Feel bad saying this.. but this sucks :/

[GRoss 10]

Hi everybody,

I've taken a looong break from ARMA2 and just got AO a few days back. It started off pretty good - sounds seem to have been improved and some of the UI components, which is nice.

All the crap begun at the first tank mission (where you've got 1 m1 and 3 bradleys under your command) - the AI driving is absolutely horrible - can't stay on the road generally and often goes at speeds of around 2km/h for no reason in particular

It got even worse at the helicopter mission :(

My gunner seemed to be unable to see targets which I would position in front/side of the cockpit at distance of as little as 50 metres!! The gunner simply would not fire the cannon (sometimes he would pick a target which is 10x further away and cannot be easily seen instead and fire at that though)...

Also, what's the deal with lockin on targets - instead of locking onto the target closest to the centre of the screen (and which is easily visible), it would lock on to a target 2 kms away, which I can't even see...

I dunno if this is just me, or driving and ESPECIALLY flying system REALLY sucks! :mad::confused:

...besides that, addition of flares is really nice and the flying model, as usual is not bad :p

---

Just for the reference, I'm not a 11 year old cod player - I've got DCS:Black Shark pretty much mastered and currently learning DCS:A-10c, so I've got a bit of experience in games of that kind at least..

[dreday 1]

Unfortunately I have to agree. ArmA continues to be an infantry-centric game and other air and land assets are modeled in a very abstract way. You might want to get the latest patch and to try out some mods (ACE is my personal suggestion for someone who wants more realism), but the core engine makes it very difficult to fight in the land and air vehicles.

While it's easy to blame the BIS for this, I think that it is also a matter of the limited development resources that they poses. I believe that it was their conscious choice to focus on the infantry aspect of the game and I have to say that I agree with that choice. Hopefully they would have more resources to dedicate to the tank and air warfare in the ArmA 3...

Peace,

DreDay

[ArmAriffic 10]

I dont buy ArmA for the campaigns, I buy it for the editor and multiplayer

[EDcase 87]

While I agree its not perfect, it is much improved from ARMA2.

I didn't have so many problems as you with those missions. Are you sure you have the latest patch?

What CPU are you using? Remember that AI performance is related to your CPU power.

[kremator 1065]

DCS games are NOT Arma2OA by a long chalk. They accurately model a SMALL section of real warfare whereas Arma2OA/CO represents a whole gamut of simulation gameplay. Unfortunately our gaming machines couldn't go into the whole depth for absolutely everything required in that simulation and therefore there are things that do need tweaking.

[metalcraze 290]

I never had problems with OA campaign. In fact it was the first campaign which was actually possible to complete on release instead of waiting for 5 patches like it was with AA2.

As for gunner AI - as of 1.59 I use AI as gunners strongly - they are quite good at it.

ArmA is an infantry-centric game as was said. No studio in the world will be able to model everything in the warfare game to realistic levels by focusing on everything at once.

It isn't the matter of BIS not having enough resources. CM is a big publisher and developer and we know how OFP: DR turned out.

So if I had the choice between having an infantry and having an infantry plus not too realistic choppers/tanks/boats - I'd choose the latter.

Edited June 13, 2011 by metalcraze

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

Are you happy with ARMA:AO driving/flying/gunner AI?

what is ARMA:AO ?

Edited June 13, 2011 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy-

[froggyluv 2136]

While I strongly disagree that it sucks -I do agree that there seem to be problems with AI gunners firing fast enough or sometimes at all.

I often find myself and MP human counterpart having to jump into the gunner seat to ensure we get that first shot off quick enough when in armor. Nothing worse then using good tactics to get behind or flank enemy armor and your gunner just not firing in time before your enemy turns his cannons and blasts ya.

I'd rather they be a little too trigger happy then just not firing.

[sinisteral 10]

For being such an infantry focused (or at least a major part being infantry) game, the series has always lacked good AI, yes it's hard in a huge simulation environment, but it IS bad.

[NeMeSiS 11]

While I strongly disagree that it sucks -I do agree that there seem to be problems with AI gunners firing fast enough or sometimes at all.

I often find myself and MP human counterpart having to jump into the gunner seat to ensure we get that first shot off quick enough when in armor. Nothing worse then using good tactics to get behind or flank enemy armor and your gunner just not firing in time before your enemy turns his cannons and blasts ya.

I'd rather they be a little too trigger happy then just not firing.

Thats also a problem for infantry though.

[froggyluv 2136]

Yes true as well. I've got to say that I've been comparing the believability (infantry) to other shooter games and overall, Arma is probably the closest except when you encounter the obvious AI brain fart ie...getting super close to an enemy AI and he doesn't react.

Recently I've bought the much ballyhooed R6 Raven Shield and while it really is an enjoyable game on the tactical planning level, the enemy AI really reacts way too fast to you such as a quick spin instant death shot. Not as bad as a Counter Strike bot, but not very realistic either.

I don't envy the AI builder's task of trying to create an entity that needs to react in a believable manner in terms of reaction time and first action all the while purposely giving him flaws too make him more human.

Edited June 18, 2011 by froggyluv

[NeMeSiS 11]

Yes true as well. I've got to say that I've been comparing the believability (infantry) to other shooter games and overall, Arma is probably the closest except when you encounter the obvious AI brain fart ie...getting super close to an enemy AI and he doesn't react.

If you study the behaviour: Yes, i agree with you.

However, to the casual observer any CoD/Halo/whatever will appear to have much smarter AI. Mostly due to clever use of animations, making the AI actually leaning onto walls with an animation makes them look a lot smarter than the AI standing next to a wall and making a lean animation in some random direction every once in a while, even though such an animation servers no practical purpose. I think the AI could use a large amount of improvement in this area, after 10 years they still constantly look like they are lost and distracted by butterflies.

Ive read something a while ago (and mentioned it several times here) about a test they did with Halo1 AI: They had 1 group who played with the normal AI, with grunts waving their arms in the air when retreating, yelling stuff to let others know what they where doing, stuff like that.

They had a second group, who played the same thing with exactly the same AI routines, however all the nice animations and soundeffects were removed.

The first group rated the AI significantly smarter than the second group, even though the AI itself was practically the same.

Edited June 19, 2011 by NeMeSiS
I should be in bed

[froggyluv 2136]

Haha, I was just thinking about how more animations would make the AI in Arma "seem" smarter even if they were exactly the same FSM when reading the AI thread in Arma3.

Someone was asking for different playbooks for each faction giving more of a strategic and maybe chesslike feel. I was thinking if they gave new animations such as a panicked move for untrained or civilians, and maybe some signature animation behaviours -this would at least give the impression of more individuality.

[Baff1 0]

The basic problem with ArmA AI is the gametime dedicated to managing them.

There is no simulation value in this and there is no enjoyment in this. It's just fighting the game engine when you should be fighting the bad guys.

A simpler dumber less flexible AI would actually be better for 99% of the time, or an AI sub commander who did all the micro-management for you.

That or better designed missions and and campaigns that do not place the player in command positions.

I assume that the response speeds of Ravenshield AI is assignable in the Unreal code.

I certainly like the idea of signature behaviours for assorted different AI types.

The French AI all smoke when idling.. the Japs do rock paper scissors to see who goes on point... fun.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Baff1

[HyperU2 11]

I don't mind micro managing but when I seek out ARMA play that involves AI I tend to treat it as an RTS. They can be annoying if it's not what you're into. Leading troops IRL can be an exercise in frustration too.

[Gunter Severloh 4064]

A simpler dumber less flexible AI would actually be better for 99% of the time

I'm in much of agreement, they AI are almost to smart for their own good, In real life you want a soldier to think on his own,

but if he dont follow orders and goes about on his own thing and about in 50% in relation with the squad, they you, your squad,

and that soldier are well... going to get killed.

Following orders should be their priority, if you say target and shoot the enemy over there then there shouldn't

be any hesitation in between, point and shoot.

I think less controls, more simpler controls for AI, about every new guy to this game has complained about the same thing,

and tbh I been in this game since it started, and after all the AI upgrades, and patches, Im more confused now about AI control

then I ever was as the AI reponds to your commands only so much of the time.

So itys like you get to the point where, so am i missing something, things that worked before in terms of controls

and commands dont work now, all depends.

I know every situation is different in combat but cut and dry when I command the AI follow orders!

Thats probably the biggest thing that pisses me off in this game that dont listen.

My biggest gripe is when you need to get the flack out of there, or bust a move and move towards the enemy

before they have the upper hand, and the AI is like try to figure out where to hide, or cover, and Im like forget cover MOVE!

Sometimes your best form of cover is not to be in one spot for to long, ie mobile cover, if they enemy knows

where your at they can flank, supress, and assault you, if you change position constantly, how would the enemy get a bead on you and your squad.

The shoot and scoot tactics are very effective for tanking as well, but the AI really need to just obey orders and not think so much,

dont stand out in the open obviously, peak your corners, but by god follow my orders, I will decide what tactics to employ.

and like you said Baff1 an AI sub commander, aka Team Leader would be good tactic.

it is in a way already setup like this in the system as I believe the higher rank soldier obviously leads,

but also has more skill.

[Baff1 0]

I don't mind micro managing but when I seek out ARMA play that involves AI I tend to treat it as an RTS. They can be annoying if it's not what you're into. Leading troops IRL can be an exercise in frustration too.

Sometimes I enjoy it.

Particularly if I am making a mission.

X3 is another good AI game in which you spend an inordinate amount of time programming your AI to do very clever stuff and a lot less time flying around shooting stuff, if any.

However this can lead for some really frustrating gameplay, and if you think it's slow with a squad in real life, take that squad and then add some AI on top of them.

That's what happens in a co-op game.

I recently bought a second copy of OA. A friend of mine had agreed to play the campaign through with me if I bought another copy.

Having enjoyed the campaign I was keen to do it again and share the experience.

Unbloodyfortunately instead placing him next to me in the same squad as before taking orders form my boss, it placed him in charge of a whole other bunch of AI miles away.

In each map we played it placed him miles away in a completely different unit.

When multiplayer involves not actually playing with anyone else, it's effectively not MP any more.

To counter this we would spend the first 30 minutes of every game, loading and unloading our AI into and out of tanks until both of us managed to get in the same vehicle together.

Needless to say my mate got bored and I never got to play the expansion through with him.

[Craig_VG 20]

I'm in much of agreement, they AI are almost to smart for their own good, In real life you want a soldier to think on his own,

but if he dont follow orders and goes about on his own thing and about in 50% in relation with the squad, they you, your squad,

and that soldier are well... going to get killed.

Following orders should be their priority, if you say target and shoot the enemy over there then there shouldn't

be any hesitation in between, point and shoot.

I think less controls, more simpler controls for AI, about every new guy to this game has complained about the same thing,

and tbh I been in this game since it started, and after all the AI upgrades, and patches, Im more confused now about AI control

then I ever was as the AI reponds to your commands only so much of the time.

So itys like you get to the point where, so am i missing something, things that worked before in terms of controls

and commands dont work now, all depends.

I know every situation is different in combat but cut and dry when I command the AI follow orders!

Thats probably the biggest thing that pisses me off in this game that dont listen.

My biggest gripe is when you need to get the flack out of there, or bust a move and move towards the enemy

before they have the upper hand, and the AI is like try to figure out where to hide, or cover, and Im like forget cover MOVE!

Sometimes your best form of cover is not to be in one spot for to long, ie mobile cover, if they enemy knows

where your at they can flank, supress, and assault you, if you change position constantly, how would the enemy get a bead on you and your squad.

The shoot and scoot tactics are very effective for tanking as well, but the AI really need to just obey orders and not think so much,

dont stand out in the open obviously, peak your corners, but by god follow my orders, I will decide what tactics to employ.

and like you said Baff1 an AI sub commander, aka Team Leader would be good tactic.

it is in a way already setup like this in the system as I believe the higher rank soldier obviously leads,

but also has more skill.

I completely agree, them being too smart for their own good is a great way to put it. They need to follow my orders quickly and proficiently. Right now they are manageable, but some improvements still need to be made.

Regards,

bobtom

[JojoTheSlayer 35]

If you are the pilot I dont think you can use the target menu (2) to issue targets to the gunner. You have to use tab or similar. Thats probably why you helicopter didnt shoot shit. What you can do, with some weapons like the 30mm auto canon, is set the AI to engage at will and scan horizon. Then it will attack when it spots something unless you have told him to target something, in which case he will look at that target regardless. Missiles have to be targeted with tab though and given a command fire.

[Slammer123 10]

Well ... I have played just about every battle game out there and the User Interface on ARMA 2 is one of the worst. On the good side, they did a great job on battlefield sim if only the user interface was up to par. I got to battle 10 where I have to take 4 towns. I got to the last town and at the first outpost, I shot the only dude there and my full gun got replaced with an empty RPG (I shot it earlier). I did not select the RPG, the game did just as another guy stood up from nowhere and I could not nail him. Being an old sim programmer myself, this looks like a "I did that!" programmer routine that unfortunately sours the whole game.

The ARMA series has a lot of potential for great game play but the developers need to ensure full quality control and a better intuitive interface that works without having to get finger cramps flying over the keyboard during battle to get everything selected properly. How about a simple page menu system for major ops, comms, movements, etc... with sub menus with the most often used items. Then select a logical grouping of keys for instant access to the finesse settings ( like comm keys together, movement keys together, weapon control together, etc...)

I am also a fan of flight sim games. I don't know why Eastern Eurpoeans can develop such intricate scenarios and fail to equal Western developers in the User Controls (intuitive) department. Oh well .... just my opinion ...

Edited June 22, 2011 by Slammer123
Just to check

[djczing 10]

Ive tried just about every AI enhancement out there, trying to get better AI response in close quarters.

Right now im using ACE and asr_ai, and ai skill levels set high, and ai precision set between 60-90%.

Tell ya what -- they engage me in such a way that I really have to be on my toes to get the first shot off at them -- even in close quarters.

There are ways to make the AI better -- if you are willing to use a mod or 2.

As far as managing AI, I like to do that, to a point. I like multiple squads, and support vehicles under my command in the field -- unfortunately after a certain size, managing them becomes difficult. If I didnt have to dismount and remount drivers just to get the engine turned off, if choppers didnt overfly their destination, if medics healed squadmates automatically, if machine gunners (and everyone else) rearmed themselves, well... then itd be quite a bit easier when ur running large numbers of troops/vehicles.