State of the Union Address?

[eddiek]

Fighter sweeps and bombing missions would be interesting.
I was thinking more defensive in nature: Constant CAP's over airfields and CV groups, things like that.  Perhaps, if it's even possible, AI GV's to respond when attackers spawn in at an undefended field, which tends to be their nature from what I've noticed over time.
If they were pretty aggressive and decently skilled, it "might" steer those who like to go to undefended fields towards fighting against actual human players.  Especially if the defenders were aggressive enough and skilled enough that the "lower risk" would be taking on other humans.
My opinion, a lot of the strategy types and base capture players only want to make attempts on fields where there will be little if any resistance, at least until they hold all the cards and the upper hand. It's less about fighting and combat and more about score.
Short of a massive influx of returning or new players who actually want to engage in combat, rather than avoiding it, measured amounts of AI inclusion might be what it takes to bring that something new to the game.
Again, just my thoughts...............

[DmonSlyr]

I think AI would run more players out of the game. It would disturb the naturalness of the arena and players would absolutely hate getting owned by them. How do you determine AI skill level? Just too many variables to make everyone mad.

But again, Maps are what make or break the game. As we've consistently seen lower #s throughout the day with larger maps like Oceania, bowl MA, and CraterMA. As I've said many times, its about building #s mid day in order to have larger #s by primetime. If maps dont build #s with medium to large battles, the #s will stagnate.

[Eagler]

What eddiek said...

I think those who don't what AI don't want the embarrassment of it being better than they are..

I don't want to speak for for anyone but I think MNM and Thursday night war are the place to try this out as there are so many MA AI whiners here...

Eagler

[CptTrips]

I think AI would run more players out of the game. It would disturb the naturalness of the arena and players would absolutely hate getting owned by them.

Different people in this thread are making different suggestions.

IF the AI is limited to a bomber formation, that is very constrained. 

Think of the bomber formation as flying airfield.  Instead of capture, the goal it to stop before it reached the target.  The formation become a focal point for both factions fighters to converge upon.  Dogfights ensue.

The gunners of the formation are a mixture of human and AI gunner the way a field might have ack manned or AI or mixed.

This is just an airfield on the move.


If you are getting owned by AI bombers, then I suspect you are doing something wrong.

If you limited the trial to the most hated terrains anyway, what is the harm?

If you tried it on Oceana, Bowl, or Crater, and it failed, what was the harm?

If it made those hated terrains a lot more fun, then maybe you have a new tool in your belt to shape and focus dwindling numbers in one place so they can find each other to fight?

If also might cut down on runners.  An interceptor can run on contact with the escorts if he wants to, but then the bombers make it to their target and there will be pain as a result.

The escorts can run away if they want, but then they get to watch the interceptors butcher their bomber formation and the mission fails and pain is not inflicted on the enemy.

Again, if you tried it on Oceana, Bowl, or Crater, what is the risk?  Worst possible case is those terrain remain hated but you are already there.

$0.02.

[icepac]

In warbirds, I used to attach as a gunner on the D3A AI squad that flew around.   

What I found is that many players only went for AI bombers and avoided human contact.

[CptTrips]

In warbirds, I used to attach as a gunner on the D3A AI squad that flew around.   

What I found is that many players only went for AI bombers and avoided human contact.

Which would be complicated if you didn't know which bombers were manned or AI and they are mixed in the same formation.

And the escorts get a vote too.

[Shuffler]

What eddiek said...

I think those who don't what AI don't want the embarrassment of it being better than they are..

I don't want to speak for for anyone but I think MNM and Thursday night war are the place to try this out as there are so many MA AI whiners here...

Eagler

I can see 200 now..... Eagler.. I am about to AI your arse.         Oh the threats will grow more commical     

[CptTrips]

What eddiek said...

I think those who don't what AI don't want the embarrassment of it being better than they are..

I don't want to speak for for anyone but I think MNM and Thursday night war are the place to try this out as there are so many MA AI whiners here...

Eagler

Or maybe the AVA just runs Nef's Fortress Europe missions in repeating schedule whenever they aren't running Jeep Wars or something?

Those are AvA missions. 
They are already built.
I suspect the area supports scheduled missions.  IF HT says the Melee already has that capability, I'd assume the AvA does too.

The AvA isn't used for anything else except occasionally.

At least a good place to try some stuff out.

[JimmyD3]

Hitech has always been against AI in the MA. God forbid that should change.

[DmonSlyr]

What eddiek said...

I think those who don't what AI don't want the embarrassment of it being better than they are..

I don't want to speak for for anyone but I think MNM and Thursday night war are the place to try this out as there are so many MA AI whiners here...

Eagler

Have you seen the AI in Match play? It could beat 90% of current players especially with the addition of humans jumping in. You have to learn how to beat it using its limitations against itself, but even still, if it flew Ki84s like those hurricanes, most are done for.

Or maybe the AVA just runs Nef's Fortress Europe missions in repeating schedule whenever they aren't running Jeep Wars or something?

Those are AvA missions. 
They are already built.
I suspect the area supports scheduled missions.  IF HT says the Melee already has that capability, I'd assume the AvA does too.

The AvA isn't used for anything else except occasionally.

At least a good place to try some stuff out.

I think AvA would be the best place to throw in some AI or atleast bomber type missions like you said. That would be the place to do it.

[CptTrips]

Have you seen the AI in Match play? It could beat 90% of current players especially with the addition of humans jumping in. You have to learn how to beat it using its limitations against itself, but even still, if it flew Ki84s like those hurricanes, most are done for.

I suspect those AI are poorly tuned or no attempt at tuning at all.

When I was making the offline 4x4 missions  I very quickly learned that different aircraft types need the AI parameters carefully tuned.  What was OK for one AC made other complete unbalanced.  The settings for the WWI stuff had to be very Different than the parameter for a Spitfire.  Spitfire had to be tuned different than a Dora.

But I at least, was not ever mentioning AI fighters in this discussion.  I think bomber formations don't have any of those problems.

I think AvA would be the best place to throw in some AI or atleast bomber type missions like you said. That would be the place to do it.

Shrug.

[N95KF]

This is basically a repeat of the "worth buying" thread. This community wants updates, upgrades and improvements but seem to overlook the fact that these thing cost money....real money. Technology and innovation and the staffing, the advertising ....you're probably talking 40 or 50 bucks a month. I see lots of complaints, but no one is forking over more than 15 bucks a month for the last couple of decades. It's all about the Benjamin's. 

I don't think so.  There are plenty of titles using more advanced hardware and technology that don't charge $40/$50 per month.  EA Game Pass alone is like $15 and provides access to hundreds of AAA titles that cost millions of dollars to make.  War Thunder is more advanced than AH and is free, aside from the payware aircraft.  Usually people buy a finished game and spend roughly $50 or $60 as a one-time fee and play the game for years with patches and updates.  Until the new release comes out, and its another $50.  Even if there was a new release every single year, that's only $50 per year, a lot more than you're paying for an AH subscription.  And we certainly are not getting anything close to updates every year, let alone a new game.  I understand the need for this to run on a wider range of hardware, but if you want to be a 2025 simulator/game and attract more players/subscriptions, you need to look and act like a 2025 game.  Modern graphics updates, physics engine, perhaps a relexed realism and a full realism arena, etc. 

Look at the game Squad on steam.  Off World Industries created this game in like 2015, people paid a one time fee of $40, and now in 2025 it is basically a completely different game with the amount of updates and engines.  They are far from a AAA studio.

[hazmatt]

When I was making the offline 4x4 missions  I very quickly learned that different aircraft types need the AI parameters carefully tuned.  What was OK for one AC made other complete unbalanced.  The settings for the WWI stuff had to be very Different than the parameter for a Spitfire.  Spitfire had to be tuned different than a Dora.

Thanks for making those 4x4 missions. I found some of them to be very challenging and I used to have a bunch of fun playing those.

I'm curious about this "tuning" What variables could be changed?

[CptTrips]

Thanks for making those 4x4 missions. I found some of them to be very challenging and I used to have a bunch of fun playing those.

I'm curious about this "tuning" What variables could be changed?

Well, it's been 6 years.  My memory is a bit fuzzy.

The are parameters I'm speaking of are in the mission file.  I can't remember if they are in arena config.  But as I said, they really need to be custom for each plane type.  On my 4x4 I believe I tested every pairing and tweaked them to get a behavior that seem reasonable to me.  YMMV.

I can't remember all the params off hand, but stuff like how many max G to allow for that AI.  I think the default was like 6G. 

Well, a WWI plane is not going to be pulling 6G.  The wings would usually come off at what 4G? 3G?

A B-17 is not likely to pull 6G turns all day. Etc.

I remember tuning the I-16?  Way down because it was a UFO.

I'm would bet a dollar that no attempt at tuning was made for match plane.  I bet they are ally running the default settings.  I never spent time in there so that is a guess but sounds consistent with reports I've heard.

[uptown]

I don't think so.  There are plenty of titles using more advanced hardware and technology that don't charge $40/$50 per month.  EA Game Pass alone is like $15 and provides access to hundreds of AAA titles that cost millions of dollars to make.  War Thunder is more advanced than AH and is free, aside from the payware aircraft.  Usually people buy a finished game and spend roughly $50 or $60 as a one-time fee and play the game for years with patches and updates.  Until the new release comes out, and its another $50.  Even if there was a new release every single year, that's only $50 per year, a lot more than you're paying for an AH subscription.  And we certainly are not getting anything close to updates every year, let alone a new game.  I understand the need for this to run on a wider range of hardware, but if you want to be a 2025 simulator/game and attract more players/subscriptions, you need to look and act like a 2025 game.  Modern graphics updates, physics engine, perhaps a relexed realism and a full realism arena, etc. 

Look at the game Squad on steam.  Off World Industries created this game in like 2015, people paid a one time fee of $40, and now in 2025 it is basically a completely different game with the amount of updates and engines.  They are far from a AAA studio.

Thank you for the reply. You have some good points. I have to admit I've never played War Thunder. I was thinking something more in line with DCS or Microsoft flight sim. All those titles we've mentioned have pretty large budgets with a board of directors and shareholders. AcesHigh is pretty much a dude in Texas and the players now. 20yrs ago there would be 600+ players on and you to wait to get in the arena. I don't know what happened but 15 bucks a month won't get you much these days.