Bomber Combat simulation in Aces High

[GScholz]

The AI can be programmed not to bee too accurate. It can be set "just right".

[Karnak]

The AI can be programmed not to bee too accurate. It can be set "just right".

Hard to make an AI that doesn't waste ammo, isn't accurate and is a deterrent to attacking fighters.

[Oldman731]

Hard to make an AI that doesn't waste ammo, isn't accurate and is a deterrent to attacking fighters.

OTOH, we could have a whole new forum devoted to complaints about the AI gunners!  What's not to love?

- oldman

[Tilt]

The AI can be programmed not to bee too accurate. It can be set "just right".

Agreed............

Were not AI gunners  developed for Combat Patrol with different levels of lethality adjustable within the game arena?

I think there is a fear that AI gunners will become uber.......... I do not see why this must be the case.

Thru convergence settings the lone player gunner is disadvantaged  to a multi-aircraft attack in a way that is a bit unreal........ equally the same gunner is advantaged against a single aircraft attack

[Lusche]

I abhor the thought of AI gunners... they will either suck or be über. And most of the time both at once, depending on perspective only.

I'm here to fight players, not AI. Player controlled guns means a full range of skill levels to engage as a fighter pilot, never knowing what you are up against. 1k off angle shredding wonder boy or "QUICK, HOW TO GUN" n00b.. you never know. It's a test of your skill vs your opponent's skill.
And this is also true from a bomber pilot's perspective. It's a skill you can develop and improve upon, and any death or victory of yours is the result of your skills and experience... or lack of. For me as a bomber pilot (and contrary to popular perception I spend more time in bomber than in fighter mode) it would take away almost all the fun in combat.

It's the same as if the fighter planes had an "auto combat" function.


edited for typos

[SmokinLoon]

Anyone ever take the time to think that out of X number of rounds there are going to be Y number of hits?  Me thinks there is far too much analyzing going on this topic. 

HTC has explained that puffy ack is in a box around each plane.  If your plane is in that box sooner or later it is going to get hit.  The long you're in that box the higher the chance goes that you're going to get hit.  There are only two things players can do to minimize their chances of getting hit by puffy ack: get out of range as fast as possible, and the smaller the plane the less likely, based solely on the area of the plane, it is to get hit (B29 vs 109, etc).  The same applies, though I don't have the details on the specifics, the longer you're in the auto ack and the larger your plane is the higher your chances are to get hit.

In regards to bombers, I think the chained guns make sense. A bomber or a flight of bombers has more than 1 crewman and it simulates the crewmen where the players is not.  The convergence is at 500 yards. If you get hit while at 500 yards each and every gun firing gets a piece of you.  Stay fast, stay frosty, and learn a certain serenity prayer.  It will help keep you sane.   

[Brooke]

I remember HTC replying that AI gunners on bombers won't be in the game for technical reasons.

[Brooke]

I'll say it again: looking at actual MA stats, the average B-17 pilot can expect to lose 2.5 bombers for every 1 enemy plane or GV of any kind they shoot down. This is actually WORSE for the bombers than the historical loss ratio in either Schweinfurt raid (using postwar estimates of German losses, not inflated USAAF claims at the time). As I said before the difference between AH and WW2 on this is NOT that bombers do better in AH than IRL, it's that AH players aren't deterred by that high loss rate while IRL it was crippling.

. . .

You folks making absurd and unjustified claims about the effectiveness of bomber guns in AH can hum and haw and speculate and offer random anecdotes all you like, but the FACTS - real statistics from our MA and real statistics from the historical events - show that B-17 loss rates in AH are higher, and their k/d rates lower, than those of unescorted bombers in WW2. . . .

 

[VuduVee]

i cant believe the OP wants it to be even easier than it already is to kill bombers. if it gets any easier, you might as well take them out of the game.

[hitech]

I remember HTC replying that AI gunners on bombers won't be in the game for technical reasons.

It is not technical. Lusche stated fairly well all the reasons for not having AI gunners from a "fun" point of view. I wrote AI gunners before, and as with any AI you have 2 choices TRY make them realistic as a human would act, sounds like a great Idea until you try actually write it. The problem becomes in anticipation of a players move, and adjusting to his previous behavior. People do this extremely well, computers suck at it. Hence once you learn how to defeat the AI, you can pretty much always defeat them.

The 2nd choice is to make them random like our puffy ack. In general people really hate dieing to a randomizer and as much as possible I try to not to use randomizers if another choice is available.

I feel that the bomber vs fighter vs hitting target is well balanced at the moment. Prior to the change in the sight calibration bomber usage was extremely low. As far as bombing accuracy , the bomber pilot needs to be reasonably assured that if he does everything correctly , he will hit his target. If it were other wise, bombers would again rarely be seen. There are different ways of accomplishing that goal, such as more targets or bigger formations, but those choices also are not with out problems.


HiTech

[Brooke]

It is not technical.

I stand corrected on my faulty memory. 

[Rich46yo]

In 1942 and first half of 1943 the Luftwaffe tactics swayed between attacking from 6OC and HO. However in August 1943 the OKL ordered that all attacks must be made from the rear, mostly because the greenhorns had problems performing a HO attack. Also in the fall of 1943 Hans-Günter Kornatzki's "Sturmstaffeln" started making mass attacks from the rear in tight formation. The defensive fire would be spread out among the large formation of attacking fighters. Attacking the B-17 from the rear the Luftwaffe targeted the tail and ball gunner first, then the oil tanks between the fuselage and inner nacelles. The number 3 engine was also a prime target since it powered the hydraulics. In HO attacks they would target the cockpit and no. 3 engine. In diving attacks they targeted the inboard oil tanks and the fuel tanks between the nacelles.

Im talking what the fighter pilots preferred not what they were ordered to do. To think they "preferred" to attack the rear of a bomber stream box was madness. Unless of course they found a way to turn the situation to their favor. Heck some were even ordered to fly into the wing of the bomber. Think they "preferred" that" http://freepages.military.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~josephkennedy/German_Pilot_Perspective.htm

A B-17 formation, dubbed a "Pulk" (herd) by the Germans, was an unnerving sight for the novice sight for fighter pilots. With a combined closing speed of 500 mph both sides had only seconds to make their fire count. Barreling in at 200 yds per second a fighter pilot might have time for only a half-second burst before taking evasive action.

"Fips" Phillips, a 200+ Eastern Front Ace wrote the following while in command of JG 1 defending against American Bombers over Northern Germany:

                "Against 20 Russians trying to shoot you down or even 20 Spitfires, it can be exciting, even fun. But curve in towards 40 fortresses and all your past sins flash before your eyes."

The B-17’s most vulnerable quarter of attack was from head-on, at least until the advent of the G-model with its twin gunned chin turret. The next best option was straight down from directly above and a bit behind but this technique called more precise flying. After mid 1944 there was an ever-decreasing number of Luftwaffe pilots who were cable of such precision on a regular basis.

To reliably destroy a B-17, the attacker had to either break the integrity of the flight deck or explode the bombs in the bomb bay. Anything less only damaged the bomber. Hits on less vulnerable areas like the massive vertical stabilizer and rudder might cause the aircraft to slow but it would struggle on. Consolidated B-24 Liberator’s had a tendency to explode when hit but the B-17 rarely did.

Attacking a formation of American bombers from the rear was foolhardy due to the coverging fire from the bomber’s tail and ball turret gunners. Tail attacks also exposed the fighter pilot to additional fire due to the reduced closure speed. The standard fighter approach from 1000 yards astern with an overtaking speed of 100 mph took over 18 seconds to close the distance down to 100 yards.

[kvuo75]

The convergence is at 500 yards.

that's one thing I would change.. I'd either make the convergence changeable in the air with a dot command, or link it to the target selection key (tab) so all available gunners would be shooting at the one plane and not just converging at 500 yds. (which makes no sense)

[Lusche]

that's one thing I would change.. I'd either make the convergence changeable in the air with a dot command, or link it to the target selection key (tab) so all available gunners would be shooting at the one plane and not just converging at 500 yds. (which makes no sense)

For balance purposes alone, it makes a lot of sense to me.

[muzik]

I feel that the bomber vs fighter vs hitting target is well balanced at the moment.

Ever done any surveys to see how many agree with that?

It's not balanced at all.

In Scenarios (which are set up more akin to actual battles -- i.e., large groups of bombers against historical opponents), loss rate of unescorted bombers when found by the enemy is generally about 100%.  We have seen this many times in Scenarios,

You cant defend against multiple attackers from different directions.

If you get good at aiming, you're guaranteed to destroy an attacker with a WALL OF LEAD,

for the first months or years in bombers, you get luck or no defense at all.

You can't defend AT ALL when you need to be bombing your target.

And the argument that it should depend on player skill is nothing but ego stroking. It takes no skill to shoot down bombers, and Brooke's comment proves that beyond doubt.

Lusche knows he can shoot down most bombers with ease. They are his primary targets. He uses them to pad his score. He has a vested interest in seeing them remain easy targets.

The problem becomes in anticipation of a players move, and adjusting to his previous behavior.

So you're saying that you can't program an AI gunner (who happens to know the exact speed of an attacker and can calculate the precise lead) that can't defeat a skilled player?

I know there is a little more to it than that, but I still find it hard to believe that a human player has the ability to "outmaneuver" that kind of precision.

If an attacker is only "maneuvering" on a single axis or stops maneuvering even for a second, he should be toast. If he is constantly maneuvering then it should be exceedingly difficult to get a shot in.

And further, once that precision is established, how could it not be balanced or offset by some kind of harmonics that would occur in a moving craft?

The 2nd choice is to make them random like our puffy ack. In general people really hate dieing to a randomizer

Everyone hates all ways of dieing in the game. I despised the "random" puffy deaths, but it would be a ridiculous game without them.

AI bomber gunners would be no different than field guns.

But if you MUST pretend the "skill" level is an issue, then why not slave the accuracy of AI to that of the "real players" hit percent while in a gunners seat? The better a player can shoot, the better the AI shoots.