Update #3
Playing Mongolia for a while (building up that region)
Have made every possible treaties with all the regions
and around 2013 everybody (except me) is at war (i'm sure because i can hear it ... )
I'm slowly progressing in the build up (biggest problem is the labor shortage) so i've time to watch the AI combat behavior
Things look better:
The land units are now attacking according to some sort of plan (helping
each other).However there are still to many -solo units- trying to attack a
stronger army.But they retreat very fast.
Naval units are doing OK... using many missiles..
But i've seen very little air raids in spite of the fact that all the regions
have a very good airforce...
So... why doesn't the AI use their airpower in a sufficient way ...
The AI doesn't seem to use their airpower much .... ?
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
-
- General
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Dec 22 2004
- Location: Holland
The AI doesn't seem to use their airpower much .... ?
NO MORE NOISY FISH [unless they are green & furiously]
I HAVE STILL A FISH IN MY EAR
I HAVE STILL A FISH IN MY EAR
- Sebastiaan
- Colonel
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Aug 29 2005
- Location: the Netherlands
Seems to me the AI only uses it airforce for defencive missions, never for offensive missions. Just try to fly a single air unit through their territory and their entire airforce rushes to intercept it. This response can easily be exploited by positioning all your air defence at a single location, lure them to your trap so you can do maximum damage to their airforce.
- George Geczy
- General
- Posts: 2688
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
The question of AI use of airpower is one that has received a fair bit of thinking... There are a few issues with airpower:
1) Air is easy to damage, slow to repair
2) Air is generally only effective when used in quantity
3) Air is very dangerous to use in an offensive way (ie strikes deep into enemy lines). The results of such strikes are often not worth the damage sustained.
The AI will use strike fighters (ground attack planes) against ground targets approaching important locations (bases, capital) if such fighters are available. The AI will also use interceptors to protect and try to gain/retain air superiority over the region's own airspace.
The AI will rarely use air in a forward strike (into enemy territory) manner, due to the risk of significant losses involved.
Using air in a more reckless way tends to mean that they spend most of the game in repairs, and are unavailable when truly needed. I have found this to be the case in my own (human) use of air as well - until I have overwhelming air superiority, it is very rare that I would use air over enemy territory.
If people have other thoughts/ideas/suggestions on the AI use of air, I'm eager to hear them.
-- George.
1) Air is easy to damage, slow to repair
2) Air is generally only effective when used in quantity
3) Air is very dangerous to use in an offensive way (ie strikes deep into enemy lines). The results of such strikes are often not worth the damage sustained.
The AI will use strike fighters (ground attack planes) against ground targets approaching important locations (bases, capital) if such fighters are available. The AI will also use interceptors to protect and try to gain/retain air superiority over the region's own airspace.
The AI will rarely use air in a forward strike (into enemy territory) manner, due to the risk of significant losses involved.
Using air in a more reckless way tends to mean that they spend most of the game in repairs, and are unavailable when truly needed. I have found this to be the case in my own (human) use of air as well - until I have overwhelming air superiority, it is very rare that I would use air over enemy territory.
True, but that trick often works on humans as wellThis response can easily be exploited by positioning all your air defence at a single location, lure them to your trap so you can do maximum damage to their airforce.
If people have other thoughts/ideas/suggestions on the AI use of air, I'm eager to hear them.
-- George.
- tkobo
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 12397
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !
Air power in this game is extremely missile oriented.
If you send a strike of bombers after an approaching enemy,likely both sides will get hurt.
BUT
If you send a strike of missiles launched from aircraft at the enemy ,only one side is likely to take a beating.
SO
My sugestion is too keep the non-missile aircraft acting the way they do now, but make the AI understand ,build and use more long range ground attack missile aircraft .
Long range missile strikes at important enemy targets are hard for the AI AND the player to ignore.
If you send a strike of bombers after an approaching enemy,likely both sides will get hurt.
BUT
If you send a strike of missiles launched from aircraft at the enemy ,only one side is likely to take a beating.
SO
My sugestion is too keep the non-missile aircraft acting the way they do now, but make the AI understand ,build and use more long range ground attack missile aircraft .
Long range missile strikes at important enemy targets are hard for the AI AND the player to ignore.
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
Chuckle TM
- Sebastiaan
- Colonel
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Aug 29 2005
- Location: the Netherlands
Well there is one way how airplaines could be used offensively with minimum losses. One thing I often do, it to use my airforce in support of my ground forces. I let them fly all just behund my own frontline, bombing the crap out of any enemy approaching my frontline. When my airforce comes under fire of AA units, I usualy retreat my air units to base. I believe the same stratagy could be applied by the AI. When the AI plans to to a missive attack on the enemy, the air unit could be ordered to follow the advancing ground forces giving it supply support (by transport airplanes), airtilery support (by bomber units), and air cover support (by interceptors). This strategy works best when the AI has a large airforce. The sheer mass of planes should be enough to make any human think twise of engaging it and should there provide a real improvenemt to the AI effectiveness.
- George Geczy
- General
- Posts: 2688
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
I like the suggestion on separating the use of Missile-attack tactics from the non-missile air units. I've made note of that.
Regarding the 'support the front line' strategy, I agree that it is a very good use of air power. On occasion the AI will follow this strategy if it has a sufficently large force of fighters (not interceptors).
In most scenarios, however, there is not a really large airforce available, and in general the use of smaller attacks (2-3 squadrons) tends to fail because such a small force cannot 'overwhelm' the AA and interceptor defenses used against it.
-- George.
Regarding the 'support the front line' strategy, I agree that it is a very good use of air power. On occasion the AI will follow this strategy if it has a sufficently large force of fighters (not interceptors).
In most scenarios, however, there is not a really large airforce available, and in general the use of smaller attacks (2-3 squadrons) tends to fail because such a small force cannot 'overwhelm' the AA and interceptor defenses used against it.
-- George.
-
- General
- Posts: 1286
- Joined: Jun 08 2005
AI Conduct Against Opponents
A good example of what George pointed out above was the ongoing wargame being fought between AI controlled Brazil vs Argentina and Uruguay.
Uruguay was on an offensive up the southern Brazilian coast, and was fighting in the city areas around the airfield of Curitiba - Brazil's southern most airfield. Only 'local' missions were flown by the BAF F-5E Tiger II based there - but then only when the airfield itself became threatened.
To me, that is unrealistically conservative use of the AI air power function.
If you look at current air power doctrines, even of such countries as South America, Asia and Africa with minimal air squadrons (rarely being over three in many countries, at game start), some offensive air mission (strike) are usually flown by the against their opponents.
Even the Soccur War (1969) btw El Salvador and Honduras, which had no jets involved (F4U-4, -5N & FG-1D Corsairs, P-51D and Cavalier Mustangs, and B-26 Invaders) involved extensive cross border air strikes against opponent air fields, etc.
What the "air" AI needs to do is replicate certain doctrines, separating the two maybe btw Offensive Air and Defensive Air....ie, during the Cold War, Warsaw Pact/USSR air doctrines called for massive initial offensive air strikes against NATO targets....NATO response is to use Interceptors on Defensive Air missions and Offensive Air for the Fighter-Bomber category aircraft.
Something along these lines needs more definition in the next Upgrade.
Thanks for listening....
Uruguay was on an offensive up the southern Brazilian coast, and was fighting in the city areas around the airfield of Curitiba - Brazil's southern most airfield. Only 'local' missions were flown by the BAF F-5E Tiger II based there - but then only when the airfield itself became threatened.
To me, that is unrealistically conservative use of the AI air power function.
If you look at current air power doctrines, even of such countries as South America, Asia and Africa with minimal air squadrons (rarely being over three in many countries, at game start), some offensive air mission (strike) are usually flown by the against their opponents.
Even the Soccur War (1969) btw El Salvador and Honduras, which had no jets involved (F4U-4, -5N & FG-1D Corsairs, P-51D and Cavalier Mustangs, and B-26 Invaders) involved extensive cross border air strikes against opponent air fields, etc.
What the "air" AI needs to do is replicate certain doctrines, separating the two maybe btw Offensive Air and Defensive Air....ie, during the Cold War, Warsaw Pact/USSR air doctrines called for massive initial offensive air strikes against NATO targets....NATO response is to use Interceptors on Defensive Air missions and Offensive Air for the Fighter-Bomber category aircraft.
Something along these lines needs more definition in the next Upgrade.
Thanks for listening....
- Sebastiaan
- Colonel
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Aug 29 2005
- Location: the Netherlands
intresting, exactly how much is "sufficently"?George Geczy wrote:
Regarding the 'support the front line' strategy, I agree that it is a very good use of air power. On occasion the AI will follow this strategy if it has a sufficently large force of fighters (not interceptors).
.
not going forward eqeals to going backward