Advanced Squad Morale System.

[instagoat 133]

I would like to see something like this implemented. For example, I was playing a campaign recently where half my squad was blown to pieces by a VBIED. Other than loosing a lot of firepower, this had zero effect on my squad. Enemy squads also only seem to have two modes: fully combat effective or on the run, but nothing inbetween.

The player morale system of VBS is nice, for example, with the increased gun sway and tunnel vision when the squad starts to take fire or casualties, but something similar needs to be implemented for the AI.

It could be really simple too!

For example: Squad takes casualties, this causes the gun sway in individual AI to go up from the default, not settling again until the squad as not been in contact for a significant amount of time. Suppression should also have a more lasting effect than it has in Arma 2. Most people get really impressed when a hail of 7.62 bullets is tearing up the earth around them!

Lastly, morale influence based on nearby friendly/enemy units. For example, if you have armour support, and suddenly the armour gets blown up, all friendly units with a line of sight should experience a morale drop and associated penalties.

The same should go for Unit leaders: if you snipe the squad leader, the squad should experience a significant morale drop based on their skill and training.

This would make combat, especially in high command, even more realistic than it is now.

What are your thoughts on this, community?

[SASrecon 0]

I would like to see a quite panicky AI when they're overwhelmed and fighting for their lives. This can be achieved by reducing the radio silence, possibly add some heavy breathing and some shouting through the radio or even in direct speech if they're next to you (as well as BIS' traditional swearing AI :D).

Imo the audio is what adds to the player's immersion/experience, although some of the features you mentioned such as the surpression effects and gun sway could also work well.

Edited May 24, 2011 by SASrecon

[ZacharyHawk 10]

Hmm! I agree! Suppressing Fire always needed lol but not without we have to just use the command like the ArmA II where we can't even choose the target where to suppress at I mean like a bunker or MG

[sic-disaster 311]

Supressive fire really needs to become a useful tactic like it was in the original Ghost Recon.

Right now many people practise it and utilize it ingame but the simple fact is that right now it's just for show. In OGR enemy soldiers would get into cover and stay in cover untill the fire eased off before making their next move, and this made leapfrogging an effective tactic for players.

Right now you can leapfrog all you want in ArmA 2 but the 'leapers' are never truely covered by covering fire.

[Cyteless 10]

Good idea OP. Often I find single player with AI can feel too methodical and clinical, so some suppression effects coupled with appropriate radio chatter wouldn't go far amiss. :)

[2nd ranger 282]

Yeah but in GR there was absolutely no point in doing it because you knew as soon as you stopped firing the enemy would wait 5 seconds, leave their cover and slowly walk straight towards you. There was a working suppression mechanic in place, but the AI's predictable behaviour made it unnecessary.

Also, the AI would only run for cover under two circumstances: Immediately after spotting an enemy, or after an enemy fired a grenade at them. Suppressive fire alone would not make them go for cover, nor would it affect their ability to shoot back at you. At least in Arma 2 you can see suppression actually working, as in reducing the enemy's rate of fire and their accuracy.

GR had it down as far as enemy movement was concerned - it was cool that you could fix them in place. If the A2/A3 AI could react in this way, and also be suppressed by rounds passing close to them and not just hitting near them, suppression would be more useful.

Also actually being able to tell your AI to fire on a location rather than a target would be cool. But of course it would only be useful if suppression worked correctly.

EDIT

Further to that: the AI in GR also reacted well to coming under fire. This is something the Arma series does not do well. In GR, if you fired on a patrolling enemy or they saw you, most of them would quickly break for nearby cover while one or two of them sprayed rounds in your direction. Large firefights became very intense because the enemy actively tried to suppress you while others tried to advance. In Arma 2 they mostly just lie down in formation and all try to shoot you. The going prone thing is a major annoyance in general; they should probably only do it if they are under withering fire.

Edited May 24, 2011 by 2nd Ranger

[Avgeris 64]

I don't care because, there is no moral. You are just a person using a keyboard and mouse. You just need not to be tired to get good decisions, as with any game.

[r3volution 0]

I have to say I think the OP is definitely on to something. I repeatedly come up against one thing in the Arma series and this is the unrealistic way AI behave under fire. I know everyone LOVES to dish on the COD Modern Warfare clones and everything else but one thing they do have right is creating the feeling of men under fire, which is the one thing the Arma series really lacks.

As others have pointed out audio is a big part of it, having more vocal AI yelling in combat and greater stress-related audio cues. But there is also a need for AI to move convincingly under fire and to behave as if they are in fear for their lives. This is the big one, as AI right now behave like child soldiers hopped up on meth, they run around standing up and then in 2 seconds when one man is left alive he might leg it for the hills. Having some sort of squad AI based morale system would help this, as the squad could assess unit casualties, rates of incoming fire and proximity of allied units to determine whether or not the unit is capable of mounting a counter-attack, holding in cover and returning fire, retreating to safer ground, or routing from the battlefield.

A lot of RTS type games would be better examples for this sort of system at work, I know the Total War series relies heavily on this gameplay mechanic to a fair degree of success, and while thats a highly simplistic example to use, it does demonstrate how having realistic morale can make a game much more in depth and interesting.

[kylania 568]

As an option, this might be nice. But then again even the current system is bogus. :) In missions where you play as a Ranger or Seal or or something a few pot shots around your head shouldn't completely invalidate years of training and discipline and make you combat ineffective. For some grunt, sure, but not for special forces. :)

[twisted 128]

very good idea. moral would be good, but why not take it further into a squad AI? one that opens up certain options for the squad in a similar way to having an NCO giving orders as well as reacting to whats going on around them.

Having the squad have an AI or moral of its own would help the units act in a more believable and more effective way.

[JojoTheSlayer 35]

How about we first get the AI to actually try to do what its told to do?

And to some extent they have some level of "moral". The enemy will flee if its out gunned and all hes m8ts are down and if you are hitting close to a enemy AI hes accuracy will be reduced. So there is sort of a point of suppressing the AI.

But when I command AI I hate that they try to be "smart" all the time.

No, drive strait.

No, just knock down that tree.

No, just drive fast over that little pebble.

No, infantry haul ass to the next point, dont leap frog... and so on.

Moral would just be another variable next to the AI not being "smart" enough to do what its told. So while you try to get control of a unit, because your other two tanks where blown up by a tab locker, you would lose control of the rest because they panicked? That dosent sound great, realistic or smart.

[5LEvEN 11]

Please do add morale to ai units. Make the morale based on unit and skill though...

[Tonmeister 14]

How about we first get the AI to actually try to do what its told to do?

i agree. when under human control they should do what theyre told. maybe there should be a "forced stance" option, that overides ai intelligence, much like safe, aware, danger, stealth, "shutupanddowhatyourtold"

[J-Guid 10]

you can see a good morale system in SWAT 4 and Company of Heroes!

[dragon01 902]

CoH was a bit simplistic, but it worked.

Morale system should depend on unit's "training level" (armed civilian to SpecOp). VBS2-style doesn't really looks good to me, as the player is already going to have his accuracy reduced when in a stressful situation. A complex morale system would the best option for AIII.

There's a number of variables that could be used for calculations:

Units and squads:

Training Level: The basic "morale" of a unit. SpecOps are harder to scare than guerillas.

Confidence: Per-mission parameter set to every unit. How confident the unit is feeling in the given environment.

Squad familiarity: How much a unit is familiar to the rest of his squad. Would define what happens after another squad member is killed.

Leadership: If a unit is a squad leader, how his/her death affects the rest of the squad. In case of default leader having it low and the new leader having it high, morale could actually rise. After the default leader is killed, the unit with most leadership will always assume command (provided there are no rank differences).

Special deaths and wounds: A squadmate being set on fire, blown to pieces or suffering another nasty death would crush the squad's morale. Being heavily (and messily) wounded could have a similar, but lesser effect. This is yet another point where I find that having dismemberment would add a lot to AIII.

Weapons and vehicles:

Impressiveness: How much the presence of a piece of equipment boosts nearby soldiers' morale. More powerful, impressive weapons have more. Personal weapons mostly effect the squad a member of which uses the weapon, vehicles and buildings have an area effect. Some equipment also have an effect on the enemy troops, for example a tank would reduce morale of all enemy squads in the area. Modified by doing things like shooting or crushing things.

Weapon relations: A squad carrying special weapons would be less afraid of whatever these weapons were meant to counter (even if they don't actually use them). For example, if you're carrying an RPG, your squad would be less afraid of enemy tanks.

Now, if the squad morale is broken, they would start to act unpredictably. Undisciplined ones will run, more disciplined will retreat, but remain organized. Some may, instead of running, charge the attackers. This could happen with guerillas if the killed leader had a very high leadership, or a few of their squadmates died and Squad Familiarity was really high. Fanatics could also do this after their enemy damages some significant object.

Of course, the further morale would be pushed into negative, the less predictable the unit behavior would be, ranging from "screw it, we're retreating" to complete panic. From time to time, even a disciplined soldier could be reduced to panic and charge the enemy to avenge his/her beloved commander. On the other hand, a guerilla unit faced with an overwhelming enemy, but not shot to pieces yet could mount a fairly organized retreat, if their morale wouldn't be reduced too much.

Perhaps there could be also a random chance, that if a unit's morale is reduced really, really much into negative, PTSD would kick in and unit would just stop responding, sitting in place and doing absolutely nothing. Though knowing ArmA, people would most likely report is as a bug. :)

[-Coulum- 35]

Definitely would want to see this implemented. I haven't actually played it but from what I've seen RO2 has a pretty neat morale system when concerning the player.

For the ai some degree of morale needs to be implemented. I am tired of facing ai that are so devoted to their cause they do not run, or surrender or even duck down behind the cover they are behind so they cannot be seen or shot when taking fire. It is true that it would make commanding Ai even harder than usual but if properly implemented and communicated it would be a very nice addition that would add new depth to commaninding ai. By commuicated properly, I mean that when a unit is suppressed and you tell him to move somewhere he will give you a reply of "I have way to much fire on me to do that!" instead of the current "negative" which makes it sound like they are glitching up or something.

[dragon01 902]

Oh, I forgot that part, vocal responses.

Morale should also be connected with vocal responses AI gives. For instance, if you give an order a soldier can't carry out because of supression, a calm, collected SpecOp would respond in a brief, subdued, to the point: "Negative, we are under fire." (and a British Green Beret would say "Negative, the situation is a bit sticky here.:)). A scared, but still thinking soldier would respond: "I can't do it, we're pinned down here". A soldier near the panic state would respond: "Are f****** you mad? We are in the f****** firestorm! Help us!". The lower the morale, the less gentle and less collected responses. After the action ceases, cursing should reduce a bit, but still the soldiers should be "shaken up" for some time.

There are two other things I should have added to my previous post: Personal resistance and readyness.

Personal resistance would be mostly randomized (with the ability to set it and override the randomizer) and would indicate personal courage of a soldier.

Readyness would be affected by various orders. If the squad expects the enemy, they'll be less demoralized when he appears. On the other hand, if you keep your men on alert all the time, they may become unsettled when the enemy doesn't show up, or lower their guard at a random moment.

[echosixgolf 10]

I agree with the idea of increased or frantic radio/voice chatter for immersion sake when taking casualties or accurate suppressing fire. But as far as the enemy AI breaking and running: Fine with me if its the last two enemy alive in their squad fleeing after a short but violent engagement, but we don't need them turning tail everytime we put effective suppression on them. Like others have suggested, just a better AI response to being suppressed (move to cover, keep heads down, hasty and inaccurate fire).

[paecmaker 23]

I agree with the morale system when taking enemy fire and casaulties the moral drops. However I want this to go the other way to.

Seeing enemy tanks explode should make your squad battle harder and the same with air support or reinforcements.

The morale system in the total war games are what I want(or atleast something similar)

If they take artillery fire the morale drops, if they are outnumbered the morale drops. If attacked from the flanks and so on the morale drops.

But the morale should also implement in the aftermatch, a lone squad moves across the battlefield with lots of massacred friendlies they should react.