What's funny here is that all the specific criticisms of what the AI is doing wrong, from daisy-chaining to messing up landings to misuse of flaps to target-obsession to turn-fighting when they should not .... I've seen ostensibly real humans do. Many times. In fact, TBH, I have done many of these things myself, many a time, before. Sometimes, due to impatience/carelessness/lack-of-focus/laziness continue to do! The daisy-chaining is specifically mentioned as very-common-yet-dumb thing seen often in online play in the book, "In Pursuit".
I have no problems flying against "algorithms". But then, I do not think most humans are the exalted thinking machines we like to hope we are. When done right, AI can trump a human opponent, because many times following a set of rules gets you where you want to go, whether it's chess or poker or aerial combat, and the only thing that derails you is impatience/carelessness/lack-of-focus/laziness. An AI that correctly bides its time pulling a bunch of high yo-yo's until it is in a position to take shot trumps some impatient yahoo like myself sometimes. Having said that, that's exactly what the DCS AI does every time in an 1-on-1 encounter, and, knowing this is what allows you to win the encounter: just keep it in sight but out of its gunsights, staying close enough and keeping your energy up so that you can swoop in behind it as it stalls out at the apex of the yo-yo. Only time you fail is when you give in to impatience/carelessness/lack-of-focus/laziness. The IL2 AI is much better than the DCS AI in this regard. Though the "circle ad nauseum" gets old as well.
In general, I find flying against the IL2 AI much better than the DCS for WW2-type engagements. This is even given the nice control the advanced ROE/scripting interface gives you in DCS. And not just fighter-vs-fighter: I find the bomber responses in DCS pretty crazy --- sometimes they try and get on your six like a fighter, sometimes they fly straight-and-level without a care in the world no matter what you do, and sometimes they start jinking all over the place which would be nice if they then don't start an impossibly steep climbing turn that goes on to 40K+ feet!
The IL2 BOS response is much, much, much better. Much more believable, and the challenges it poses are much more realistic. Sure the AI can be (greatly) improved, and I think some of the suggestions above may be good places to start. E.g., more of a fog-of-war with respect to the AI awareness of its opponents. Maybe some sort of priority-based assessment of target/threat based on mission requirements, e.g. if you are escorting bombers, downweight or outright ignore threats more than a certain distance or not actually coming in hot toward your wards; if you are on a fighter sweep, prioritize fighters, but if on intercept, prioritize bombers? Maybe player direction of those priorities (e.g., "Engage bombers", "Engage fighters": I was actually surprised not find this in the list of commands). Maybe a "bag of tricks" that the AI logic can rely on, depending on what it has already decided to be the threat (so prioritize high yo-yo's against turn-fighting advantages foes, and turn-fighting against faster foes).
Edited by Bearfoot, 17 September 2016 - 20:25.