Originally Posted by
steel_ratt
I have yet to try the mission again, but wanted to respond to a few of the comments.
I do believe that I am using the charts correctly. In the example I used above (your plane is directly behind the enemy, both flying in the same direction), the AI would roll on the "6, closing" table. (You are in his 6 and are closing, ie. going towards him.) Example 2, if the positions were reversed, it would be "12, going away". (You are in front of him [12], and are headed away from him.) Right?
I think I am slowly coming to terms with having longer, more drawn-out battles involving more positioning and less shooting. It is closer to what one would expect against a human opponent. I am still not sure about that, though. I'm wondering if I would rather play quick a battle full of close-in maneuvers with lots of shooting. The shorter battles are certainly more intense, and I'm perfectly willing (as I am doing in mission 6) to compensate for the easy AI by adding an extra enemy plane with an Ace ability.
Just for the record, the scores so far for the AI variants I have run:
1 - All planes using 'new' AI: 1 enemy shot down, PC pilot forced to retire on turn 7 (due to heavy damage and fire). Wing-men judged to abandon the chase as they were completely ineffective in AI vs AI combat.
- Enemy using 'new' AI, wing-men using 'Tyneside advanced*' AI: 2 enemy shot down, gave up turn 9 after 3 turns of nothing happening. Wing-men were somewhat more capable of engaging, contributing to one of the kills (though they were having the same trouble as I was chasing down the unpredictable enemy AI).
* The advanced variant of Richard Bradley's AI, made by John Hatfield and Shaun Mather - posted on the Tyneside Wargames Club site.
Bookmarks