchDistanceHigh  = 1.20f;
SearchDistanceAce   = 1.50f;  change to 1.20f;

 

SearchDistanceMinLow   = 0.5f;
SearchDistanceMinMed   = 0.75f;
SearchDistanceMinHigh  = 1.00f;
SearchDistanceMinAce   = 1.25f; change to 1.00f;

 

This would be a very small mod, only one text file changed.

And as required you could use of course the Med abilities too.

 

Added later: Maybe for missions with MC202 (not very well protected) "Med" values to be used.

 

Added later:

bomber-gunner-ace-changed-to-high.zip 2.39 kB · 1 download

(I have tested this with Quick Mission 3 normal MC202 vs 4 x Ace Li2)

 

Thank you. I know you use these for when you are playing the fighter side but if you reduce the ace gunners like that you directly impact the ability of gunners on human controlled bombers. If you go back through the thread you'll see quite a few issues raised by people who fly bomber campaigns and careers and felt that their gunners were completely ineffectual. I'm hoping it is possible to balance things so bombers have a chance and fighters have to work for their kills. I don't know whether you use this mod to get the fighter side of it but if you do one thing to remember is that the AI fighter attack ranges are quite different from stock. I think I recall you saying you use stock fighter AI with this bomber tweak?

 

2 hours ago, KodiakJac said:

Hi @Stonehouse here is the MC.202 vs. Li-2 mission files.  It is from an MC.202 Career.  You have to ignore the MiGs that pass in front of you and fly to the red "Attack" waypoint to find the Li-2 formation.

 

Cheers!

 

_gen.zip 1023.79 kB · 0 downloads

 

Thanks. I did do some 3 v 3 MC202s and Li2s all veteran in a meeting engagement in QMB last night to try to see things. It wasn't a big enough sample to be conclusive, but I thought that the Li2s were a bit too good - each time all the Li2s went down but there was usually just 1 MC202 left fully functional. I usually use 4 P51s v 4 B25s as a test for large caliber bomber turrets and A20s to test low caliber ones. Possibly this is a missed test case. You are attacking from their blind spot under the tail or from under anyway where the turret can't bear when you personally run in, I assume? The AI won't likely get that inventive until later, their initial passes are usually from the rear and level or high.

 

<edit> FYI all the Li2 were normal skill (so veteran crews) and your flight was you, 2 high, 2 normals and 1 low skill.

Edited February 18 by Stonehouse

[Vamandrac]

16 hours ago, Aapje said:

Yeah, I also tested it out a bit and don't like how accurate the turret gunners are. Even if you make slashing attacks or stay on target very briefly, they get a lot of hits in, which feels unrealistic.

 

Yeah, I have always felt the gunners on bombers/transports are sharpshooters even on average with the mod.  I know sitting on the tail of a bomber isn't smart, but they seem to be able to headshot me quite often if I just sit there for a second or two.

Edited February 18 by Vamandrac

[Stonehouse]

18 hours ago, KodiakJac said:

Today my 6 x MC.202 fighters attacked 6 x Li-2 transports we found in the air behind enemy lines.  I got the only Li-2 kill (1), while two of my MC.202 wingmen were shot down by them.  They did better than we did...lol

Got your mission running in SP so will see what things work out like.

 

1 hour ago, Vamandrac said:

 

Yeah, I have always felt the gunners on bombers/transports are sharpshooters even on average with the mod.  I know sitting on the tail of a bomber isn't smart, but they seem to be able to headshot me quite often if I just sit there for a second or two.

 

All I can do is revisit things. Doing all the tests are time consuming though. It would be helpful if the issue can be narrowed down to a skill band. Perhaps @Aapje and Vamandrac could try some repeated QMB and see if you feel it is across the whole range of skill or just a particular band. I suggest head on engagements at 2000-3000m as this forces the fighters to usually climb and reverse after passing. Probably 4 v 4 is a reasonable setup. Defensive fire does scale up in what seems to be a nonlinear fashion in my experience and definitely does make attacking a large group of bombers harder. If you make it a chase style mission usually the AI slowly flies up the bomber's six and dies. Make sure there are no ground units in play as often the AI gets distracted and spoils the test.

 

Also, when looking at this keep in mind that I have multiple goals in mind for this mod, it's not just about making it good for human fighter pilots. It needs to work fairly well for AI bombers, human bombers and AI fighters as well. It will be a compromise no matter what as a result but hopefully better than stock (which is the point of all the work involved) and also remember that I don't have access to the code, all I can do is tweak the edges of the situation. There are definite limits to what is achievable.

 

Edited February 18 by Stonehouse

[Stonehouse]

@KodiakJac FYI Based on what I see in tacview most of the hits on MC202s are from the 7.62 gun. I gave rifle caliber guns an accuracy edge over heavier stuff as some aircraft like the A20 which are only armed with 7.62mm weapons are pretty helpless. The Li2 has a 7.62 and a 12.7mm gunner. Still looking at whether this accounts for what you are seeing.

 

<edit> still not a conclusive sample but seeing some odd things. I created a 4v4 MC202 and Li2 QMB meeting engagement at 2500m. Then edited the mission to give exactly the same crew skills as your mission for both aircraft types (you were given ace skill) as well as adding 2 more aircraft per side. I added myself as a 262 off to the side so I could watch what happened. No particular formation allocated. So it was just 6v6 with two gaggles of aircraft passing head on and then the fighters reversing onto the Li2s while the Li2s tried to evade and defend.

 

Tacview says that most of the hits on the MC202s were 7.62 although some 12.7mm hits were recorded. Plus amusingly it looks like the low skill MC202 guy was guilty of some friendly fire incidents doing shoulder shooting. Not a trend yet but so far the results have roughly worked out 4 Li2 KIA for zero MC202 losses. Damage yes but no MC202s shot down.

 

Going to check formations in your campaign mission and try to replicate what the situation was at the time you intercept and see if that makes a difference. So far it looks like the light caliber weapons might need some increase in gunner error. 

 

I don't know why there is such a difference in what your campaign experience was like and the QMB test mission with the same skill set. Possibly formation is part of it. Will keep investigating.

 

I did note that your campaign mission includes 3 I-16s as escort and in my tacview recording of my run through these I16s do account for some MC202s. Could some of your losses be due to them and not bomber gunners?

 

<edit> ok with both sides in loose V formation it has changed a little. Still mostly seeing 4-0 Li2 v MC202 but just had one which was 4-2. So as has been the case so far 4 Li2s down. 2 badly damaged and RTB and this time the Ace MC202 was killed on his run in on an Li2 and then also one of the normal skill MC202 plus 1 MC202 shot up so badly it was RTB.

 

So I am going to take this version of the test case mission as a reasonable representation of what you get in a career or campaign and start building stats to see if there is a trend. 

 

By the way for those wondering why I do something like try to build statistics on this, it's because there is a random factor in the gunner error calculation. Plus, each run through of the test mission is not quite the same in how the AI flies and attacks. Therefore, you cannot simply take a single isolated instance to drive changes to the various parameters. You must look for trends and depending on whether you think it is good or bad you make small adjustments. 

Edited February 18 by Stonehouse

[kraut1]

7 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

 

 

Thanks. I did do some 3 v 3 MC202s and Li2s all veteran in a meeting engagement in QMB last night to try to see things. It wasn't a big enough sample to be conclusive, but I thought that the Li2s were a bit too good - each time all the Li2s went down but there was usually just 1 MC202 left fully functional. I usually use 4 P51s v 4 B25s as a test for large caliber bomber turrets and A20s to test low caliber ones. Possibly this is a missed test case. You are attacking from their blind spot under the tail or from under anyway where the turret can't bear when you personally run in, I assume? The AI won't likely get that inventive until later, their initial passes are usually from the rear and level or high.

 

<edit> FYI all the Li2 were normal skill (so veteran crews) and your flight was you, 2 high, 2 normals and 1 low skill.

Hi,

 

Normally, if I would have to attack an Li-2, I would of course choose the blind spot under the tail.

 

But to check the return fire I attacked straight from 6 o'clock.

In my Quick Mission test as I wrote the 4 Li-2 s were Ace and my 2 MC202 AI wingmen were "normal".

By using the modified bot gunner the the effectiveness of the return fire was reduced.

It is just an example for a special situation when a certain mission design required a modification of the ai abilities.

2 further examples:

-BoF1940 with EMGv66 (November 2022): This is still my current BoF1940 Mod. In this old EMG version the so called "lonewolves" had always "ace" ailevel.

To reduce the danger by these planes (german and allied) I changed for all for BoF1940 used fighters the ai shooting abilities to from ace to normal.

-For my Kurland mod I use for enemy flight bomber flights low ailevels, because I choosed "random" for decision by EMG if bomber, ground attack or fighter mission.

In these random created enemy flights the return fire of the Sturmoviks / Bombers was too harmless with "low" and "normal" (only the leader).

So I raised for the gunner bot "low" to "normal" and "normal" to "high" and when attacking with a FW190-A8 (well protected) the return fire is from my personal point of view  so dangerous that I have either to fire on longdistances or choose blind spots.

 

I would not say that in general the return fire is always too dangerous or too harmless.

It depends on the mission's plane types and the style how the mission / campaign / career to be played.

 

 

[Stonehouse]

 

32 minutes ago, kraut1 said:

Normally, if I would have to attack an Li-2, I would of course choose the blind spot under the tail

Sorry crossed comms - I meant the comment about attacking from the blind spot for KodiakJac.

 

I did understand what you were saying before. Essentially people can tweak the AI as they prefer if they are willing to find all the files and edit them. I agree and have no problem with them doing so. At least that is what I think your point was? Maybe I've misunderstood after all.

 

Unfortunately for this mod, it is intended as a 1 size fits all missions whereas I think you are talking about a tailored one-off version to suit a particular mission's needs.

 

In any case I've no problem with trying to tweak things to improve the mod but unfortunately it is going to take a while. Hopefully there are people willing to test beta versions once I get to that point.

Edited February 18 by Stonehouse

[kraut1]

2 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

 

Sorry crossed comms - I meant the comment about attacking from the blind spot for KodiakJac.

 

I did understand what you were saying before. Essentially people can tweak the AI as they prefer if they are willing to find all the files and edit them. I agree and have no problem with them doing so. At least that is what I think your point was? Maybe I've misunderstood after all.

 

Unfortunately for this mod, it is intended as a 1 size fits all missions whereas I think you are talking about a tailored one-off version to suit a particular mission's needs.

 

In any case I've no problem with trying to tweak things to improve the mod but unfortunately it is going to take a while. Hopefully there are people willing to test beta versions once I get to that point.

From my personal point of view currently for WW2 AI:

"low" is always too harmless, I raise to "med".

"ace" is always too dangerous, I lower to "high"

with these 2 adjustments I think I can solve at least 50% of the issues.

A critical issue is for me when AI gunners are masters of deflection shooting when I attack from side or when they are able always to hit the pilot (me) very early / on long distances.

 

Currently I am working on Radar and EMG settings for Germany 43/45.

B25 to be used as "dummy" 4 engine bombers.

Maybe for this mission design I would choose for the dummy 4 engine bombers ace to make them extremely dangerous.

The Focus for these missions would be either german BF109 heavy interceptor escort missions or US escort missions / ground attack / strafing missions.

Edited February 18 by kraut1