Help/tips for flying as flight leader.

[Harlequin]

I've been making progress in my pwcg career and now being appointed leader of flights. Have really been enjoying it as it seems so much more immersive than the integrated carer mode. First few missions as leader and my flight hasnt been engaging enemy aircraft (fighter missions rather than ground attack).  Is anyone consistently able to manage their flight with commands? If so, would be grateful for some tips on what works best and when. 

 

Many thanks.

 

[Hotaru_Ito]

Unfortunately, this is an issue with the vanilla AI and there's nothing Pat Wilson can do to fix it. I've had the same problem if I go off-script when leading fighter sweeps in vanilla career, and trying to get my wingmen to strafe ground targets in quick missions.

 

I'm still experimenting, but as far as I can tell there isn't a 100% reliable way to get AI wingmen to follow commands, especially "attack aircraft" or "attack ground targets." They seem to work better if you wait to issue the command until you're quite close to what you want them to attack, and, when attacking aircraft, if you engage at the same level as the enemy rather than diving on them. Also, "patrol for x" might work a little better than "attack the nearest x." Apart from that, all you can do is spam the command and hope for the best.

 

You can also set yourself to not lead the flight if you want, by selecting yourself in the pilot assignment screen and then scrolling up and down, or just clicking to unassign and then reassign yourself, which will set you as last in the formation.

 

Hope this helps!

[Varibraun]

3 hours ago, cosg_Paul said:

If so, would be grateful for some tips on what works best and when. 

 

I agree with @Hotaru_Ito's advice.  I find using the "follow me" command and the "patrol air" command can help to get them in a little closer and to engage a little more aggressively at times.  No idea why "patrol air" sometimes works better than the "attack" command, but sometimes it does.  Good luck!

[Majpalmer]

I'm, actually working on a video comparing the performance of friendly AI pilots to actual stats from the war. I still have a bit to go, but what has surprised me is that, while the IL-2 BoS AI certainly isn't challenging, it's actually, believe it or not, historic. Let's just say that most WWII single-seat fighter pilots were ... NOT big scorers. 

[PatrickAWlson]

11 hours ago, Majpalmer said:

I'm, actually working on a video comparing the performance of friendly AI pilots to actual stats from the war. I still have a bit to go, but what has surprised me is that, while the IL-2 BoS AI certainly isn't challenging, it's actually, believe it or not, historic. Let's just say that most WWII single-seat fighter pilots were ... NOT big scorers. 

 

I looked at average losses/claims throughout the war, figured out about how many should be scored in PWCG given the number of pilots and units modeled, and then used those odds in determining out of mission victories.  I wrote code to simulate a war without actual missions (out of mission victories only) to try to get the numbers about right.  The actual number for a player flying real missions will be in mission victories + offline victories, but it is offline victories that make or break the feel of the campaign.  

[Majpalmer]

I think you did a good job. As my video will show, the AI pilots are actually better than their real-life counterparts. And that's true for both the IL-2 career and the PW career. 

 

The main problem I have with your CG is that, for some reason, sorties generated are far more likely to refuse to respond to Autopilot than those generated by the IL-2 career generator. 

 

For me, with limited time, not being able to use Autopilot is a killer. Level auto works but using that is a pain on escort missions when you need to climb and zig-zag. 

 

I've posted about the Autopilot issue before, so I know it's not just me. But no one had any suggestions. It happens in both careers, but more so with yours.  

[PatrickAWlson]

42 minutes ago, Majpalmer said:

I think you did a good job. As my video will show, the AI pilots are actually better than their real-life counterparts. And that's true for both the IL-2 career and the PW career. 

 

The main problem I have with your CG is that, for some reason, sorties generated are far more likely to refuse to respond to Autopilot than those generated by the IL-2 career generator. 

 

For me, with limited time, not being able to use Autopilot is a killer. Level auto works but using that is a pain on escort missions when you need to climb and zig-zag. 

 

I've posted about the Autopilot issue before, so I know it's not just me. But no one had any suggestions. It happens in both careers, but more so with yours.  

 

The only tool at my disposal in terms of impacting the Ai decision to engage is waypoint priority.  I only use low and medium.  Low is very aggressive, medium is defend yourself if needed but focus on the mission.  All fighter flights are low priority waypoints.  All ground attack/bomber missions are medium  priority.  If your mission was an attack mission then I understand AI reluctance.  If your mission was a fighter mission then I do not.  If anybody is aware of anything else, please advise, however, this has been the state of things for about 12 years now.

 

The next time that you have a mission where the AI is not aggressive, post it.  I can at least ensure that there is no error in WP  priority.  FYI: been here before and WP priority has not been the issue, but it doesn't hurt to check.

 

If the stock career does it better then it is doing something that I do not understand.  1C developers will always have an advantage over me and other mission makers in that they can talk to the guy next to them and ask detailed questions about the code.  This is why I keep asking "what are the rules" in terms of getting AI to do things.  I know the explicit rules, and they are very few. 

 

Then there are the undocumented rules.  A good example is that Stukas have to be at a certain height to get the AI to dive bomb, otherwise they will use a shallow diving attack profile like any other ground attack plane.  I am not aware that that altitude consideration is documented anywhere.  Those undocumented rules have got to be documented, and changes to them need to cause updates, otherwise external mission makers will always be fighting the game.

[Majpalmer]

Pat, let me make myself clear. From the real war data I've been looking at, the AI pilots in both your campaign generator and the 1C Career mode sortie generator are too aggressive and successful. The IL-2 AI is not "challenging" if you've been playing the sim for a while and you learn the ropes, but that does not mean that it's ahistoric. 

[Harlequin]

Thanks for the replies.  I flew around 5 missions this evening as leader and it was a bit of a mixed bag.  I didn't really feel like I was in charge lol but my wingmen did fight on occasion.  Sometimes going off on their own, others after spamming the attack nearest air target keybind.  Hopefully this will get more attention from the Devs in future.  I've found pwcg much more enjoyable since the general ai  improvements have slowly come into the game. The integrated il2 career is lagging well behind pwcg I think too.  Thanks.

 

 

[Hotaru_Ito]

6 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

If the stock career does it better then it is doing something that I do not understand.  1C developers will always have an advantage over me and other mission makers in that they can talk to the guy next to them and ask detailed questions about the code.  This is why I keep asking "what are the rules" in terms of getting AI to do things.  I know the explicit rules, and they are very few.

 

I think the only thing vanilla career does differently is it gives AI flights specific targets to attack, whereas PWCG just sets them to aggressive so they'll attack any hostile that comes nearby. Their way is a little more reliable, but yours is a lot more realistic. It SHOULD work, and it usually does. When it doesn't, that's the devs' fault, not yours. And I've looked at the missions PWCG generates and as far as I can tell, the waypoint priorities are set correctly. Low for fighters, medium for everything else. If anything, PWCG is a little better than vanilla in the area of fighters disengaging when damaged, rather than always fighting to the death. You also have them return to the nearest friendly airfield rather than trying to limp all the way to their home base, which improves their survival rate a lot.

 

I've actually been having reasonably good luck following my own advice in this thread, and I've come up with one new piece, which is to let the AI attack first when possible. Had a Pe-2 mission leading a five-ship flight rocket-attacking a train station, I hung back a little and 3 of the 4 AIs all launched their rockets and shot the place up pretty good. I then came in and finished it off with my own rockets. On the way back, spotted another train and ordered them to attack--waiting until we were practically over it--and sure enough, they went and strafed it. We didn't get the engine but one of my wingmen did get credit for a couple of train cars. I haven't had a fighter career in a while but when I start another one I'll see if I can apply the same strategy to getting them to engage enemy planes.

 

And incidentally, that Pe-2 campaign has been reminding me of another thing I appreciate about PWCG which is the variety of missions. I got to do some low-level rocket attacks and strafing, some high-level bombing, a little dive bombing, and even a recon mission, whereas in vanilla, I don't think I've ever seen Pe-2s doing anything but level bombing at 1500 meters. My one request would be for the AI not to dump their bombs and rockets right after leaving the target, maybe wait until we pass the "egress" waypoint. That way I could have them attack targets of opportunity--which PWCG is great at providing!--if they have any ordnance left after hitting the primary target.

[Majpalmer]

10 minutes ago, Hotaru_Ito said:

 

I think the only thing vanilla career does differently is it gives AI flights specific targets to attack, whereas PWCG just sets them to aggressive so they'll attack any hostile that comes nearby. Their way is a little more reliable, but yours is a lot more realistic. It SHOULD work, and it usually does. When it doesn't, that's the devs' fault, not yours. And I've looked at the missions PWCG generates and as far as I can tell, the waypoint priorities are set correctly. Low for fighters, medium for everything else. If anything, PWCG is a little better than vanilla in the area of fighters disengaging when damaged, rather than always fighting to the death. You also have them return to the nearest friendly airfield rather than trying to limp all the way to their home base, which improves their survival rate a lot.

 

I've actually been having reasonably good luck following my own advice in this thread, and I've come up with one new piece, which is to let the AI attack first when possible. Had a Pe-2 mission leading a five-ship flight rocket-attacking a train station, I hung back a little and 3 of the 4 AIs all launched their rockets and shot the place up pretty good. I then came in and finished it off with my own rockets. On the way back, spotted another train and ordered them to attack--waiting until we were practically over it--and sure enough, they went and strafed it. We didn't get the engine but one of my wingmen did get credit for a couple of train cars. I haven't had a fighter career in a while but when I start another one I'll see if I can apply the same strategy to getting them to engage enemy planes.

 

And incidentally, that Pe-2 campaign has been reminding me of another thing I appreciate about PWCG which is the variety of missions. I got to do some low-level rocket attacks and strafing, some high-level bombing, a little dive bombing, and even a recon mission, whereas in vanilla, I don't think I've ever seen Pe-2s doing anything but level bombing at 1500 meters. My one request would be for the AI not to dump their bombs and rockets right after leaving the target, maybe wait until we pass the "egress" waypoint. That way I could have them attack targets of opportunity--which PWCG is great at providing!--if they have any ordnance left after hitting the primary target.

I definitely agree on the "variety" advantage with PWCG over the IL-2 Career. If only I could get Autopilot to work consistently. 

[Varibraun]

3 hours ago, cosg_Paul said:

Sometimes going off on their own

 

This is one place I have found they will reliably listen to you, the "follow me" command will bring them back when they start to stray.  This command is one of the best ways to help them keep their virtual lives.  I use Voice Attack for my flight leader orders, and my wife wonders who I am badgering to follow me all night long 

[Majpalmer]

I'll give that a try. 

13 minutes ago, Varibraun said:

 

This is one place I have found they will reliably listen to you, the "follow me" command will bring them back when they start to stray.  This command is one of the best ways to help them keep their virtual lives.  I use Voice Attack for my flight leader orders, and my wife wonders who I am badgering to follow me all night long 

 

[Stonehouse]

11 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Then there are the undocumented rules.  A good example is that Stukas have to be at a certain height to get the AI to dive bomb, otherwise they will use a shallow diving attack profile like any other ground attack plane.  I am not aware that that altitude consideration is documented anywhere.  Those undocumented rules have got to be documented, and changes to them need to cause updates, otherwise external mission makers will always be fighting the game.

 

OK maybe something to help you. If you unpack the scripts.gtp file and look in luascripts\ai you will see a text file for each aircraft. Looking at the Ju87 file I see the lines below in the [approach] block of parameters (there are lots more but it seemed like the dive bomb numbers were relevant to the conversation). Translations are via google translate. Oddly though the comment seems to indicate that the Ju87 AI should not care about the height you say to attack at since it should gain height before bombing. Could it be the loadout causing the shallow dive?

 

Anyway perhaps if some particular aircraft is giving you grief you might find a clue in it's text file.  

 

[approach]
..............
    GroundAttackDistance = 300.0
    GroundEngageDistance = 2200.0
    GroundEngageRocketK  = 1.0                // к-т на который умножается m_GroundEngageDistance при атаке ракетами
    SpiralAttackApproach = true
    DiveBombAltitude     = 2500.0            // the minimum height of the start of a vertical dive, if the aircraft is lower and there is a command to attack, it will gain this height before bombing
    DiveBombExitAltitude = 900.0            // minimum exit height from a vertical dive
    DeepDiveWeaponSet    = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7    // set of payloads suitable for vertical dive bombing, -1 not used, up to 15 values per line

.....................
[end]

[PatrickAWlson]

@Hotaru_Ito I used to do a post processing step where I looped through every aircraft in the mission and specified every enemy aircraft as a target using the Attack MCU.  I eliminated it because it did not seem to be needed any more.  It also caused wonky behavior in non fighters.  Maybe I have to do that again, but only for fighter planes on a fighter mission.

[Hotaru_Ito]

@PatrickAWlson I think it's worth a try. I do have the sense that, whereas the bombers thinking they're fighters are long gone, actual fighters seem more reluctant to engage than they used to be. Might be my imagination, though.

[Hotaru_Ito]

@PatrickAWlson I tested it out using a version of PWCG (11.11.1) from before the bombers-think-they're-fighters fix. Regular line patrol with me leading the flight. In the mission generated by PWCG 11, the moment the hostiles came within range, my AI wingmen spread out and engaged them. In the mission generated by the current PWCG, my wingmen totally ignored the hostiles even when we flew right past them. I think going back to setting all enemy flights as targets, for fighter flights only to avoid the bomber issue, will probably work.

 

Hope this helps!

Edited June 8, 2022 by Hotaru_Ito

[Varibraun]

11 minutes ago, Hotaru_Ito said:

I tested it out using a version of PWCG (11.11.1) from before the bombers-think-they're-fighters fix. Regular line patrol with me leading the flight. In the mission generated by PWCG 11, the moment the hostiles came within range, my AI wingmen spread out and engaged them. In the mission generated by the current PWCG, my wingmen totally ignored the hostiles even when we flew right past them. I think going back to setting all enemy flights as targets, for fighter flights only to avoid the bomber issue, will probably work.

 

Hope this helps!

 

@PatrickAWlson - I think this is an interesting observation/experiment from Hotaru.  However, FWIW - I just checked my posts on this issue and it appears that I first started to notice it at least in some instances before version 11.11:

 

 

[Hotaru_Ito]

@Varibraun I don't know what's up with that, but I've done a bunch more test missions and the results are the same. In 11.11.1, my wingmen consistently attack hostiles, whether fighters, bombers, or transports, usually without any prompting from me, whereas in the current version, they hardly ever attack even when commanded to. Enemies seem more reluctant to engage me in the current version as well.

[Varibraun]

11 hours ago, Hotaru_Ito said:

I don't know what's up with that, but I've done a bunch more test missions and the results are the same. In 11.11.1, my wingmen consistently attack hostiles, whether fighters, bombers, or transports, usually without any prompting from me, whereas in the current version, they hardly ever attack even when commanded to. Enemies seem more reluctant to engage me in the current version as well.

 

Hi @Hotaru_Ito, I am sorry if I came across as skeptical in my post, that certainly wasn't my intent.  I definitely think your actual testing of PWCG versions back to back is a much better analysis than my subjective observation in a mission I flew over a year and a half ago.  I was just hopeful when I saw your post that I started noticing AI issues after 11.11.1 to potentially put ALL the pieces together for Pat, and unfortunately that wasn't the case.

 

@PatrickAWlson - There was an adage back in my USMC days that if you "do so much, with so little, for so long," you will eventually be perceived to be able to "do anything, forever, with nothing."  Based on some recent posts here, I hope our community isn't pushing to that point based on the resources and time available to you (this isn't directed at Hotaru who I think is giving very helpful insight and work).  

 

I hope everyone will keep some perspective in posting that you have literally spent years creating the best and deepest combat campaign/pilot/squadron simulator in the world for us for free using your own spare time.  We, and the Devs, are very fortunate to have your VOLUNTEER talent, perseverance, and historical interest here with us!  

Edited June 9, 2022 by Varibraun

[Hotaru_Ito]

13 minutes ago, Varibraun said:

Hi @Hotaru_Ito, I am sorry if I came across as skeptical in my post, that certainly wasn't my intent.  I definitely think your actual testing of PWCG versions back to back is a much better analysis than my subjective observation in a mission I flew over a year and a half ago.  I was just hopeful when I saw your post that I started noticing AI issues after 11.11.1 to potentially put ALL the pieces together for Pat, and unfortunately that wasn't the case.

 

No worries, I knew what you meant. I also didn't mean to come off like I was annoyed with you, sorry! Vanilla AI being what it is, its behavior in 11.11.1 isn't totally perfect. There were a few times I did have to order my wingmen to attack, but they always seemed to get there in the end. There may also be issues that only crop up in specific circumstances that a few test missions won't reveal. I mostly just wanted to report that I had done a few more tests to confirm my results, partly in response to your observations.

 

And I absolutely agree about the danger of taking @PatrickAWlson's time for granted as well. I've only been posting here for a little while, but I've been using PWCG since Rise of Flight and I've done enough coding myself to have a pretty good idea of how many hours he's put into this project. If this AI targeting thing turns out to be an easy fix, cool, if not, there's no rush and real life comes first, PWCG is fantastic as-is.

[Hotaru_Ito]

Well, on further investigation it looks like @Varibraun was right: that change was made before 11.11.1. I've looked into the mission files from PWCG 11 and PWCG 13 and neither of them have any attack commands that I can find. And I did find them in missions from PWCG 8, so I'm pretty sure I'm not just overlooking them.

There still does seem to be a difference in AI behavior, though. In missions generated by PWCG 11, my wingmen usually spread out to engage as soon as hostiles come within range. In missions generated by PWCG 13, they stay in formation right up until we fly past the hostiles and then--sometimes--they engage. I am having a little better luck with "patrol for aircraft" if I wait until we're just passing the hostiles to issue the command, and if we engage at the same altitude.

I will keep investigating. I still think SOMETHING may have changed between versions 11.11.1 and 13.9.0 that is having an effect on the AI's ability to detect enemies from a distance--possibly something related to the bombers-think-they're-fighters fix mentioned in the change log of 12.0.0.

 

On an unrelated note, I did see something else cool in one of my test missions: a flight of 4 Stukas all doing a genuine vertical dive-bombing run. In vanilla career they just come in at about a 45 degree angle like any other ground attack plane, but in this mission they actually did a wing-over into a vertical dive. As far as I know, PWCG is the only procedural mission generator, vanilla or third-party, where Stukas actually do vertical attacks. Very cool. I'll have to get a PWCG Stuka career going soon!

[Harlequin]

Hi.  It's interesting reading how you're getting on looking into this.  I have no idea how to help though. I opened a mission in the editor just out of curiousity and it was like something out of the matrix lol. Just goes to show how much more complex things are, and how much work goes into creating the missions.

Cheers :)

[Hotaru_Ito]

39 minutes ago, cosg_Paul said:

Hi.  It's interesting reading how you're getting on looking into this.  I have no idea how to help though. I opened a mission in the editor just out of curiousity and it was like something out of the matrix lol. Just goes to show how much more complex things are, and how much work goes into creating the missions.

Cheers

 

"Something out of the matrix" is about my reaction to the mission editor too! I've just been looking through the text files (the ones ending in ".mission") and seeing what I could figure out. Which hasn't been very much, so far.

 

I did a couple more missions, alternating between PWCG 11 and 13, and I honestly can't tell anymore whether there's an actual difference or it's all in my head. That's Il-2 AI for you, I guess! I totally sympathize with @PatrickAWlson's frustration with trying to hunt down AI issues all these years, and if he doesn't want to chase this particular wild goose I won't blame him. PWCG 13.9 is totally playable as-is, you just have to babysit your AI wingmen a little. And of course it seems to work fine if you're not leading the flight, or if you're doing bomber or fighter-bomber missions.

[PatrickAWlson]

59 minutes ago, Hotaru_Ito said:

 

"Something out of the matrix" is about my reaction to the mission editor too! I've just been looking through the text files (the ones ending in ".mission") and seeing what I could figure out. Which hasn't been very much, so far.

 

I did a couple more missions, alternating between PWCG 11 and 13, and I honestly can't tell anymore whether there's an actual difference or it's all in my head. That's Il-2 AI for you, I guess! I totally sympathize with @PatrickAWlson's frustration with trying to hunt down AI issues all these years, and if he doesn't want to chase this particular wild goose I won't blame him. PWCG 13.9 is totally playable as-is, you just have to babysit your AI wingmen a little. And of course it seems to work fine if you're not leading the flight, or if you're doing bomber or fighter-bomber missions.

 

I'm going to restore "Attack" MCUs for fighters. 

 

I removed them in an attempt to stop bombers from behaving like fighters.  Previously I had attack MCUs on all planes, regardless of type or mission, because the AI of all types would sometimes go passive.  Then bombers started flying like fighters.  Now fighters aren't fighting.

 

If I only add the Attack MCU for fighter planes on fighter missions that will hopefully help those planes on those flights without giving unwanted hints to other planes.  As always, I am completely guessing as to what the impact on the Ai might be.  

[Hotaru_Ito]

Sorry to keep bothering you about this, but one last suggestion: maybe add those attack commands to the player's flight only, or even only if the player is leading the flight. The more missions I fly, the more what I see is that AI actually behaves very well, engaging and disengaging way more realistically than in vanilla career, as long as its leader is an AI pilot. The AI-won't-fight problem only seems to happen with the player's wingmen when the player is leading the flight, hence the question in the OP of this thread. Just a thought. 

[PatrickAWlson]

6 hours ago, Hotaru_Ito said:

Sorry to keep bothering you about this, but one last suggestion: maybe add those attack commands to the player's flight only, or even only if the player is leading the flight. The more missions I fly, the more what I see is that AI actually behaves very well, engaging and disengaging way more realistically than in vanilla career, as long as its leader is an AI pilot. The AI-won't-fight problem only seems to happen with the player's wingmen when the player is leading the flight, hence the question in the OP of this thread. Just a thought. 

 

I spent yesterday working on this.  I have it in place as I want it - all fighter flights get the attack MCU.  Attack, bomber, recon, etc. do not.  Fighter planes on attack missions do not get the Attack MCU.  I also reduced the attack MCU priority from high to medium.  According to the documentation this should produce more realistic results.  If this doesn't pan out then I will revert to high.

 

There are other attempts to influence AI behavior that are not impacted by this change like RTB when damaged or AI go home when too deep into enemy air space.  Those both trigger under specific conditions after the attack MCU has triggered (attack MCU triggers on takeoff) so they should override the attack command.