Fighter bombing

[greybeard_52]

I do not agree with current fighter-bomber technique in use by AI to hit their targets and related consequences on human player.
Given that I always follow AI during missions, usually staying in formation as "tail-end Charlie", the former always approach target at an altitude of less than 2000 m, suddenly diving on its target to drop its bomb(s). I can't follow effectively it simply because there's no time to acquire and target objects on ground. Indeed, from what I read on Peter Smith's "Dive Bomber" and on the internet (pls see attached images) dive bombing starting altitude was never less than 6000' (1800 m). Career mission generator always sets starting altitudes lower (like in the attached screenshot).
I would suggest to developers not to raise altitude but change attack metod with dive-toss (i.e.: launch from a shallow dive), more suited IMO to computer simulation constraints.

 

Edited November 14, 2022 by greybeard_52

[LukeFF]

The limitations are there right now because of AI issues. 

[KevPBur]

When i'm not leading a flight I generally wait for the command to "Look for targets on my own" and then climb on full power for a few seconds to gain a little more altitude and time to spot in the dive. I also tend to turn off target a little as the ai love to arrive straight over the target and you can loose an entire city under the nose of most fighters.

[busdriver]

11 hours ago, greybeard_52 said:

I can't follow effectively it simply because there's no time to acquire and target objects on ground. Indeed, from what I read on Peter Smith's "Dive Bomber" and on the internet (pls see attached images) dive bombing starting altitude was never less than 6000' (1800 m).

 

Couple of things...

 

Regarding your difficulty acquiring your target...welcome to the real world. ? I suspect that you may be flying too close (not flying tactically). Give yourself some room.

 

Second, as @LukeFF mentioned it's an AI constraint. Even if you ingress at low altitude the AI has to climb up to its "entry altitude" (my term for the AI starting its attack)  rather than the term I used in RL, the roll-in altitude or apex. Since I'm no longer a tester I will share that the Devs have tweaked ground attack profiles over time. At times they have clearly been receptive to professional critique witnessed by changes in AI parameters, while other suggestions/critiques "appeared" to get ignored as witnessed by a lack of change in AI behavior (say strafing from >1000 meters slant range). Perhaps the lack of change is a coding problem. 

 

Third, if you've ever flown or lived in Europe you can appreciate that have a minimum ceiling of at least 6000' (1800 meters) is/was not always an option. This is a big reason for having delayed fusing options to allow the guy dropping bombs to have time to clear the frag pattern. And it's a reason that the AI's "entry altitude" is less than 6000' (1800 meters). You can parse the difference between dive bombing, glide bombing, and dive-toss, but the AI lacks the flexibility to do what a warm body would do and adapt. FWIW most Mosquito pilots would not continue a Day Ranger if there was insufficient low clouds (broken to overcast layers) that they could quickly pop into to hide from Fw190s and Bf109s.

 

 

[greybeard_52]

Thank you all for the knowledgeable replies.

 

On 11/14/2022 at 5:48 PM, LukeFF said:

The limitations are there right now because of AI issues.

I'm a little surprised, because I seem to remember that in a previous version (not more than a year ago) the fighter-bombers' AI didn't attack in a dive, but with a dive-toss-like method... More in general , I can cite very old simulators, such as Red Baron 3D for this release method, which also allowed the player to be very precise, not to mention Digital Integration's "Tornado", in which there were even different bombing methods available choice, with an impressive synchronism between player and AI.
I feel like we've taken a step back...

 

On 11/14/2022 at 7:13 PM, KevPBur said:

...climb on full power for a few seconds to gain a little more altitude and time to spot in the dive.

 

Good to know...

 

On 11/14/2022 at 7:13 PM, KevPBur said:

...turn off target a little...

 

Sorry I do not understand...

 

On 11/14/2022 at 10:00 PM, busdriver said:

...minimum ceiling of at least 6000' (1800 meters) is/was not always an option.

 

Dive bombing should always be weather permitting (otherwise it happens like in Neuhammer...), because forcing it below 6000 feet isn't an option either: the AI can do it, but not the player!

[KevPBur]

@greybeard_52 by "..turn off target a little... " I mean I turn left or right whilst climbing. Enough to get a better view of the target as the ai tend to arrive head on to the target and I can't see anything over the nose of my plane. I'll normally decide which way to turn from the map pre-flight to get the best approach or making for an easy egress avoiding marked aaa or enemy airfield near the target but obviosly this often changes once I see the target.

 

Sadly, I've never been able to predict whether the rest of my flight we turn left or right on the egress so I regularly loose them initially.

[busdriver]

4 hours ago, greybeard_52 said:

Dive bombing should always be weather permitting (otherwise it happens like in Neuhammer...), because forcing it below 6000 feet isn't an option either: the AI can do it, but not the player!

Not sure I follow what you're trying to say. But I know that as a player I don't need to roll in from 6000 feet to dive bomb. If you are trying to say that rolling in from any altitude other than 6000 feet is not dive bombing, then we are quibbling about the definition. I'm using "dive bombing" as a generic term to describe pointing my nose at the ground and pickling bombs off. 

[Jaegermeister]

To the OP,

 

The 1st graphic described an ideal circumstance for high altitude ingress that was usually not possible due to cloud cover. The bomber would have to pull off target above 2 thousand feet or so to avoid fragging themselves. That's not really a problem in IL2, so we can dive lower and be a lot more accurate than IRL

 

The 2nd graphic you posted is from Navy dive bomber doctrine developed before WWII even started. The US Navy somewhat stubbornly stuck to this theory with the SBDs and TBFs despite the fact that they were easy targets while diving straight at 20+ guns with dive flaps out for a significant amount of time. It was accurate, but designed for hitting a comparatively tiny target in the ocean.

 

 

[Gambit21]

5 hours ago, greybeard_52 said:

 

 

I'm a little surprised, because I seem to remember that in a previous version (not more than a year ago) the fighter-bombers' AI didn't attack in a dive, but with a dive-toss-like method...

 

 

Not the case.

[greybeard_52]

2 hours ago, KevPBur said:

by "..turn off target a little... " I mean I turn left or right whilst climbing

 

I see. Thanks. Indeed that was what real dive bombers did (please see attached image).

1 hour ago, busdriver said:

Not sure I follow what you're trying to say.

 

What I'm trying to say is that:
1). The dive bombing performed by the AI in missions generated from the "career" mode is not realistic and, in any case, is difficult to be performed in concert by the player.
2). I suggest replacing it with a release performed during a gentle dive. It simply consists of dropping the bombs when the target disappears under the nose of the plane (for the player - who thus has time to frame it - together with the AI performing the same manoeuvre).

[Stonehouse]

This was in the Balkans and almost at the end of the war so very different war to Normandy and Bodenplatte but an alternative method some RAF Spitfire IX units used at that time to give themselves time to id the target. Essentially though it is still just giving yourself an offset (as explained by an earlier post) to allow you to see the target before rolling in.

Anyway, just background info to provide food for thought really. It generally does work in game as the unit I flew with in IL2 1946 used to use this method.

 

[Gambit21]

7 hours ago, greybeard_52 said:

 

I suggest replacing it with a release performed during a gentle dive. It simply consists of dropping the bombs when the target disappears under the nose of the plane (for the player - who thus has time to frame it - together with the AI performing the same manoeuvre).

 

Not that easy unfortunately.

 

 

[Lusekofte]

12 hours ago, greybeard_52 said:

Sorry I do not understand

It was a tactic Stuka jockeys always did. they never went straight into target but made sure it was in the side of the nose so they could see it. Then when close enough turn right into it until it appeared on the floor window. 
it make perfect sense. Since you are high above and will be almost straight above when start diving

[greybeard_52]

6 hours ago, 216th_Lusekofte said:

It was a tactic Stuka jockeys always did.

 

It looks to me like the dog chasing its tail...?
Ok about Stuka, but please notice starting altitude in attached image. Busdriver and Jaegermeister said that the starting altitude in the game (at least for European theaters, I understand) cannot be higher than 6000 feet due to the cloud ceiling. But from this height the player has difficulty in framing the target, so - if this technique is persisted - a greater starting height would be necessary... Which however is prevented by the roof of clouds... Again...
Gambit21 then says that the soft dive bombing solution isn't easy to implement (and I wonder how Damon Slye and his Red Baron 3D crew did it in 1998...).
KevPBur suggests for the player to deviate appropriately from the course, but admits that he then loses visual contact with the rest of his flight, which also happens to me when I tried, and if one plays on maximum difficulty, with no symbols on the map and without icons, he can rarely find them again, I think.

[busdriver]

Actually if you read my remarks you might see that I never said they couldn’t. In fact the AI will climb into an overcast and then attack their target with low clouds. The Devs coded in a minimum entry altitude, which is the point I failed to get you to understand. Continuing on that theme, using a text book example of dive bombing parameters while simulating common low cloud conditions would give players a reason to complain that doing so is unrealistic, “there’s no way somebody can see their ground target above an overcast…blah, blah, blah.” You get the idea, I hope you get the idea, that they compromised. 

 

What I’m trying to tell you is that your suggestion about more accurate low altitude bombing & strafing parameters has been brought to their attention. I wrote several post and provided screenshots while I was a tester, whether the Devs find a way to make the changes or ignore them is way above my pay grade. Like I said, sometimes they made changes but usually they didn’t. Perhaps the coding is a limitation. The Devs don’t typically verbalize the adoption of specific “subtle” suggestions, testers and players have to discover that for themselves. I really can’t be anymore blunt than that.

 

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by busdriver

[LukeFF]

9 hours ago, greybeard_52 said:

I wonder how Damon Slye and his Red Baron 3D crew did it in 1998

 

All those games had a lot more simplistic code than the ones being made today.

Edited November 17, 2022 by LukeFF

[Gambit21]

GB - as busdriver mentioned you’re not the only person ever to notice or bring this up. I’ve asked for AI ground attack options/changes going back to when I built Havoc. 

It’s just not an easy thing to pull off. I’m guessing we’ll see changes at some point.

[greybeard_52]

17 hours ago, busdriver said:

You get the idea, I hope you get the idea, that they compromised.

Understood, thanks, although I do not agree with them.

 

14 hours ago, LukeFF said:

All those games had a lot more simplistic code than the ones being made today.

If the simplistic code allows to model real things... Long live the simplistic code!?

 

13 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

It’s just not an easy thing to pull off. I’m guessing we’ll see changes at some point.

Thanks to you too. I always quest for perfection.