You are correct Hellshade.
Formation keeping was considered "life" for the two-seater crews by all accounts I have ever read.
If a machine dropped out of formation due to damage it was GENERALLY on its own. Sometimes the formation would try to swing back (sometimes!) and pick up depending on enemy strength and will or a hard-charger would break formation and go back to help a friend but this was generally frowned upon. The safety of the group was what mattered. A 4 plane formation is 10 times as strong as 4 individual aircraft. Everyone knew that and tried to keep up and stay in formation. I have seen multiple combat reports where is is said that "Captain X and Lt. Y were last seen dropping back due to presumed engine trouble" and that was the last they were seen. This was a accepted fact of life. The break up of the formation is what the attackers always strived for (and I have some MvR quotes to prove it) and the crewed machines tried to avoid.

I think you are correct in this....

.

That is correct, at least it certainly seems so from the readings I've done over the years. One bomber defensive tactic though that is missing in WOFF that I would like to see is the Lufbery Circle. It's been mentioned before and I believe it was said then that it would be a coding nightmare, but as this is called a 'Wish List' ...

.

Yes the "Lufberry" was definitely used by the Fee's quite a bit.
And I have forgotten. How did it get the name "Lufberry"?

.

French-American pilot Raoul Lufbery introduced it to US pilots in 1917 and I believe that is when the term was coined, though the maneuver was around quite sometime before that and its actual origin is not attributed to Raoul. Don't know that it's attributed to anyone actually.

.

The problem with studying this subject for 40 years is I have probably forgotten more then I currently know.
I think during the war the British had another name for it ("Ring around the" something after some song...maybe that was slang) and the Lufberry name was kind of after the fact. I don't recall in period writings the British calling it the "Lufbery." Kind of like the "Immelmann Turn."
I think...

Ring around the Rosie seems appropriate.

It does!
But that seemed too obvious but that might be it. Not up on my turn of the century music I am afraid.

Oh wait. This is the Wish List thread. Hmmm...let's see....flight integrity within the squadron (or Jasta) with it also being used in mission assignments.
There. Back on topic.

WOW! so many WW1 historians here, huh?

You guys fail to mention that two-seaters would most always have escorts by scouts or other two-seaters which started as early as 1916. This does not get implemented properly into WOFF. I rarely encounter escorted two-seaters even in 1918. So, trying to simulate RL into a game will flop due to incorrect implementation.

Solution would be either to have the two-seaters dive and twist away escaping back home which would make them harder to wipe them all out or ALWAYS have escorts accompany two-seaters would be closer to how it actually was back then.

"...most always have escorts"
Nope. Not at all.
As for WOFF I see escorted two seaters frequently.
I was going to go in a more detailed and thorough analysis but , seeing the probable outcome of this exchange, I will just sum up and say "You are incorrect " on most everything.

a typical useless reply which adds nothing to the discussion from a devote supporter.

My Rumpler CV flight is often close escorted by a flight of Albatros DIIIs. Normally about 500 yards behind and higher.

Good. And what happens when the EA slips through the scouts or overpowers them? Do you stick around in formation or dive away for home? I'm guessing that you would either fly a bit ahead of your formation so that you're not the last man getting shot at or dive for home if you're close enough to the front.

In WOFF, the AI can't make the same decisions a human player makes. So, they'll stay in formation and become sitting ducks most of the time. It would make more sense for the AI to think about self preservation and abort the mission once they see enemy scouts threatening them.

My point is that "I wish" for OBD to alter the AI behavior a bit for landings, formations, etc... nothing wrong with making a wish, right?

YAAN you make some good points. Obviously if it is possible to accomplish what u ask without undue system overhead it would be nice. That said, there are many issues at play here, the least of which is value per time expended by the devs and the incredible number of enties on their "current TODO list".

This is the wish list so you have it in the correct place. Thanks for bringing up the point.

Even if I can understand that two seaters, when in formation, don't make evasive manoeuvers their own way, it is much more problematic and unrealistic when you fight lone or small group of two seaters (quite often in 1915, much rarer later : and that is another problem ). During my 1915 Esc 12 career in MS, the only difficulty to shot down two seaters, was to gain the good position, then just press the trigger while the german continue his flight like you wasn't there. They should make turns, try to dive, etc...or even try to shoot you down!

Yep. If the two-seater is all by himself he should certainly act differently then if he was in a formation.
Hopefully we are not coming to the limit of what the AI is capable of.

Here to show you what twoseaters do, especially when alone.

As there is with scouts and observers, twoseaters have different skills and behave differently, very human. sometimes wrong, sometimes right. Making different things right or wrong is human, not robotic, and not a glitch. Sometimes they break home, sometimes they continue their missions, as the real counterparts did. Flying straight in a formation is absolutely a good way to protect each other. Nothing wrong with that. The one who breaks formation is the one killed, as it is in wildlife when lions are hunting groups of elephants bla.

Strange that people complain about sniping observers when getting shot down. About passive observers when flying a twoseater. About unevasive twoseaters when they keep flying in formation. Yet the players then do get shot down sometimes, sometimes the twoseaters get shot down. As it was in real. Also depending which twoseaters. They didn't have the ability for fancy manoeuvres. Best to keep formation. So good things are not a glitch.

Yes, the stupid circle is missing which some F.E.'s did for a brief period of time until that didn't work out anymore either. What a glitch...

Wait... isn't this a wish thread? Are you saying that I can't wish for certain things because it's taboo? seriously??

A QC mission is not like a campaign mission as was stated by Pol before in another thread somewhere. That video doesn't prove anything as it was most likely made in QC. And it certainly doesn't discount the valid observations made by me or others during campaign play.

If you can admit that the AI could use some improvement, then that's a good thing. In fact, games are more fun when they alter parts of reality a bit (like Red Baron 3D)... and the way it's done in Hollywood movies.

However, if you're still stuck on the famous phrase.... "there is nothing wrong with this sim!!", then nothing anyone says will make any difference.

This video is from campaign, so it proves a whole lot.

It is definitely a wish thread and every wish is taken seriously. Nothing is taboo. Otherwise this thread wouldn't have 58 pages. But you wish something which is already in the game. That's why I posted this vid from a campaign mission. No need to fix anything what's not broken. Nothing is perfect, but it's the best AI out there. Many variables in AI, as there are many variables in traffic with people driving cars. People driving cars do all sorts of weird stuff. Some good drivers, some bad drivers. Is it broken? No, it's human. And this AI does some human things rather well. Everything can be improved. But stating it as broken because they don't behave like robots etc. is a bit harsh.