AI should automatically crew empty low-tech weps/vehicles

[l mandrake 9]

At the moment AI does not prioritise powerful weapon systems like Dshk, M2, AGS etc. So if the gunner in a static MG or a BTR40 (say) gets killed, it just sits empty /drives around aimlessly with no gunner, like target practise ;)

Ideally a nearby insurgent would get the command from his squad leader to jump in as gunner. This would really improve the sense of immersion and prolong firefights. In a desperate, backs to the wall situation, combatants would naturally try to keep their best assets in action, not just let them sit empty.

I think this behaviour should apply to any asset which could reasonably be crewed by a moderately well-trained soldier, eg (heavy) machine guns, grenade launchers, light vehicles.

It obviously should not apply to more complex equipment such as tanks, guided missile systems, choppers etc., which would require specific training.

[[frl]myke 14]

Although in general the idea is not bad, on the other side such behaviour could mess up Missionflow. So make them by default man empty gunner positions (respecting your suggested limitations) is IMHO not a good idea since it leads to unpredictable situations and can break gameplay.

To make this work if needed, well, there is scripting....

[l mandrake 9]

Myke;1726536']Although in general the idea is not bad' date=' on the other side such behaviour could mess up Missionflow. So make them by default man empty gunner positions (respecting your suggested limitations) is IMHO not a good idea since it leads to unpredictable situations and can break gameplay.

To make this work if needed, well, there is scripting....[/quote']

I'm not a mission maker so I'll take your word for it. I would argue that my proposal shoud be the default AI behaviour (because it's more human-like) unless overruled by scripting (so mission makers can do what they want).

[kireta21 13]

It sounds good, though I agree it should be optional for AI, as mission module maybe? Module also could use definition of vehicles, or vehicle classes AI would take over by default, so it would be up to mission designer if AI would only man machineguns, or maybe also make use of abondoned BMP, which is still easy to drive even without training

[dmarkwick 261]

Myke;1726536']Although in general the idea is not bad' date=' on the other side such behaviour could mess up Missionflow. So make them by default man empty gunner positions (respecting your suggested limitations) is IMHO not a good idea since it leads to unpredictable situations and can break gameplay.

To make this work if needed, well, there is scripting....[/quote']

I would say that AI manning empty gun position IS gameplay :)

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Already implemented. You can just group extra guys to the MG and (with a GETIN WP) they will continue manning it.

[l mandrake 9]

Interesting, so maybe many mission makers aren't yet aware of this?

But what about ai jumping into vehicles as gunner?

[NoRailgunner 0]

Imho AI should manning empty gun position only:

- if they're under attack and if those guns are in close range to the team/group

If you dont try it out you can only speculate about and a overcautious "no" isnt better. ;)

[VariousArtist 19]

UPSmon...nuff said...?

[l mandrake 9]

UPSmon...nuff said...?

not quite, this looks fantastic but how is it default AI behaviour?

[liquidpinky 11]

Imho AI should manning empty gun position only:

- if they're under attack and if those guns are in close range to the team/group

I agree, especially having them jump into tanks or APCs to gun I am a bit dubious. You couldn't operate an MBT's FCS system without some kind of training, although if my life depended on it I would give it a go.

Maybe downgrade their skill rating if they did occupy a Tank or APC's main gun to compensate.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

No, AI should not be so reckless by default. If the mission designer chooses, he is currently able to implement this. Nothing is worse than trying to struggle with default AI behavior that is breaking your mission.

[VariousArtist 19]

Depends on how you config them. ;)

I really like the results upsmon delivers. Wouldnt build another mission without it.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@Liquidpinky: Why shouldn't they be able to do it without training when we are? :D

But I think it's better to have to script them to do something rather than hopelessly try to script them to prevent them from doing something. AI and light discipline? :p

[polar bear 10]

Maybe it should be limited to cases where the gun WAS being manned by another AI in the same squad. Then on death the commander of that squad would order a different AI in the same squad to man the gun.

This way an AI aimlessly wandering around the map would not acquire on an unmanned vehicle--which is I think the main thing that would mess up mission flow, and also the AI's in one squad would not take over a different squad's vehicle, as if you wound up with gunner and driver on different squads it could get pretty weird. Also even in the same squad if the AI's happened on the vehicle later on they would NOT hop in--it's an order that would be given only on the death of the existing gunner or driver, that way if you order them out of the vehicle they don't go hop back in again on their own. Also if 2 gets killed on the gun and 3 is ordered to take over, but 3 gets killed before reaching the gun, then 4 would not be ordered to do so--this prevents the gun from becoming a death trap that wipes out the whole AI team.

With those limits I can't see how it would mess up mission flow because the mission designer cannot forecast which units would get killed. Mission flow winds up being the same as if the out-of-vehicle AI got killed instead of the gunner.

You could argue that AI's in the same squad have probably received training or at least have observed the operation of the gun long enough to know how to man it, in terms of skill questions. Kind of like, "I never got training on how to drive a tank, but I've been working along side this tank driver for a couple of years and he showed me a few tricks one day."

Edited August 25, 2010 by Polar Bear

[CarlGustaffa 4]

They do that already using BIS_fnc_taskDefend. Should be trivial for us to expand that to vehicles when we want it.

[polar bear 10]

I like the idea of making this default AI behavior and I'm generally in favour of anything that makes the AI smarter or better by default.

I don't know if I'm the only one, but I get a kick out of dropping some units on a map with only some simple drag and drop way points and then seeing what happens, or just playing the challenges set up by the Armory.

Editor is not just for people who spend hours on scripting! Although I also spend hours on scripting. I take a break from hours of scripting by hitting the armory or making a quick and dirty mission--it's fun!

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Polar Bear, that exact functionality you described is already implemented. You just need a simple GET IN waypoint.

[polar bear 10]

Polar Bear, that exact functionality you described is already implemented. You just need a simple GET IN waypoint.

Wouldn't that cause the AI to get in and sit in passenger seats in addition to gunner and driver? Also I think this functionality should be in effect when the AI is executing other waypoints. So, for example, if the AI is executing a MOVE, GUARD or HOLD waypoint and comes under attack and the driver on the primary gun dies another unit should take over the gun. That's what human players would do.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Polar Bear

[Big bad wolf 10]

There is a downside to this behaviour. Imagine you as a sniper have just shot down a gunner who is behind a static mg. AI will then, when we implent this behaviour, automaticly mount the mg. You just pull the trigger again and get another kill, and this goes on until the AI is dead. No real player would ever be so stupid to mount that mg.

[l mandrake 9]

There is a downside to this behaviour. Imagine you as a sniper have just shot down a gunner who is behind a static mg. AI will then, when we implent this behaviour, automaticly mount the mg. You just pull the trigger again and get another kill, and this goes on until the AI is dead. No real player would ever be so stupid to mount that mg.

Good point. How about, AI commander does not issue order for his soldiers to mount static objects until he knows an enemy's position? Or until he has ordered suppressive fire from his other units first?

[dmarkwick 261]

There is a downside to this behaviour. Imagine you as a sniper have just shot down a gunner who is behind a static mg. AI will then, when we implent this behaviour, automaticly mount the mg. You just pull the trigger again and get another kill, and this goes on until the AI is dead. No real player would ever be so stupid to mount that mg.

It would be easy to implement a solution to this, there are a couple of simple ones I can think of immediately. Remounting of weapons should be a consideration IMO :)

[polar bear 10]

On the very valid concern that a sniper could kill the entire AI squad as they rotate through the MG gun one after another: It's not just this situation. The AI needs to get a lot better about recognizing death traps. It's not only this potential sniper-the-MG situation that's a death trap for the AI, I have seen AI squad run out into an open area one after another all to be mowed down and land in the same pile of bodies.

I think someone suggested elsewhere that the AI should learn to fear points on the map that are littered with the bodies of their team mates. If that could be extended to the MG situation then that would be another solution.

In that case the commander would say "Get in that MG" and the AI would look at the pile of dead bodies and say "No can do".

If this particular case is seen as worse then the AI could adopt a rule that the gunner is only replaced ONCE, and if the 2nd gunner is also killed no further orders to man the gun will be issued. Still not great but at least that prevents the entire AI squad from being mowed down by a single sniper.

I'd also point out that ANY solution based on simple rules is going to have some downside versus intelligent human behavior. I'd just note that the current simple solution of never manning the gun has its own share of stupid downsides. The question really is whether the proposal is better than the current situation, which I think it is. We know it'll never be better than a human! And no doubt if someone has the time to code it there could be much more advanced intelligence.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Polar Bear

[CarlGustaffa 4]

AI is simply not always in the position to handle human opponents. We have to script them calling in help from the bigger guns, especially if they detect that we are stationary targets. Let them call in mortars on our ass. Force them to use adjustments. It forces us to get moving (and adds a ton of fun), and using adjustments causes inaccurate first rounds that will get you killed only for bad luck. It shouldn't be accurate first round shots where we don't stand a chance. Put some pressure on us, but avoid having it get annoyingly difficult as well.