Improved Command System

[wiggum2 31]

As you may know, many ArmA players would like to see a improved command system/menu.

I also really dont like the current one, it was ok back in the days of OFP but now with ArmA3 its time for a change.

I really like the idea of a radial menu, combined with some clever SOP's and a more "High-Command Module" like style of commanding while using the map (take a look at the great Command Hybrid System).

The radial menu should be fast to use, press a button and use the mouse for navigation and to choose a command.

After that the radial menu disappears and you have the round "Waypoint" cursor to select a specific position, or just use the map.

It should be possible (like with the HC Module) to chain orders.

The game should pause while the radial menu is shown, maybe that could be optional.

Now, i think it will be important to get rid of some rarely used commands.

*shock*

Yes, i dont think ArmA needs that many Formations for example, or the option to choose the stance or Combat Mode.

To compensate that i would like to see SOP's introduced !

Yeah, Standard operating procedures for specific situations that take away most of the "work" from the player.

A player could just give the command to "Ambush Armor", his teammates would get into position, go to cover and hide there.

They will hold fire until enemy armor is in range.

What do you think about that ?

I hope you understand what i mean and dont blame me for "dumbing down" ArmA3 into a CoD 2.0 !

Imagine it, you split your squad and give Team Red a "Suppress & Flank" SOP order while Team White has the "Ambush Armor" SOP so they will engage any armored vehicles that show up suddenly.

For me, this would add much to the immersion and also would make it much easier for new players to handle their squad !

Here is a example (!), something like that would be great i think:

[metalcraze 290]

So you want to "improve" it by butchering it?

Just because some command isn't used as often as others doesn't mean it isn't used.

Just because you don't use some command doesn't mean others don't.

Where is my wedge? Where are my echelons and staggered columns? Where is my scan horizon? Where's my 'watch N, E, S, W'? Where's my pick weapon? Where's my open inventory? Where are my engage and disengage (since they are different than target)? Where are my stances? Where is my "lasers on"? And dozens of other actions I may want to use at one point or another.

Simply don't use commands you don't like - problem solved.

Edited October 14, 2011 by metalcraze

[wiggum2 31]

Sorry metalcraze but i think you missed nearly everything i tried to explain in the first post...

And again, thats just a example (!) i created in a few minutes. I know that i forgot stuff like "return to formation". So please dont tell my that you miss that or that in my EXAMPLE. ;)

But yes, stuff like all those formations, stances ect. are pretty useless if you ask me.

This is more about the idea of SOP's that allow a faster and easier style of commanding.

Why give the order to stay crouched ? This is something the AI should handle.

Many commands(commbinations of commands) could integrated into some clever SOP's if you ask me.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Wiggum

[instagoat 133]

This kind of multi-layered system I thought-experimented with early after Arma 2 came out, and I couldn´t come up with a satisfying solution.

Pointless commands notwithstanding (such as the redundant wait for me order), there is so many commands left that it is difficult to arrange them in any meaningful and easily useable manner. You either have a shallow and broad system like we have now, with 10 menus with up to 10 sub-menues each, or a deep system with two to six top-layer menus, with one or two sub-menues each, each again with one to four commands. The current menu is only advantageous to arma veterans, who have the muscle memory of years behind them to figure the commands.

Everybody else is just screwed. The labelling is partially atrocious (such as "advance" and "flank", which should say "Take point" and "Take flank guard"), and the sheer amount of commands available is mind-boggling.

So, the flowchart doesn´t convince me.

What I really like, though, is the "time slowdown" when opening the command menu: this is a must-have solution, in my opinion. It is already implemented in SP when using the teamswitch menu, and should go for the command menu too.

This would simulate giving an instant command (irl, officers don´t have to navigate ten menues to issue verbal commands), as opposed to the "person freezes as he navigates the menu" issues we get right now.

It should be a difficulty setting, enableable for all difficulty levels. This Idea, I am fully behind, for what it´s worth.

The rest, good direction, but supremely difficult to do well.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Sorry, but I don't like it. "So please dont tell my that you miss that or that in my EXAMPLE." is part of why, because once you start filling in the missing pieces it becomes overly crowded. Also, I don't like having to navigate through submenus, it takes probably longer than the outdated number system. It doesn't seem to conform nicely with the already existing outdated number system. And finally, you completely missed the variable menus (2 - targets, and 6 - actions), which I agree are the two most problematic ones to attempt getting into a revamped system.

Formations and stances useless? Hell, I'd like to have more formations, maybe related specifically to vehicle operations, like coil and herringbone, in order to automatically setup good watch positions without me having to micromanage anything. Staggered column for patrols and wedge is something I use frequently. If I do flank, I will try to use the echelon ones. Protective 360 is a nice one too, which I would like to see included, if only used for defensive purposes or area securing while your lift leaves the area.

While I don't mind a concept of standing SOPs, I realize it have to be made as well, probably from the ground up, which I think takes a bit too much effort. A more general purpose macro SOP handling system may be preferred, where user can hook up whatever macro he prefer that he can download that suits his playstyle. Haven't seen that many attempts on this, and I think it's for a reason - lack of access to the low level commands that drive the AI (flank left - impossible with simple script command like it should have been).

[Tonci87 163]

Oh please not again this pointless discussion. You can't improve the command interface by taking away features!

All commands we have now are usefull for specific situations, in fact I would even like to have some more commands

[dale0404 5]

I think the whole point of this thread is to discuss how to improve the current command system. No need to bash people on the head when they try to think outside the box as it were...

[rübe 127]

What if such a radial menu would be totally optional (off per default; as optional overlay to the existing (radio)-interface) and totally customizeable? That is, what if you could "draw" your own tree, while maybe also beeing able to save and quickly swap such trees/menus?

I mean, there is absolutely no point in creating (or even searching for) one single radial menu, that should be useful for all different roles, one is actually able to play. A pilot needs a completely different "quick"-menu, than a simple soldier. And even for soldiers, there are lot's of different scenarios. Are you grunt? Leader? Spec-op? And last but not least, it's how you (wanna) play the game anyway, so I really don't see a point in such a fixed one-for-all-official radial menu.

Edited October 15, 2011 by ruebe

[wiggum2 31]

Oh please not again this pointless discussion. You can't improve the command interface by taking away features!

All commands we have now are usefull for specific situations, in fact I would even like to have some more commands

I say you can !

While all those commands may be usefull for (very) specific situations, actually you dont need them.

For example the combat modes, "CARELESS" & "SAFE"...i only used them inside the editor. Or "Column" and "Staggered column"...

Telling soldiers to stay crouched ?

At the moment, there is way to much micro management...some like it and some dont.

But if BI would take the time to create a new, fast & more makro oriented (SOP's) Command system, maybe even customizeable, im sure many fans of the old system will change their mind.

The biggest problem for such a system would be the AI, i believe we will not see any big improvement here in ArmA3 and thats why they will most likely just add a few features to the old system.

[.kju 3244]

Ask yourself why BI added the simple, context relative, command menu

and retained the old OFP style complex command menu at the same time.

My take is:

Both are keyboard based with a simple interface. This is good and useful for some.

For others for both a nice GUI with mouse control is needed, as well as improvements in the simple

command menu (replace meaningless ones with important ones, add more context sensitive ones).

(Note: to be fair both also feature mousewheel, LMB selection/execution and RMB back action)

Edited October 15, 2011 by .kju [PvPscene]

[wiggum2 31]

I also think that there is not need in replacing the old system as long as it dont hinder the new one.

[Haystack15 10]

Now, i think it will be important to get rid of some rarely used commands.

*shock*

Yes, i dont think ArmA needs that many Formations for example, or the option to choose the stance or Combat Mode.

Hay You! Those commands might seem like a "rarely used" command to you, but for me, its a must have.

Anyways, If they do add more commands to the menu, I hope ARMA III will come with free Tylenol.

[-Coulum- 35]

What about adding built in voice activated commands and what not? This would allow bi to add more commands while keeping the current ones, as well as letting the player quickly give commands without having to memorize key combos or taking their eyes off the action. having this feature alone would make me want to buy Arma 3.

Edited October 17, 2011 by -Coulum-

[Zatan13th 10]

or, just add them both.

-bring classic command menu by right windows key.

-bring radial (dynamic)command menu(or whatever) by left windows key.

[janosgolya 0]

I was always concerned about command system in OFP and ARMA series, as I command a lot in real life situations. No, no real combat situations, only Historical reenactment and BB gun simulations - but still leading men using real tactics rules and commands. I study the topic a lot and trying to forge that into practice. I was in real military few years ago and I know for sure it uses the same basic rules of combat I use.

Thats why I dont mind having both complex and simple context driven command systems in one game as I use both complex and simple commands in real life. The former for slow paced stealth aproaches and carefully planned ambushes, the latter for fast paced shootouts when I need a battle drills to kick in.

In many many cases I have to give orders to specific stances (both real life and in Arma game) I have to chose specific formation (I use at least half dozen of them in real life fluently with my men), give orders to take point (oh I use that a lot), different states of awerness etc.

I played OFP 2 and I hated not to have such a complex system i have in Arma. So I would really wouldnt want ARMA to be stripped down to some "four commands for all situations" solution like in OFP2..

I think the problem with the current command system is that it lacks the real life commands and the AI doesn't response in real life manner to them. For example - supressing fire. Does it even work? Usually in battle drill this command means that soldiers should fire in some broad area (pointed by commander) where the enemy could be, or to a known place to pin down the enemy. I should be able to point the direction to my soldiers and they should fire steady volume until told otherwise or run out of ammo. Thats what I train them for in real life. It doesnt matter if they hit, it should scare the enemy enough to not fire back.

In Arma AI fire only if they see the enemy. But in real combat you fire just in case on the area, if you have a slightest suspicion of enemy presence, just to cover your movement.

The current "supressing fire" command is more like "cover me" command, when soldiers have to react on any enemy contact by immediate fire AFTER they have contact.

Where are real life commands like "brake contact" "flank the enemy" (instead of flanking my own unit), "charge", "use smoke", "create perimeter", "MG here" (pointing the direction of setting up), "clear the area", "fall back", "rally point here" etc. etc....

And thats are only some of my most used, considering my lack of real combat experience...

The whole idea of military is to use battle drills - teach soldiers some basic manouvers triggered by simple command. The Arma way of doing this is too much of pointing out exact place for every soldier EVERY TIME. We do that in our group only on basic training with very fresh recruits. They learn very quick some of the simplest manouvers and commands or just follow the example of more experienced men.

BTW. It would be a nice feature to do less and less of pointing exact moves, and battle drills to kick in, depending of the training experience of our soldiers. For example USMC would do some things by drill while local civilian militia would act like non coordinated mob and to lead them you would have to point them where to go, like it is done now in Arma.

What BI lacks is a real combatant line officers as a military advisors... If I can learn this being non-combatant reenactor, they can too - the knowlege is out there to take. We started some training with real combatants lately, its not so hard to find them and hire them. You can search YT and field manuals, and read some combatant memoirs to do some really close to real life simulation.

In my opinion, the menu is ok, but lacks many of real life commands. Some commands just have misleading names. Using typical (at least for most commonly known US doctrine) naming convention would lead to less confusion for newbies and more clarity for hardcore arma fans.

For example:

menu 1

1. Fall in

2. take point

3. guard rear

...

10. rally point here (setting a place to fall back in case of routing)

etc.

menu 3

1. open fire (AI fire whatever it targets or if no target fire just in the direction they facing)

2. hold fire

3. supressing fire ( with pointing the area or the enemy - AI provides steady volume of fire)

4. Charge (frontal attack on target as long as possible, using smoke and snapshooting)

5. Flank enemy (AI tries to find safe way to outflank the enemy)

6. Brake contact (faling back, providing steady volume of fire)6

7. create perimeter (360 defence, using cover and concealment if possible)

8. cover area (for MG units it should change to "MG here" with proper hand signal)

9. cover me (AI looks for possible threats to the player/leader)

P.S.

I very like the idea of customisable menu, for my own gaming and mission style. It would solve at least some of the current command problems.

I also think all menu commands should be accesible from script commands and be common to AI leaders and player.

[Tonci87 163]

Especially this

7. create perimeter (360 defence, using cover and concealment if possible)

is much needed

[Alpha-Kilo 36]

I think that almost all problems with the menu system can be solved by using voice commands:

- If you don't need a certain command, just don't say it.

- If you want battle drills create them with makros.

With voice control you don't have to consider the form and shape of a menu system and you don't have to worry about unresponsive mouse wheels, etc. You can decide the wording of an order and it is even possible to use different phrases for the same order. And - for the realism fans out there - voice commands are much closer to the real life than key strokes or mouse klicks.

I like the idea of a built-in voice control feature for ArmA3 but third-party products such as VAC or GlovePie are already available and they work fairly well. Community members such as JojoTheSlayer and Suchy have published very good profiles.

The biggest problem in my opinion are AI-soldiers who sometimes don't act as instructed.

[Brutus404 10]

Although I do think that the current system in ARMA 2 is far from perfect and could use a lot of improvement, I think that improved AI would benefit commanding AI much more than altering the command system.

But if BI has the time, the should surely have a look at it. For instance, I would like to see some kind of magical circles indicating where my men will go when I order the to move somewhere to make it easier to assign cover for your AI (much like a system found in Brothers in Arms). Also when issueing a move order, it should be "magnetically" attracted by cover (combined with a good cover finding mechanism for the AI). And I would like to be able to split your squad into smaller teams. I haven't found a single (human) squad leader who commands all his 8-12 men individually. I know this can be done in A2, but when commanding 5+ soldiers or so, split teams should be default, not an option.

Voice command seems a good idea to me, but I would rather see a perfect command system and no voice control than a half-broken command system and a reasonably functioning voice command (and of course: all of this after AI improvement).

[metalcraze 290]

There are cover indicators for AI

You can split squads into teams (up to 5 teams)

And split squads shouldn't be default.

Macros should be great.

I remember some old tactical/strategic game where you could make macros out of several commands which was really comfortable.

F.e. creating a macro that will include "form line, danger" so you will order this basic manoeuver when closing on contact twice as fast.

[Clarkey1 10]

I say you can !

While all those commands may be usefull for (very) specific situations, actually you dont need them.

For example the combat modes, "CARELESS" & "SAFE"...i only used them inside the editor. Or "Column" and "Staggered column"...

Telling soldiers to stay crouched ?

First off, I think the command menu needs improving to. It is fairly easy to use once you get the hang of it, although it wouldn't hurt if it was more ergonomic. But c'mon! All the commands you mentioned as being not needed I use on a regular basis! Column - Moving through a town/village. Staggered column - moving along a road or through dense terrain. Careless/Safe - When trying to interact with AI so they stay the f&*k still!

So taking commands out that some don't use could really mess with someone elses style of playing. I completely agree that the command system should be more ergonomic but I don't think removing features can improve it, only dumb it down.

[das attorney 858]

Especially this

is much needed

Even if they don't put it in, I'll be updating my All Round Defence scripts for Arma 3 (working on some updates now for A2) :)

[aradesh 10]

Hei the idea of "wiggum" is very good and i think it should be possible to make a "custom Layout" for every super smart user :dancered: with drag'n'drop in the option menu?

this command thing is a bit like the Layout of a Joystick/Mouse/Keyboard, nobody is really happy with the original one or worse(?), a completely new command system...

[janosgolya 0]

Oh the best thing would be the built-in behaviour (fsm?) editor for soldiers, so you can set up your own batlle drills, specific reactions on situations etc... then bind them to a fully customisable menu (both existing complex one and fast menu should be customisable)....

This way you would be able to sort of "train" your soldiers to your own commanding style. And even avoid some unwanted AI behaviours you dont like.

No scripted macros only few understands, but user-friendly built-in editor. I like scripting but I am not effcient enough with it to alter behaviours, .

They did that with weapon customisation so its possible for sure :)

Another thing:

The splitting of teams is very uncomfortable to use right now. And in real life you have team commanders - low level NCOs, and you assign soldiers to them, so you only command two or three NCOs not every man. And NCOs choose what action would be best to execute orders you gave them.

In my opinion thats how the AI should be improved - to be actually driven by low level commanders, so when you loose your precious veteran NCO, privates become less effective. It will also give you some kind of basic unit management tasks - the responsibility every unit commander should be familiar with. I really liked back in the OFP days that your soldiers and equipement stayed with you from mission to mission and progressed in their skills. Adding management of such a soldiers would bring a whole new level of fun to ARMA [at least for me :) ].

I also like the idea to switching to the high-command interface (for your own group) if you split it to teams (of course you should still be able to switch back to individual soldier commanding interface). In my opinion it should be used on many levels - for your Squad, platoon, company... and you should be able to take commannd of any soldier if you command f.e. company. so it should be tree like. This would reflect real life hierarchy and would give you much more control over your whole force. How many times AI driven squads messed up your plan and you couldnt correct it because you had no ability to command individual soldiers from this AI squad?

Thas only some of the reasons why I would rework command system. Not only the menus but the whole idea of commanding in ARMA to reflect real life, traditional military hierarchy system which works quite well most of the time in almost every army.

[4 IN 1 0]

Complex commamd menu, as content wise, is OK imo, it just needs some arrangement and add more function in it, the major problem lies on the ability of AI to follow your command, as a group/groups or as a single unit, the ability to set the speed to force the AI to move should be and nice addition(I always like how Close Combat series handle this)

On the other hand I always find that content sensitive menu getting into the way, its did not place on the position where it gives you good situation awareness while remain readability(ideal position should be somewhere middle of the screen on the lower half), worse yet, it overlap complex command menu when it should just be a supplement system on demand.

Edited November 25, 2011 by 4 IN 1

[nrs 0]

I don't think there really is a solution to the current system in first person mode without butchering features.

I think a major improvement would able to select / control units in the map and issue orders there. Of course that'll obviously be rebuffed by "purists" who'll label it to RTSy, which is a shame. Think Close Combat rather than Starcraft. Not even asking for a 3d overview or anything like that, just the map we have now with the ability to command from there. That would be just as realistic if not more and it'd significantly add to usability.

Edited November 25, 2011 by nrs