AI airstrikes cheat

[bjarmson]

Why are AI airstrikes allowed to cheat? In situations where the AI can't possible know where units are hidden, because it has not spotted them physically with a unit of its own, airstrikes are always directly on target. What's up with this obvious AI cheating? Why has it been incorporated into the game?

[pipfromslitherine]

Which missions are you talking about? There are very few AI airstrikes scripted into missions.

When airstrikes are ordered though, they do a search for a few tiles (3-5 IIRC) around their target tile to find an actual target. So this might be what you are seeing.

Cheers

Pip

[LandMarine47]

This is a common problem in BA. The AI ALWAYS knows where you are no matter what. So you better pray it doesn't drop 150MM guns on your infantry while they are running through a field. The only true way to counter this is to sacrifice a unit. Is pretty damn annoying, but what you gonna do?

[bjarmson]

It happens again and again with AI fighter airstrikes, they always destroy something, even when the AI should have no idea anything is there (units hiding far behind enemy lines). The AI simply can't be that good a guesser or have that much luck. How to solve problem? Include an algorithm that makes the AI have to actually spot a unit to target it, otherwise make it guess just like I have to do at times, and have many a fighter airstrike completely ineffectual as a result. Also why don't my fighter airstrikes default to the nearest AFV, if that is what I have asked them to target. It's always frustrating when one of your fighter airstrikes decides to attack an infantry unit, when there is an AFV (particularly a tank) within a space or two. If your fighter airstrikes are mostly ineffectual against tanks (not even suppression happening, let alone kills), some of the scenarios are exceptionally difficult to win (since the vaunted Allied superiority in airstrikes, artillery, and equipment seems totally lacking in many). When you're completely outmatched by Panzers (I'm talking quantity, not quality) and your airstrikes are mostly ineffectual (the final Polish scenario in the Normandy group is a good example), too many of the Normandy, Bulge, Market Garden scenarios become dependent on sheer luck. If you're lucky, you win, if you're unlucky you lose. I expect tactical war-games to depend more on, ahh how do I put this, actual tactics, rather than the vagaries of having one to many bad roles of the dice.

Now I don't want the scenarios too easy, but I would like a level playing field. No AI cheating, and Allied fighter airstrikes that are more effective (thus simulating the actual late war situation when any groupings of Panzers were fodder for Allied tactical fighter airstrikes). As it stands now, I find fighter airstrikes more efficient as a means of reconnaissance, than as an effective weapon against Panzers.

[pipfromslitherine]

I will check again, but we have tried very hard to not to give the AI any "cheats". We now any again find a bug where LOS was not being taken into account, but there aren't that many situations where the AI even has an airstrike.

Can you give a specific map you are seeing this?

Cheers

Pip

[best75]

Yeah I hate it when the AI air strikes your units when it can't see them
Like in sealing the bulge one time the AI airstriked my Sherman calliope and destroyed it when it was far behind my main force

[bjarmson]

I started replaying the early war scenarios (N. Africa, Blitzkrieg France, and Op. Sealion), each of which have a number of scenarios with AI tactical airstrikes. So far I can't remember a single ineffectual AI airstrike (well maybe a few French ones, but hey France), there have been many far behind the lines or against forest hidden units that always destroy something. So either the AI is cheating or it's running on 100% luck. Since I first noticed this happening, I've been especially watching for it. I have yet to see a behind the lines airstrike that hit nothing. Yet my airstrikes, directed almost exclusively against spotted targets, are about 50% ineffectual (no suppression or kill). So you tell me, am I just having a string of bad luck (that never ends) or is the AI somehow cheating?

[pipfromslitherine]

After investigating this, it does look like some scenario designers were not as wedded to a non-cheating AI as one might have hoped... I think in some cases this is because they wanted to do more choreographed attacks, but in other cases I think it may have been a misunderstanding of how the airstrikes work.

So, yes, they do have unfair knowledge of your forces. It's likely that we won't fix this issue given the potential bugs and balance issues, but we will definitely ensure that no more instances occur going forward.

Cheers

Pip

[LandMarine47]

Another wish list for BA 2

[Paul59]

I know this thread is really old, but have just found it, and it is making my blood boil!

After working on my latest BA2 mods, I can see that efforts were put in by the designers to restrict the use of AI ground attack aircraft, specifically a BA2 script that prevents the AI using ground attack planes unless it has a LOS to a target. The result of this, and other script changes, is to make AI ground attack strikes very rare, you might see one per game, two if you are very lucky. Meanwhile the player can use 4 or 5 or even more, depending on the scenario length and the plane types used.

I believe that this thread prompted the designers to make these changes.

I have some points to make about this:

1) I often use my ground attack planes against targets that I cannot see, but where I suspect that enemy targets might be, especially around objectives, and I am sure other players do
the same. These airstrikes nearly always hit something, so obviously there is some sort of target acquisition going on by the ground attack planes, it is NOT AI cheating!

2) If these complainers ever tried multiplayer, they would probably have their human opponent perform airstrikes against their rear areas. What would they make of that?

3) The AI in the Battle Academy games is okay, but it is not as good as a decent human player. So why handicap the AI from doing something that a human player can legitimately do? The
AI is never going to provide a good challenge if it is prevented from doing things that a human would do!

4) A common comment from MP players is that the AI does not provide as good a challenge as a human player, so don't waste time playing single player, come and play MP. So why deliberately design the AI to be weaker than a human? It makes no sense!

In my mods I have tried to eliminate these AI ground attack limitations, and it seems to work well. If there is ever a BA3, I will be campaigning vigorously against any such AI limitations!



cheers

Paul

[pipfromslitherine]

Thanks for the additional details. The AI would definitely get more attention in any future version.

Cheers

Pip

[Paul59]

Thanks Pip, I am calming down now!

[Eagletanker]

A suggestion to improve the A.I is to do a modular system on the players end where they can do the very easy, easy, and normal difficulties, and then a fourth option called custom which is a panel of halo like “Skulls”, which allow people to customise and fine tune the AI to their liking. Also add a fifth option that just allows the A.I to cheat even more.