AI simple mode

[Leopardi 0]

There are many times when you would like the AI to do what you want it to do. For a waypoint, like going across a bridge you could select simple mode - it only goes forward without thinking, so even if the bridge seems too hard for the AI, it doesnt matter because it will drive through it. And then gain intelligence back upon reaching the waypoint.

[Baff1 0]

I rather like how they do it in X3, once the AI is out of the players SOI, it behaves under a completely different and much simplified ruleset.

So it no longer calculates collison and doesn't have to path for that, the combat uses a statistical table rather than calculating their combat in terms of who can see what, and is there gun loaded and do they need to reload now etc.

This allows for a far greater number of AI to be used... and also removes alot of the annoying stuff like stuck AI or AI that drives itself into the sea or whatever.

X3 is however instanced, so it's easier to calculate which AI's need to use simplified calculations and which need to do it the "some one is watching me" way.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Baff1

[SteveJA 12]

I rather like how they do it in X3, once the AI is out of the players SOI, it behaves under a completely different and much simplified ruleset.

So it no longer calculates collison and doesn't have to path for that, the combat uses a statistical table rather than calculating their combat in terms of who can see what, and is there gun loaded and do they need to reload now etc.

This allows for a far greater number of AI to be used... and also removes alot of the annoying stuff like stuck AI or AI that drives itself into the sea or whatever.

X3 is however instanced, so it's easier to calculate which AI's need to use simplified calculations and which need to do it the "some one is watching me" way.

Sorry buddy, but just no. I like the fact Arma doesnt use Statistical tables and the like.

[Millenium7 0]

i'm hugely in favor of 'scripted' AI on demand. As well as certain other scripted events but for now lets stick with AI

This diversity of the ArmA2 AI works both ways, its great in that it adapts to any units/vehicles/islands/buildings/whatever on its own accord, but it also has a huge downside in that it does not allow fine control of what it does. In most games if you want an AI to stand still, follow an exact path, fire an exact number of bullets at a precise point etc it's easy to do. But they are also completely brain dead and sit there doing nothing unless manually told what to do

In ArmA2 they are semi capable at all times, however they are bored sheep and tend to wander on their own doing, you have no fine control over what they do. How many times have you seen a cutscene and the AI decides to turn the opposite way, or turn their head in a random direction, or get stuck pathfinding midway through their 'go to here' sequence. Bloody annoying!!!!

I'd love to see the option to turn off all or specific AI function. And also a more stripped down version of shoot/move/lookat/stance/etc that makes them do exactly what they are told and nothing more! if told to 'fire at that tree 3 times' it bloody well does exactly that and nothing else. No sudden running into cover before firing, or changing its stance, or any other arguements!

[Baff1 0]

Sorry buddy, but just no. I like the fact Arma doesnt use Statistical tables and the like.

Nor does X3 anywhere in the game world you are present.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is near... does it make a sound?

In real life it does... but in a computer simulation there is absolutely no need to waste CPU cycles modelling it.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Baff1

[Inkompetent 0]

Statistical tables actually sounds awesome. I know the AI switches to a 'simple mode' routine when far away, but I have no idea how close it is to statistical tables or to the AI's ordinary routines.

[dissaifer 10]

I'm torn about this, I understand the statistical table method saves a lot of cycles, but you can't go over board on it - it could remove some of the randomness of the game.

[dmarkwick 261]

I'm torn about this, I understand the statistical table method saves a lot of cycles, but you can't go over board on it - it could remove some of the randomness of the game.

It entirely depends on how it's done. Now, first of all I will say here and now that I prefer the current BIS non player-centric paradigm of gameplay, I like the fact that distant battles whose outcome I might never see or whose outcomes might never affect me, still happen with authenticity.

But, also consider the excellent DAC3, which will reduce distant groups into one representative unit, and will build the group up again if two opposing groups get close enough. Not quite statistical table method, but getting toward that area slightly.

Also consider Falcon 4's excellent bubble paradigm, where distant groups are reduced to simple statistical wargame-style elements and play their warfare out statistically at distance. If those statistically generated outcomes are no more predictable or nonsensical than "RL" distant battles, how can one say that the method is poor? I'm sure it can be poorly done, but I'm also sure it can be excellently done (as mentioned, the F4 bubble method works great).

If X unit using X equipment in X environment has X chance of winning over Y opponent using Y equipment, and that chance is indistinguishable in gameplay from actually modeling it, then I guess it's at least worthy of consideration :)

However, while BIS maps remain their current size, I think non-statistical is fine. I.E how it's done now. But, if BIS ever make scenarios that span larger maps, say on a scale of the entire Korean peninsula as in F4, then stat 'em up I say :) use the bubble for sure.

Edited April 3, 2011 by DMarkwick

[MissionCreep 12]

I like the concept of "Just go from A to B in a straight line and wait" and then once at B, "Regroup/Stop and Danger/Hold Fire/Stealth/Open Fire", or send them to another point, either with or without AI. I hate it when the you tell the AI to go somewhere (in a vehicle or on foot) and they meander everywhere or just stop for no reason (not even a "No-Go"). If they are physically unable - injury, material obstacle (not a flimsy road barrier!), "No Go" is fine. Every path can be broken down to infinitesimal straight-line segments! Think of it as a shortcut for coding in Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92—Failure to obey order or regulation:

“Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.â€

Elements.

(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.

(a) That there was in effect a certain lawful general order or regulation;

(b) That the accused had a duty to obey it; and

© That the accused violated or failed to obey the order or regulation.

(2) Failure to obey other lawful order.

(a) That a member of the armed forces issued a certain lawful order;

(b) That the accused had knowledge of the order;

© That the accused had a duty to obey the order; and

(d) That the accused failed to obey the order.

(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.

(a) That the accused had certain duties;

(b) That the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties; and

© That the accused was (willfully) (through neglect or culpable inefficiency) derelict in the performance of those duties.

Explanation.

(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.

(a) General orders or regulations are those orders or regulations generally applicable to an armed force which are properly published by the President or the Secretary of Defense, of Transportation, or of a military department, and those orders or regulations generally applicable to the command of the officer issuing them throughout the command or a particular subdivision thereof which are issued by:

(i) an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction;

(ii) a general or flag officer in command; or

(iii) a commander superior to (i) or (ii).

(b) A general order or regulation issued by a commander with authority under Article 92(1) retains its character as a general order or regulation when another officer takes command, until it expires by its own terms or is rescinded by separate action, even if it is issued by an officer who is a general or flag officer in command and command is assumed by another officer who is not a general or flag officer.

© A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. See the discussion of lawfulness in paragraph 14c(2)(a).

(d) Knowledge. Knowledge of a general order or regulation need not be alleged or proved, as knowledge is not an element of this offense and a lack of knowledge does not constitute a defense.

(e) Enforceability. Not all provisions in general orders or regulations can be enforced under Article 92(1). Regulations which only supply general guide-lines or advice for conducting military functions may not be enforceable under Article 92(1).

(2) Violation of or failure to obey other lawful order.

(a) Scope. Article 92(2) includes all other lawful orders which may be issued by a member of the armed forces, violations of which are not chargeable under Article 90, 91, or 92(1). It includes the violation of written regulations which are not general regulations. See also subparagraph (1)(e) above as applicable.

(b) Knowledge. In order to be guilty of this offense, a person must have had actual knowledge of the order or regulation. Knowledge of the order may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

Edited April 4, 2011 by MissionCreep