The AI thread

[Voxman]

I have had a couple fly into the ground. One thing I do tell them to do is to jettison their fuel tanks so at least they can pull out of the dive.  Also have them attack with bombs first.

They still do collide into each other though.  And they won't even shoot down planes I gift them.  They just make a pass, and nothing.  Glad the 50 cals are really strong as I'm usually mopping up after them.

[86Cheese]

I had a P-80 career in EA where my entire squadron of 12 pilots lined up single file and lawn darted themselves into the same crater one after the other. That was the only time I saw anything like that. I restarted the mission and the whole squadron hit the target with rockets and RTB'd without incident.  I had one instance of a collision in formation, but that was it aside from a couple landing incidents. Taxiing and take off seems be pretty solid from what I've seen.

I haven't played a ton of career this past week, but specifically after the last patch, things have definitely improved. One on one vs AI ace is absolutely better than it was in GB. It definitely still needs work, and I think some plane AI is better than others. But the improvement this update made in ground attack AI is pretty significant. They'll juke ground fire, make different attach approaches, not fly directly into the ground.

Point is progress is definitely being made and I don't think the problems that are present justify not playing or not buying the game. They are few and far between, and they are definitely bugs. If you restart a mission you can tell the AI behaves differently the whole time. Its almost like the environment data the AI is reacting to is different than the reality. Like they start their dives 1k feet too low and hit the ground  or start their glide slope as they're hitting the ground. 

[Jaegermeister]

9 hours ago, SkyWolf said:

I've been on the fence about buying this title because the devs have not provided a detailed plan for improving the AI. 

Searching YouTube for "IL-2 Korea AI" has not yielded many hits, maybe because players aren't testing it. 

I try not to get involved in discussions like this, but I do have a comment for the OP.

During my experience from the beginning of Beta testing, Early Access and now the release version, I have flown this simulator more than most people and I have seen the AI behavior and generated radio voices slowly improve with almost every update. I can not imagine how the developers would have documented these incremental steps to put into a change log, so it does not surprise me that it is not mentioned in detail.

Like many others I would like to see it happen faster, but I am confident that this trend will continue and the AI behavior will steadily improve as time goes by. It is a little disappointing that some new players make quick decisions based on anecdotal comments from other people instead of their own observations, but that's how the world works now. Many people just follow along with the crowd and believe most of what they are told is true. Just like the IL2 releases before this one, the ones that find value in it will stick around, and the ones that do not will fade away and move on to other things. That is their loss in my opinion, especially if it is based on someone else's subjective opinion and not even their own experience. 

[SkyWolf]

“It is a little disappointing that some new players make quick decisions based on anecdotal comments from other people instead of their own observations, but that's how the world works now. Many people just follow along with the crowd and believe most of what they are told is true.”

Interesting. Perhaps the observations about the wonky AI behavior are simply not true, as you seem to be implying here. My point stands.

[Viking1]

Ive flown about 40 missions in the career since the release, F51 for 12th FBS. I think i have lost 2 mates to a mid air collision in that time and a single wingie flew into a mountain but he had some damage so... sounds like thjngs have improved..

[pr0x]

After playing Korea for a month, I decided to give GB a try for the first time. I must say that much of the criticism of Korea that at first seemed very unreasonable now feels completely justified. First of all because GB and Korea are a lot more similar than I had thought. Most of the greatness of Korea was already present in GB. Secondly because it puts a damper on the hope that certain issues will be fixed when you realise that these same issues were present in the previous game for 10+ years.

 

[Panzerlang]

39 minutes ago, pr0x said:

After playing Korea for a month, I decided to give GB a try for the first time. I must say that much of the criticism of Korea that at first seemed very unreasonable now feels completely justified. First of all because GB and Korea are a lot more similar than I had thought. Most of the greatness of Korea was already present in GB. Secondly because it puts a damper on the hope that certain issues will be fixed when you realise that these same issues were present in the previous game for 10+ years.

 

AI is a 'black art' (as in not easily 'seen', not witchcrafty...though it's that too. Lol). I think AI should be coded by AI, with human oversight. Have the devs given any thought to that?

"Hey Claude (or whatever AI suits best), make these virtual planes operate like they're flown by real pilots!" A few years ago that would have been a sci-fi joke, but now? 

[YoYo]

The career itself is quite interesting, and the management option (although I initially disagreed) is simply great for me. It's a nice change and unique in the simulator market, resembling a more dynamic campaign in a broader sense 👌. I even noticed that you can distribute medals to your crew, wow, increasing some of their traits (which can probably affect combat). For that, I think they deserve a huge boost, and hats off to them. It all makes more sense and feels more dynamic, and it might be one of the best approaches to this topic on the market right now! This is wow for me 👍.

The downside is the AI, and I completely agree. During a mission, they basically make decisions themselves, attacking the mission objective, but then searching for other targets instead of returning to formation. Sometimes I feel like the opponents don't see each other and fly right next to each other without taking any action, like at an air show. Communication with AI/ATC is also a problem. Since we're the commander, more team management options would be useful (and this is my biggest complaint about the career). Communication with ATC is also seriously lacking. If I have clearance to land, why is someone else landing before me? The runway should be cleared; I even had a situation where I bumped into someone. If someone is on the runway, or someone else has just been cleared, the logic should work such that after reporting, I'm immediately informed that the runway is occupied, but this puts me in a queue. I wait for an ATC announcement, but no one else will receive clearance to land since I'm on approach until the runway is cleared. There's no logic in communication with ATC.

[Joch]

I have not had the chance to play the campaign yet, but flying QM Duels, the enemy combat AI is quite good and seems about the same as in GB from my limited observations.

Having worked on similar games in the past, the problems with the AI is that there is no AI as such, all the behavior is scripted, i.e.if 1 occurs do A. So the AI is easy to script in very simple scenarios like one-on-one duels and harder to script in very complex campaign missions. The other issue of course is that having complex AI programming is computationally expensive and can impact FPS as we saw in GB. That is why Korea has simplified AI in certain cases which allows the game to have large B29 formations. So AI programming is always a balancing act.

The best way to improve the AI is for players to file reports when they see behaviour that keeps happening. Often AI issues are easily solved. In GB, LukeFF was able to solve many issues just by editing the mission parameters. For example, if friendly AI keeps crashing into the ground on attacks or collide with each other, the solution may be as simple as just adjusting the minimum altitude when they start their attack or adjusting the formations.

Edited August 15 by Joch

[LuftManu]

6 hours ago, pr0x said:

After playing Korea for a month, I decided to give GB a try for the first time. I must say that much of the criticism of Korea that at first seemed very unreasonable now feels completely justified. First of all because GB and Korea are a lot more similar than I had thought. Most of the greatness of Korea was already present in GB. Secondly because it puts a damper on the hope that certain issues will be fixed when you realise that these same issues were present in the previous game for 10+ years.

 

I’ve been playing Career mode in Great Battles since it was introduced,almost a decade now, if I remember correctly. Over the years, the variety of missions has increased considerably, and the AI has also seen significant improvements.

Korea already starts from a much stronger foundation, and while it certainly has its issues, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that most of the good things in Korea are simply things that already existed in Great Battles.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

On 8/14/2026 at 7:13 AM, SkyWolf said:

I've been on the fence about buying this title because the devs have not provided a detailed plan for improving the AI. 

Is it just me?

Or does anyone else find the posts that include the words "to be honest" in the title feel like the most dishonest post?

Is it a Freudian slip?

[JG14_Jagr]

AI behavior is very very difficult to get "right"  First, decide what "right" is. Saying that the AI pilots should never make mistakes is wishful thinking.  Pilots make mistakes in combat and in just flying complex machines.  "non-combat operational incidents accounted for 66 out of 250 total U.S. F-86 Sabre losses, or approximately 26.4% of total USAF losses"  If you send your wingmen off or they go off and attack something don't expect them to return to formation unless you fly back to let them rejoin.  The Sabre does not have the excess performance to catch up once well out of formation. If you want full realism by Ace level pilots the Mig15's would come in at 45,000 feet, dive down and bounce you and go right back up. Early Sabre's couldn't touch them if flown "perfect"  AI has come a long way but it will always be limited by the number of available clock cycles a PC can process while running the rest of the game.  What tends to happen is the AI does the "right" thing for a particular circumstance over and over because its still the "right" thing.  i.e. the Mig outclimbs you in a left hand circle.  It lacks human randomness.  Crashing into terrain or each other is going to happen especially when that terrain can be changed by damage.  The Devs seem to be committed to improving the AI as the latest Dev blog states, but don't expect miracles, its unrealistic.  But expecting improvements is not.

[GiftGruen]

My personal critics is not so much about crashing into ground or pulling the max g out of a plane. In fact, 1:1 abilities sometimes are surprisingly good.

It‘s more about situation awareness. Still, like in Flying Circus, you can literally fly a Mig in formation with F84 figtherbombers that could be your prey. It is as if you are sometimes invisible.

They also strictly follow their landing path even with blinking lights, never mind a Player Mig actually slaughters the comrades.

Follow a P84 formation. 1 vs 6. What do they do? Right: nothing. 
 

And still an outnumbered AI flight fights every fight to the end. No morale / runaway behaviour, at least I cannot see it.

The complete tactical behaviour is bot-like. Far away from AI.

I‘d almost bet that Korea AI is a ‚copy‘ from predecessors ( okay, simpified bomber AI is new ) because General behaviour and ‚patterns’ are very similar. While I understand that this is difficult to implement, as a SP guy I am disappointed by this.

AI was ( in FC and GB ) the weakest part of this sim, and unfortunately it is still in Korea.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Their behavior spans a gamut of oddness.  Yesterday I was running a mission I made that I was hosting on my machine.  I came up on the low six of a Yak 9U.  I had the icons on so I could see the range to target.  I was in it's blind spot the whole time.  As soon as the range ticked over to my gun convergence setting, (400meters) the Yak went evasive.  This behavior definitely is the same as BoX.  This tells me that the AI operate inside a detection bubble, that isn't blocked by their own airframe.

[catch]

9 hours ago, ACE-OF-ACES said:

Is it just me?

Or does anyone else find the posts that include the words "to be honest" in the title feel like the most dishonest post?

Is it a Freudian slip?

To be honest I think you're right. And I love my mother.

[BraveSirRobin]

18 hours ago, pr0x said:

After playing Korea for a month, I decided to give GB a try for the first time. I must say that much of the criticism of Korea that at first seemed very unreasonable now feels completely justified. First of all because GB and Korea are a lot more similar than I had thought. Most of the greatness of Korea was already present in GB. Secondly because it puts a damper on the hope that certain issues will be fixed when you realise that these same issues were present in the previous game for 10+ years.

 

lol.  So the original game was great, but the slightly improved game isn’t great because it’s too similar to the really great game?

10 hours ago, ACE-OF-ACES said:

Is it just me?

Or does anyone else find the posts that include the words "to be honest" in the title feel like the most dishonest post?

Is it a Freudian slip?

Or, they’re just admitting that they’re lying when they don’t tell everyone that they’re being honest.

[Aapje]

8 hours ago, GiftGruen said:

I‘d almost bet that Korea AI is a ‚copy‘ from predecessors ( okay, simpified bomber AI is new ) because General behaviour and ‚patterns’ are very similar. While I understand that this is difficult to implement, as a SP guy I am disappointed by this.

This is not really a surprise, since they hinted at this both in how they explained that they couldn't find an AI expert, but also how they only ever talked about improvements in the ability to give commands to the AI. If they had replaced the AI with something totally new, they'd have told us.

[pr0x]

15 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

lol.  So the original game was great, but the slightly improved game isn’t great because it’s too similar to the really great game?

Try to relate to the words that were written and think this through a second time, and then maybe you will understand.

[MJones]

It's gotten better since early release.  A certain number of collisions and lawn dart accidents are actually historical realities due to target fixation, bad weather and human pilot errors.  The collisions only seem to happen every so often now.  YMMV.  

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, pr0x said:

Try to relate to the words that were written and think this through a second time, and then maybe you will understand.

I read it exactly as it was written.  Several times.  My response makes that pretty clear.

[JG14_Jagr]

On 8/15/2026 at 2:11 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

Their behavior spans a gamut of oddness.  Yesterday I was running a mission I made that I was hosting on my machine.  I came up on the low six of a Yak 9U.  I had the icons on so I could see the range to target.  I was in it's blind spot the whole time.  As soon as the range ticked over to my gun convergence setting, (400meters) the Yak went evasive.  This behavior definitely is the same as BoX.  This tells me that the AI operate inside a detection bubble, that isn't blocked by their own airframe.

Did you repeat it with a different set of convergence settings to verify that hypothesis? 

[BlitzPig_EL]

No I did not, but I can set that up.

[tattywelshie]

On 8/16/2026 at 3:16 AM, Aapje said:

This is not really a surprise, since they hinted at this both in how they explained that they couldn't find an AI expert, but also how they only ever talked about improvements in the ability to give commands to the AI. If they had replaced the AI with something totally new, they'd have told us.

Yeah, the warning signs were there, not sure anyone is surprised that the AI hasn't really moved on from GB. Shame really, but, I would say, going forward hopefully they will address the issues and get the AI improved, but until then Korea is not something I'm bothering with. 

Edited August 18 by tattywelshie

[Juri_JS]

For me as a mission builder it's really annoying that we don't have detailed information from the devs how the AI reacts under certain conditions. This was already a problem in Il-2 GB. To get these informations it's necessary to run endless tests and after every update you have to test your missions again to see if the AI behaviour has changed. Some examples of what I would like to know:

- How exactly do clouds and darkness affect AI spotting?

- At which fuel level + distance from the home airfield do AI pilots return to base?

- Does the AI have blindspots where it can't spot approaching aircraft?

- How does AI target selection work?

- Does the AI get blinded by the sun or searchlights?

- What's the exact AI behaviour the different radio commands trigger?

- When does the AI abort the chase of an aircraft?

- Under which conditions does the AI release its drop tanks?

- Does the AI's skill level affect some of the points mentioned above?

@LukeFF, when AI development has progressed further, it would be really helpful if we mission builders could get answers to such questions.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Juri_JS said:

For me as a mission builder it's really annoying that we don't have detailed information from the devs how the AI reacts under certain conditions. This was already a problem in Il-2 GB. To get these informations it's necessary to run endless tests and after every update you have to test your missions again to see if the AI behaviour has changed. Some examples of what I would like to know:

- How exactly do clouds and darkness affect AI spotting?

- At which fuel level + distance from the home airfield do AI pilots return to base?

- Does the AI have blindspots where it can't spot approaching aircraft?

- How does AI target selection work?

- Does the AI get blinded by the sun or searchlights?

- What's the exact AI behaviour the different radio commands trigger?

- When does the AI abort the chase of an aircraft?

- Under which conditions does the AI release its drop tanks?

- Does the AI's skill level affect some of the points mentioned above?

@LukeFF, when AI development has progressed further, it would be really helpful if we mission builders could get answers to such questions.

I agree that more information would be helpful, but I can answer a few of those 🙂

- How exactly do clouds and darkness affect AI spotting?
Darkness certainly affects spotting. Korea seems to be similar to GB, and GB is realistic enough considering the extensive testing I've done in my Nachtjagd campaign. Clouds, I'm not sure.

- At which fuel level + distance from the home airfield do AI pilots return to base?
Just enough to reach the nearest friendly airfield (fake_field).

- Does the AI have blindspots where it can't spot approaching aircraft?
Yes. In GB, this was close enough to what the pilot can actually see, except that if an approaching aircraft can be spotted, it generally will. Not exactly sure if Korea changed anything to the latter part.

- When does the AI abort the chase of an aircraft?
Mostly, this depends on mission logic. If mission logic says a plane should chase an aircraft till oblivion, it will. Unless it gets out of ammo, or another task supersedes/succeeds the order that caused it to chase its target.

Edited August 19 by AEthelraedUnraed