New Behavior Mode: CHARGE

[Daniel 0]

Main problem that jumps out at me is the fact that one fighting style suits all. Until BIS add different doctrines for different sides, its always going to be a bit weird.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Main problem that jumps out at me is the fact that one fighting style suits all. Until BIS add different doctrines for different sides, its always going to be a bit weird.

Well, IMO they should improve what we have right now before focussing on different doctrines for different factions.

[Daniel 0]

Agreed in a sense. I think that looking into having different factions react differently would be a major selling point for BIS's next project. In the mean time there are aspects that could be improved for all AI.

But it would be awesome to see British forces bounding up to a target with the machine guns piling in the supressive fire, while Takistan militia run into the open, let off volleys of RPGs, then run back, popping out to take pot shots every so often.

Edited September 4, 2010 by Daniel

[froggyluv 2136]

Agreed in a sense. I think that looking into having different factions react differently would be a major selling point for BIS's next project. In the mean time there are aspects that could be improved for all AI.

But it would be awesome to see British forces bounding up to a target with the machine guns piling in the supressive fire, while Takistan militia run into the open, let off volleys of RPGs, then run back, popping out to take pop shots every so often.

+1

no, +2!

I've been wanting this forever. Imagine real AI doctrines and playbooks given to default AI (that could be configurable of course). Instead of getting excited about just new British/German units -we got their behaviours with it. This would seriously flesh out a severely neglected potion of the game and better bring a more 3d chess type experience. Whats the point of getting new skins when they act exactly like all of the other skins.

[rübe 127]

absolutely

[Evil_Echo 11]

Doctrine could be implimented in FSM if we knew enough detail.....

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Examples of such behavior changes caused by having different doctrines/rule books?

[polar bear 10]

...........

Edited September 5, 2010 by Polar Bear

[stk2008 14]

I would rather see a

retreat only

Because at the moment no matter what ya do if ya want to get out fast they fart ass around.

Yes I have done the normal safe,stand up etc etc don't work they will all ways go back into danger etc and then take ages to get back to me so we can regroup heal etc.

[Undeceived 392]

(I agree with the OT.

In some situations it is needed that the AI simply RUNS, without stopping and watching and being "stuck" in the danger mode.)

[Baff1 0]

But if they gonna charge then give them a war cry while they're doing it :D

This.

Plus bayonets and bagpipes if you can.

I would certainly appreciate a charge option also the opposite, a rout option.

[jdbecks 10]

ArmA isn't like WW2 where there were heroic soldiers fighting for their country. ArmA is today's soldiers who are pussies who would just call in an air-strike instead.

Actualy, baynet charges have happened in Afghanistan, and on more than occasion, maybe you should go there and then you might loose that bull shit atitude

[polar bear 10]

The British executed a pretty famous bayonet charge in Basra in 2004 as well, charging across 600 feet of open ground and routing the enemy.

Some analysis of it here: http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=6322

Edited September 9, 2010 by Polar Bear

[Banderas 0]

ArmA isn't like WW2 where there were heroic soldiers fighting for their country. ArmA is today's soldiers who are pussies who would just call in an air-strike instead.

OFFTOPIC

It seems funny for me that a game-playing "armchair-soldier" calls nowadays' soldiers pussies. I guess you must be some hardcore samurai who attacks bunkers head on with a katana.

If I were a unit commander and had some enemy fortification before my unit, and I had airstrike and artillery at my hand, I'd use them instead, because the men under my command are being waited at home by their families and I'm responsible for their life, so I'd put them out for the least possible risks.

Seems like some of you are being too sentimental for past times, just remember passed time make memories prettier. In WWII there was airstrike and artillery too, there were "pussies" in great number in those times too, and of course there were those who we call heroes today. With the equipment and circumstances of those times charge was sometimes a necessary tactic.

Talk to this men for example and tell him he's a pussy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Chontosh

Or tell it to this young man's family

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Dunham

Or his:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ray_Smith

Or talk to those Scottish soldiers who charged Iraqi insurgent with fixed bayonets when they run out of ammo (happened few years ago).

Or the Lieutenant who succeeded the command of Lt. Nathaniel Fick's (known from GK) platoon and died in a charge against an ambushing enemy force.

But with some digging you could have a lot more men who I think doesn't deserve the title "pussy".

ON TOPIC

I think it's completely unnecessary for the vanilla game, don't tell me seriously you want your AI squad to fall one by one before a well positioned enemy automatic weapon? And because AI has problems with close-ranged engagement, and the complete lack of melee combat also talks against this feature.

[Daniel 0]

ON TOPIC

I think it's completely unnecessary for the vanilla game, don't tell me seriously you want your AI squad to fall one by one before a well positioned enemy automatic weapon? And because AI has problems with close-ranged engagement, and the complete lack of melee combat also talks against this feature.

It depends. You may want to quickly move half of your men to a new location. In certain situations you should be able to order one half to engage the enemy, gain their attention and suppress them, while the other half runs for the new location without stopping every couple of seconds and becoming an easier target.

I agree more would need to be in place engine-wise before we could consider having AI charge the enemy directly.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Daniel

[Banderas 0]

It depends. You may want to quickly move half of your men to a new location. In certain situations you should be able to order one half to engage the enemy, gain their attention and suppress them, while the other half runs for the new location without stopping every couple of seconds and becoming an easier target.

Yeah, but that's not what I'd call a charge, more like advancing/flanking using bounding overwatch, which the AI can do in some situations (seemingly until they come under fire). What I read out from the original idea is that the poster wanted to have a behaviour where the AI would forget about everything and run towards the enemy's position. Which worked in the aforementioned case in 2004 in Basra, because of different human factors -surprise was the biggest advantage there, but as the AI in Arma 2 cannot reproduce human deficiencies. like being untrained, surprised, supressed or afraid, such charges would only lead to the mowing down of your squadmates in precise, coldly computed bursts even when facing 10 times less enemy.

Maybe this example of yours can be achieved without any new feature; if you command the movers to disengage, in stand-up position and maybe to hold fire and the covering party to lay down in "danger" mode, and set them to watch at them at the enemies' direction then it might give some decent solution. I'm not crossing my fingers on it, but tomorrow I'll give it a try.

[polar bear 10]

In Basra they executed a bayonet charge. I don't think we're asking for that! We're just asking to be able to order a regular old charge in which the AI move forward aggressively (willing to fire).

If you order the AI to charge towards a machine gun and they get mowed down then that's your fault for giving a tactically stupid order. The most common scenarios would be ordering them to run to cover even though they are under fire (e.g., crossing a runway under fire, not lying down on it like sitting ducks) and to occupy an advantageous position after taking out a key enemy defense.

[Banderas 0]

That sounds sane to me too, in this context I change my opinion (sounded to me some wanted to have mindless charges against aim-cheating bots).

[Binkowski 26]

I would have so much fun with this.

[Baff1 0]

OFFTOPIC.

If I were a unit commander and had some enemy fortification before my unit, and I had airstrike and artillery at my hand, I'd use them instead, because the men under my command are being waited at home by their families and I'm responsible for their life, so I'd put them out for the least possible risks.

.

Would you still use them if the enemy had artillery too, and it was zeroed on your position...

When staying still = certain death, a charge is the correct way to save as many men as possible.

Overun their positions so that their own artillery hurts them as much as it hurts you.

Engage and break them before you are flanked and destroyed.

What has changed in terms of modern equipment that makes this tactic a thing of the past?

Nothing at all.

I believe a "charge" is a textbook response to an "ambush".

A battle can be lost by lack of intitative too. Sometimes caution isn't the decider, balls out courage is.

I agree with your use of tactics, but I don't like being pidgeon holed into a game scenario that paints me the overdog in every battle.

What if I want to make a mission as a Taliban, and all those airstrikes and artillery available are enemy airstrikes and enemy artillery?

What if I want to play as an American but be charged by those I call airstrikes in on....

[Banderas 0]

@Baff1

What really set me off to say that wasn't against the new feature requested, but rather because someone playing a computer game calls today's soldiers cowards, hence I wrote offtopic over that part. Also later I told that now as I know what the original intention was for this feature, I agree with it, I just misinterpreted that "charge" thing, now what I'd call it for myself is "assault" or "active cover seeking" or "rapid repositioning" (put the correspondent technical term into the semicolons).

[Daniel 0]

I believe the correct military terminology to be: "Mad Dash" :p

Edited September 14, 2010 by Daniel

[bez 10]

i don't know about other armies but in the IDF

every infantry man learn how to charge.

it is real and true.