infantry combat

[THEBLITZ6794 10]

the one thing i really want to see is an improvement on infantry. currently, 2 squads see each other in a coverless world, go prone, and blast away. feels bland man

[Big Dawg KS 6]

What the hell else would they do with no cover around? Throw down their guns and start dancing?

:lookaround:

Edited May 21, 2011 by Big Dawg KS

[THEBLITZ6794 10]

so how about we have a more detailed world. and one that includes foxholes. seriously, any realistic game needs foxholes or infantry all die really really fast.

[metalcraze 290]

Infantry dies fast

Especially in conditions like yours

[Big Dawg KS 6]

so how about we have a more detailed world. and one that includes foxholes. seriously, any realistic game needs foxholes or infantry all die really really fast.

Considering the (modern) nature of the combat in ArmA, entrenchment doesn't really seem practical. I'm not saying it shouldn't be in, since it would be sweet, but "any realistic game needs foxholes" is just not true. If this were a WWII game then you would be right, but in this setting we can do without them.

[ukie_militia 10]

What needs to be changed to address this problem is the amount of detail in the ground... PR Arma2 are looking at solutions for this same problem and one of the most promising solutions is to decrease the mesh size of the ground, at current it is 10m square a mesh, so terrain can never be all that detailed... the PR Arma2 team have shrunk down the mesh to 1m square allowing for a lot more detail in the ground, the videos of what they call `micro terrain`

you can read more about it in their updates... http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f509-mini-updates-team

[THEBLITZ6794 10]

entrenchment in the sense of trenchlines died after korea.

but it doesnt take long to dig a foxhole

if a squad takes a village, theyre gonna dig in, not prone in the street.

without proper infantry cover, infantry are worthless

which destroys all the mechanics of a proper battlefield

[Militant1006 11]

But you must remember that they actually still use cover if it is at hand, I see AI taking cover behind buildings and behind trees a lot of the time, I can't even begin to imagine how complex it would be to make a foxhole system for AI, but they definetly use cover if it is possible, they just don't interact with the environment as much as other games, but hopefully this will change, and I find there is always enough cover and concealment for players anyway, buildings, trees, walls, bushes, they are all around.

also a proper foxholde requires being able to modify the map on the go, by actually going into the terrain, maybe this will be possible in Arma 3, but I still think it is unfair to say that the world is coverless and that AI don't use cover. There are soem scripts out there that can actually make AI fortify a town, if BIS could add something like that to A3 without having to use extra scripts that would be great.

[metalcraze 290]

they just don't interact with the environment as much as other games

Like which ones?

[THEBLITZ6794 10]

look, if you put a US squad and a russian squad on opposite sides of a sparse town or forest, theyre gonna go somewhere from taking pot shots around corners to proning and going all out. ive never seen the mg guys and a few rifles supress while a few more flank.

and yea the world is coverless, i hate to say it, but play a level of call of duty SP

i shouldnt have to rely on scripts to make combat work. it should work out of the box

besides, in a proper decisive battle, theres shittons of artillery going back and forth, which is relatively worthless vs good foxholes but shreds all above ground

[wiggum2 31]

Infantry combat in ArmA is currently not very realistic, but still better then in other shooter games.

The problem is that the terrain is to restrictive and the AI still far away from realistic behaviour.

ArmA is good at "lone wolf" and "special forces vs. evil bunch" scenarios if you set up the AI correctly (using scripts) and a good spot of the Map.

But a company vs. company fight will look and feel awful.

ArmA dont simulates the command structure of the military. You have a bunch of good guys against a bunch of bad guys but not a platoon attacking one or two building held by a enemy platoon while the guys from the weapons company supress the enemy...

The problem of ArmA is that there is no room for abstraction, i mean 10 year old wargames simulate infantery combat better then ArmA2 does with very abstracted systems.

Entrenched and fortifyed infantry is something that ArmA ignors too.

Building dont play any important part in the game and like any other games is ArmA not able to simulate the human ability to find cover and stay alive, a issue of the AI in a game with no abstraction again.

With ArmA3 they will (again) concentrate on those "lone wolf" and "special forces vs. evil bunch" missions. Thats were ArmA is good in because there is not that much AI involved and you can ignore military structurs for the most part.

Just my thoughts about that...

[metalcraze 290]

You haven't played OFP, have you?

[THEBLITZ6794 10]

infantry are highly effective entrenched and still effective when concealed. neither of these are a possibility in arma 2.

arma does NOT simulate infantry warfare better than MW2 single player, at least from an AI perspective. the MW2 ai kicks the shit out of the arma 2 ai when it comes to tactics and cover. (invincible player is different)

[ArmAriffic 10]

so how about we have a more detailed world. and one that includes foxholes. seriously, any realistic game needs foxholes or infantry all die really really fast.

If they make the world really detailed no one will be able to run the map past 20 fps

[metalcraze 290]

arma does NOT simulate infantry warfare better than MW2 single player, at least from an AI perspective. the MW2 ai kicks the shit out of the arma 2 ai when it comes to tactics and cover. (invincible player is different)

There is no AI in CoDMW2.

They are just a bunch of turrets told by scripts to go stand behind that box and fire at the player which is very easy to achieve in a linear corridor - nothing else.

They can't even pursue you or fall back - they will always stand in the same spot.

In AA2 it isn't a corridor where you just put a few bots behind boxes - AI takes cover and flanks on his own.

[THEBLITZ6794 10]

If they make the world really detailed no one will be able to run the map past 20 fps

which is why most games dont 1 or 2 huge maps

look, it doesnt work. the world is bland as hell.

[Militant1006 11]

infantry are highly effective entrenched and still effective when concealed. neither of these are a possibility in arma 2.

arma does NOT simulate infantry warfare better than MW2 single player, at least from an AI perspective. the MW2 ai kicks the shit out of the arma 2 ai when it comes to tactics and cover. (invincible player is different)

You must be joking?

MW2 does not have dynamic AI or anything close to it, infact all levels on MW2 are designed to have lots of cover, but in real life there isn't destroyed cars, tipped over couches, perfectly convenient low walls and car wrecks everywhere, it is designed to 'look cool' and if you haven't already noticed that MW2 has friendly AI that can't hit things from further than 10m away, and that everything is firing fully automatic, and that there are invisible and stupid barriers everywhere, then go and play Modern Warfare 2 and stop asking people to make Arma similar, because I'll let you know now, it isn't going to happen, also MW2 AI (if you want to call it that) is scripted to follow the same path, pretty much everytime, and in MW2 there are no 'squads', no commanding whatsoever, and also no AI vehicles that aren't like they are stuck to rollercoaster tracks, really try to reassess what you think realistic combat is.

which is why most games dont 1 or 2 huge maps

look, it doesnt work. the world is bland as hell.

What map are you exactly referring to?

[Daniel 0]

Agreed with the OP, would be great to see a more engaging AI, right out of the box. And it'd be even better to see different doctrines and techniques for different factions or for different levels of professionalism.

[THEBLITZ6794 10]

You must be joking?

MW2 does not have dynamic AI or anything close to it, infact all levels on MW2 are designed to have lots of cover, but in real life there isn't destroyed cars, tipped over couches, perfectly convenient low walls and car wrecks everywhere, it is designed to 'look cool' and if you haven't already noticed that MW2 has friendly AI that can't hit things from further than 10m away, and that everything is firing fully automatic, and that there are invisible and stupid barriers everywhere, then go and play Modern Warfare 2 and stop asking people to make Arma similar, because I'll let you know now, it isn't going to happen, also MW2 AI (if you want to call it that) is scripted to follow the same path, pretty much everytime, and in MW2 there are no 'squads', no commanding whatsoever, and also no AI vehicles that aren't like they are stuck to rollercoaster tracks, really try to reassess what you think realistic combat is.

What map are you exactly referring to?

I DO NOT WANT ARMA 2 TO BECOME MW2

but actual fire fights would be nice...perhaps brothers in arms is a better example

---------- Post added at 08:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:54 AM ----------

Agreed with the OP, would be great to see a more engaging AI, right out of the box. And it'd be even better to see different doctrines and techniques for different factions or for different levels of professionalism.

i think the tactics are mostly the same, given equal numbers and firepower, for all nations

mg and some rifles suppress while more rifles flank

[wiggum2 31]

Brothers in Arms is a bad example...

Supress and Flank, supress and flank...again and again.

Yeah, thats how you win the war... :rolleyes:

[Daniel 0]

It's what the weapons are designed for and for too long it's been disregarded in the OFP/Ama franchise. I mean where does the beaten zone feature when AI are concerned? That's why armies don't want machine guns that are too accurate. And at the same time every man is packing grenades. There needs to be a system in place for the AI that goes from long range suppression, all the way to closing with the enemy all off the bat.

Just having a basic gun group / rifle group system for AI would raise the bar.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Daniel

[THEBLITZ6794 10]

Brothers in Arms is a bad example...

Supress and Flank, supress and flank...again and again.

Yeah, thats how you win the war... :rolleyes:

well it gets the message across.

i thought dragon rising had a good infantry ai...

but that map is even blander.

---------- Post added at 09:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 AM ----------

It is actually. It's what the weapons are designed for and for too long it's been disregarded in the OFP/Ama franchise.

Just having a basic gun group / rifle group system for AI would raise the bar.

exactly. even at the fire team level this can be seen because theres the leader and SAW gunner who are meant to lay down fire and the grenadier and rifleman who are more for up close. the side that suppresses and flanks wins

[wiggum2 31]

I hope ArmA3 will have a real moral system !

I will see units retreat, rout, getting supressed and surrender...not just die like in ArmA2.

[metalcraze 290]

but actual fire fights would be nice...perhaps brothers in arms is a better example

Of a dumb AI? Yes. With the game being quite corridorish and all

Also there are firefights in ArmA.

Firefights != hollywoodish crap where soldiers just fire bullets into nothingness not hitting each other from 5 meters.

Soldiers do aim at each other in ArmA and without any cover killing the enemy is not a problem.

i thought dragon rising had a good infantry ai...

Oh man. You are a master of comedy

Edited May 21, 2011 by metalcraze

[antoineflemming 14]

@THEBLITZ6794, seems like your original post was just focused on foxholes. Why foxholes? Why not simply add more cover? Here's the problem with Takistan (the "coverless" reference I guess). It's not a realistic desert setting. In Afghanistan, there's more cover given the generally more rocky terrain. The solution is not to add foxholes (WW2, Korea, Vietnam). It's to add more natural cover to the landscape.