Bug Report - AI Helo's Will NOT Attack Other Helo's

[Dusty Rhodes]

I ran a comprehensive set of tests with all attack Helo's (and the OH-58 ), red against blue, different countries against different countries, and found that AI helo's will not attack other AI helo's no matter the loadout or the the mission assigned to the helo's. They will fly right by each other within a few feet and continue on to their waypoint. I then ran the same tests with me flying head to head against the AI helo's and again, no matter the mission assigned or loadout, they would not attack me. They just fly right by on to their waypoint. Can someone else run these tests and report back to confirm what I am seeing. This is a major bug.

 

Can anyone report being attacked by AI helo's in any missions or the campaigns?

Edited January 10, 2009 by Dusty Rhodes

[Dusty Rhodes]

I just did some follow up testing with Fixed Wing AC vs AI Helo's. The only way you can get a fixed wing AC to attack a helo is if you specifically set a targetting area and specifically specify to attack Helo's. This is true even if you set the FWAC to CAP. I suppose you could call this a feature but that would be pretty peculiar. In a CAP, you are protecting something and would want anything blown out of the sky that comes in your CAP zone. I can see many mission and campaign builders not specifically targetting Helo's. That to me is an unnecessary step. AC should attack Helo's if they are the enemy. This ALMOST gives immunity to Helo's from Fixed Wing AC and other Helo's. Nice to know that 50% of the threats against you is removed and you only have to worry about SAMS and direct fire from ground vehicles and people unless the mission/campaign builder pays particular attention to detail and knows what I found above.

Edited January 10, 2009 by Dusty Rhodes

[Dusty Rhodes]

The A-10's and SU-25's are at the same thing. Both assigned CAS, Air to Ground duty, including AFAC, both loaded with Air to Air weapons and both having a target assigned area where they are to attack Aircraft and Ground Vehicles and they just fly right by each other within a matter of 100 feet and continue on to the next waypoint like the other doesn't exist.

[EvilBivol-1]

Yes, you need to assign a targeting area and include the type of targets you want the AI to attack. This is in fact a design feature and intended to simulate more specific targeting assignments of real operations. It also gives the mission designer the tools to more precisely control AI actions. If you set everything up properly, you should be able to get the desired result. I've attached a sample mission where an Su-25 will attack some ground targets while simultaneously killing an enemy helicopter.

 

I'm not sure if you've picked this up yet, but you have to make sure to add a consecutive waypoint after the targeting waypoint to give the AI time to locate targets. See here for an example of incorrect (left imagine) and correct (right image) targeting waypoint set-up. The same is explained in the GUI manual, page 104. Also in our FAQ: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=568725&postcount=18

test_PAI.miz

Edited January 11, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[Dusty Rhodes]

This seems to control too much of what is going on and takes away the dynamics of the situation. If enemy's meet on the battlefield, they should be trying to kill each other. It shouldnn't be up to the mission designer to make sure a chopper will kill a chopper. Off my soap box now. Thanks for the reply.

[graywo1fg]

it all comes down on what you want simulated.

Edited January 11, 2009 by graywo1fg

[MrReynolds]

I'm one of those that aren't too interested in EVERYTHING being perfectly simulated. I would be happy to have a ah64d simulated like an uprated A model, but with a basic radar system. I know most people around here want everything to be perfect, and that's of course cool as well.

 

BUT, in a simulated world surely the AI should be "artificially intelligent" enough to attack targets of choice?

The campaign discussion has been done to death since LOMAC (Falcon vs lomac etc) but there's only so much a poor mission designer can do!!! let them have a CAP in orbit and assume it'll take care of the top cover!

 

On an AI sidenote, my wingman STILL gets shot down pretty much any time I tell him to go off and pop a target. I can destroy ALL AAA and most of the opposing enemy and STILL he flys to the target, gets within range of a laser guided missile and gets shot down. why can't he stand off and fire missiles like me (and if he can, please tell me the secret! I can't kill 'em all :P

Please note i'm not kiling the game here, just yapping about the AI and campaign. My feelings are probably much calmer than the words i'm writing :thumbup:

Now I'm off MY soap box :lol:

[Ulrich]

This seems to control too much of what is going on and takes away the dynamics of the situation. If enemy's meet on the battlefield, they should be trying to kill each other. It shouldnn't be up to the mission designer to make sure a chopper will kill a chopper. Off my soap box now. Thanks for the reply.

 

Not correct. If enemies will meet at the battlefield they will proceed with their tasks and not with tasks they want to create themselves. There are a lot of examples of such behaviour during WWII and other wars.

[Dusty Rhodes]

Ulrich, when enemies come within feet of each other they would be trying to kill each other or at the very least, avoid the other. However if this is a design decision that you put in the hands of the mission builder, then OK. I don't agree with it, but that is the way it is. AWESOME simulation regardless.

[Ulrich]

Ulrich, when enemies come within feet of each other they would be trying to kill each other or at the very least, avoid the other. However if this is a design decision that you put in the hands of the mission builder, then OK. I don't agree with it, but that is the way it is. AWESOME simulation regardless.

 

You may agree or not agree, but it's the way armies live. Just imagine failed main task because you decided to "kill the bad guy that is passing by". Most of tasks are assigned to exact time and any delay may lead to really bad things. In ME you are able to decide yourself how groups or units will perform, but by default it is set to the most realistic setting.

Edited January 11, 2009 by Ulrich

[EvilBivol-1]

let them have a CAP in orbit and assume it'll take care of the top cover!

They will. You just have to give them a targeting area (in effect, their CAP area). Would it be better if the mission designer had no way to control the area for the AI to cover? That would mean the AI would often go off and do things the mission designer did not want. See Lock On for examples. ;)

On an AI sidenote

This may not address the entire issue, but apparently there is a known bug where it takes the Ka-50 AI too long to line up a Vikhr shot, which can result in him getting too close to the target. To be fixed in the patch. Edited January 11, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[Dusty Rhodes]

You may agree or not agree, but it's the way armies live. Just imagine failed main task because you decided to "kill the bad guy that is passing by". Most of tasks are assigned to exact time and any delay may lead to really bad things. In ME you are able to decide yourself how groups or units will perform, but by default it is set to the most realistic setting.

 

Again, I do not agree with the doctrine you are simulating here, but it is designed that way and I understand why. You don't pass within feet of the enemy, in your helo, and just let them go. You try and kill them before they try to kill you. If we are talking passing within 2-3 KM of each other, then I understand your doctrine and would agree with it, but we are talking passing right by each other, close enough to High Five each other.

[Dusty Rhodes]

This may not address the entire issue, but apparently there is a known bug where it takes the Ka-50 AI too long to line up a Vikhr shot, which can result in him getting too close to the target. To be fixed in the patch.

 

 

That is a nice nugget to know. Thanks for the info.

[Ulrich]

Again, I do not agree with the doctrine you are simulating here, but it is designed that way and I understand why. You don't pass within feet of the enemy, in your helo, and just let them go. You try and kill them before they try to kill you. If we are talking passing within 2-3 KM of each other, then I understand your doctrine and would agree with it, but we are talking passing right by each other, close enough to High Five each other.

 

Ok, I agree that it may depend on the range.

[Flanker15]

Perhapse a "target of opp" check would work?

Where when 2 units not ordered to attack each other, see each other they have a check to see if one will engage the other. With modifiers for distance so at long range it will almost never happen, maybe other modifiers for unit experience and unit types? A green pilot in a fighter is more likely to chase after a transport chopper, then a vet pilot. Or a fighter would be more likely to chase after a bomber than another fighter.