Here is an idea inspired by something I saw in another thread.
ENY aims to address the problem of numerical imbalance by creating an equal and opposite aircraft quality imbalance intended to even things out.
However, this seems problematic because it is natural to want victory to reflect the quality of the players and their tactical decisions, rather than simply their numbers or the performance of the aircraft available to them.
Currently, numerical superiority is compensated for by restricting aircraft choice, but the relative skill of the players has no weight in that balancing calculation. But what if we could put human skill and tactical decision-making back at the centre of things? Bear with me.
I saw someone suggest an alternative involving balancing all three sides by adding AI pilots so the number of pilots (human + AI) that are “In Flight” on all three sides was always equal.
Then what if that idea was combined with something similar to the way fleets already operate, allowing human players to direct the AI forces? So, rather than having AI pilots simply flying around independently, what if a human commander could decide how they were employed?
The command could be voluntary, with higher-ranked players able to assume control in much the same way as the existing fleet command system. You could even separate the command by allowing the player with the highest rank in each category to take control of fighters, bombers, and GVs separately, thus spreading control across skill sets.
The commander could:
- Assign AI pilots to bomber or fighter mission groups.
- Designate targets and objectives for missions, such as "fighter hangars at A3", for example.
- Assign AI fighter groups to roles such as escort, attack or defence, including primary and secondary objectives.
- Assign AI fighters to patrol or defend particular areas.
- Arrange for AI pilots lost in combat to be replaced automatically, as long as there is still a deficit in human players.
- Perhaps create a "capture" mission and allow AI pilots assigned to that mission to select their own aircraft, vehicles and tasks depending on the condition of the target.
- Give AI pilots realistic callsigns, but identify them through a unique AI squad name for each country, so players can distinguish them from human opponents.
The commander would control the missions and objectives, not the individual combat activity of the AI pilots.
Human players could join these AI attacks, support them, use them as diversions, or simply conduct separate sorties of their own.
I think this is similar in principle to what already happens in the WWI: Western Front arena, although there humans join AI operations, whereas this idea involves AI supplementing human forces to correct a numerical imbalance.
The essential difference from ENY is that instead of attempting to compensate for numerical superiority by restricting aircraft performance, we would balance the available forces using AI pilots.
Initially, the system could simply aim to equalise the total number of active pilots (human + AI) on each side, the numbers of active pilots could be determined as it is in the ENY calculation.
Of course, equal numbers don't necessarily mean equal fighting strength. An AI pilot might be more or less effective than a human pilot, and that effectiveness might vary depending on the type of mission. However, that could be calibrated over time using combat results and other arena statistics, adjusting the AI capabilities and contribution to bring the effective fighting strength of the sides closer together.
Perfect balance would be unrealistic, but then ENY doesn't achieve perfect balance either.
Importantly, equalising the available forces would not prevent a country from achieving local numerical superiority by concentrating aircraft in one area. That would remain a tactical decision made by the human players, just as it is now.
Likewise, whether to attack, defend, or concentrate on capturing bases would remain a human decision. The AI would simply provide additional forces with which to carry out those decisions.
Some potential advantages of balancing the arena this way would be:
- More evenly balanced forces, regardless of differences in human player populations.
- No need to restrict aircraft or vehicle choices through ENY.
- Players could always fly whatever aircraft they considered most appropriate for the situation.
- Human players would have control over how their country's AI forces were employed.
- Human tactical and strategic decisions would have a greater influence on the outcome, rather than the result being influenced so heavily by differences in player numbers or the quality of their weapons
- AI forces could provide additional opportunities for organised missions, coordinated attacks and defensive operations.
Of course, imbalances will still happen. They are the goal. local superiority is essential for success in many situations, but that should happen as the result of the quality of the human players, their planning, knowledge, and skills and not on which side currently has overwhelming numbers.
The main objection I would anticipate is that most players prefer to fight other real people rather than AI.
That's a perfectly reasonable objection. After all, competing against other people is the major attraction of Aces High.
However, ask yourself which is worse: encountering some AI opponents, or being repeatedly ganged by an overwhelming numerically superior enemy, having your aircraft choices restricted, or finding yourself on a side with too few players to mount an effective operation?
The proportion of AI pilots would naturally depend on the population imbalance. When the sides are reasonably balanced, few or no AI pilots would be needed. When the imbalance is substantial, the weaker sides would receive proportionally more AI support.
The important point is that the AI would be supplementing human players, not replacing them. Human players would still decide where to fight, what to attack, what to defend, and how best to employ the forces available to them.
I also think this would be worth experimenting with rather than necessarily replacing ENY immediately. Start with simple AI fighter and bomber missions to balance the sides, evaluate the results, and calibrate the system from there.
Every idea involves a trade off or two. It’s a question of choosing your poison. The real question is what is the lesser evil?
- The present system where one imbalance is countered with another and the remaining numerical differences can still result in one-sided engagements, while the other side has their aircraft choices restricted.
- A system that uses human directed AI to reduce those differences while preserving aircraft choice and numbers while giving human decisions and skills a greater influence over the war and eventual victory.
In summary, we all want victory to reflect the quality of the players and their tactical decisions, rather than simply their numbers or the performance of the aircraft available to them. This idea puts more emphasis on the skills of the players and the quality of their actions and decisions.
However, it also introduces yet another contentious element with a new set of unknown factors, risks, potential annoyances and questions.
So perhaps, if it were to be tried, it could be done tentatively in a separate arena at limited times so players could try it out, find the wrinkles, see what they liked or disliked about it.
Does the idea have any potential? I don’t know, I don’t understand the game dynamics well enough to say, it just seemed like an idea that deserved some air time.
MoL
