HETMAN - Artificial Commander

[Rydygier 1317]

Thanks for advices. I will try to use them, but rather to a limited extent, otherwise everything gets again too complex.

[katipo66 94]

I agree, a lot of things like wounding and or transport can be handled by other scripts or mods and therefore leaves the door open for the mission maker to customize the mission how they want.

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

True, the problem I guess is there are not many easy ways to work around some of the stuff like the wounding even with different mods at the moment. Either way I'm sure it'll turn out great. Eager for next release :)

[taro8 806]

So squads with wounded soldiers need only to be transported near ambulance or field hospital, or ambulance needs to be sent to them. Simple waypoints will do the trick, but problem with support vehicles moving still exist, you will need to routinely disable their move AI.

[katipo66 94]

Every squad that engages is going to have wounded, that's the nature of the game... The commander would constantly be organizing transport for wounded. Having all of them medevaced or transported doesn't make sense?

Why not use something like DAP and let them sort themselves out... Or setcaptive on ambulance or something, I don't get where the importance is? If I disable ambulance with support waypoint from HAC, he runs around doing his job no problem.

[orcinus 121]

Every squad that engages is going to have wounded, that's the nature of the game... The commander would constantly be organizing transport for wounded. Having all of them medevaced or transported doesn't make sense?

Why not use something like DAP and let them sort themselves out... Or setcaptive on ambulance or something, I don't get where the importance is? If I disable ambulance with support waypoint from HAC, he runs around doing his job no problem.

I never managed to get DAP to work [using CO]. Still doesn't with the latest version & the latest CBA [0.8.3; build 175]. Playing around with COSLX currently, will let you know how that fits with HAC.

On a more general point: I've started developing a couple of missions using HAC with DAC v3c - seems to work very well (except for a bug in DAC relating to restoring saved SP games).

Currently I have two versions: one where the DAC-spawned units are immediately released, i.e., so that HAC can take them over - which it does seamlessly:yay: and HAC also employs whatever artillery are in the camps to very (or even too) good effect

In the second version, I also disable the generally suicidal AI's single-unit engage orders using the command enableAttack false. on all the spawned units

Haven't done more than a few runs, but initial impressions are that the second version gives more extended and intense firefights. In fact last night I had one of the best firefights ever in the wooded hills between Prigorodki & Pusta in the second version of the mission. I haven't looked at changing any waypoints from Sentry to Guard yet (for explanation, see Igneous' & Jakerod's posts in the thread:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=128833

I have encountered an error with HAC in combination with DAC , however. This is:

Bad conversion: array

Error in expression <ttack" + str (_unitG))}};

_wp = _unitG addWaypoint [_Trg, 0, 1];

_wp setWaypoin>

Error position: <addWaypoint [_Trg, 0, 1];

_wp setWaypoin>

Error 0 elements provided, 3 expected

from line 112 in \B\GoAttInfB.sqf

Not sure why this occurs, & haven't yet looked to see what effects this might have.

Only other issue is that sometimes on start, the DAC camp spawn is incomplete - immediately restarting usually cures that. Possibly the init file needs some expert attention to delaying HAC until DAC has finished initialising (I'm still a total dumbo at scripting :confused: )

If anyone wants a look at the current versions, I can upload them somewhere.

I also ported it to Pushtoshka / Vybor with less success - the HQA Leader sends troops across open meadows traversing enemy lines & so (especially with the default cannon in the DAC camps) the teams get slaughtered. Switching the DAC camp cannon to mortars makes it a bit more playable, but not enough. I intend to use Rydygier's FAW so I can call in smoke. I haven't had much time to try FAW but really like it so far - thanks again, Rydygier :)

@Rydygier: while I don't want to distract you from the already long list of more urgent issues, it would be very useful (& give much improved & more realistic gameplay) if the Leaders could call artillery to fire smoke when their teams need to cross open ground when attacking &/or come under attack while exposed.

I hope the glitches can be sorted out - the combination of HAC & DAC has huge potential, & makes composing large-scale missions much, much easier than anything else I've tried.

BR

Orcinus

Edited January 4, 2012 by Orcinus
typos

[friznit2 350]

Orcinus, sounds very promising. I was under the impression HAC grabs control of all the AI, so thought that this would conflict with any dynamic waypoint creating scripts like DAC and UPSMON. How are you preventing HAC from grabbing control of the AI and how do you then 'release' them as you suggest?

If that's possible to do, then there is great potential for creating respawning groups of AI that can then be 'released' to HAC when certain conditions are met, effectively creating Battle Casualty Replacements for a persistent battle.

[mjolnir66 48]

If you read through the manual, there is actually a way to delay the start more than it does already.

[Rydygier 1317]

I'm sorry I'm so silent, but constantly working on new version. If things will go well, soon I'll need some alpha-testers for changes already implemented. For now I deal with bugs extermination.

[orcinus 121]

Orcinus, sounds very promising. I was under the impression HAC grabs control of all the AI, so thought that this would conflict with any dynamic waypoint creating scripts like DAC and UPSMON. How are you preventing HAC from grabbing control of the AI and how do you then 'release' them as you suggest?

If that's possible to do, then there is great potential for creating respawning groups of AI that can then be 'released' to HAC when certain conditions are met, effectively creating Battle Casualty Replacements for a persistent battle.

Hi

It isn't in the manual , but Silola posted a solution here:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1654904&postcount=230

My most recent init reads:

if(!isServer) then {waitUntil{!isNull player}};

DAC_Zone = compile preprocessFile "DAC\Scripts\DAC_Init_Zone.sqf";

DAC_Objects = compile preprocessFile "DAC\Scripts\DAC_Create_Objects.sqf";

execVM "DAC\DAC_Config_Creator.sqf";

DAC_Basic_Value = 0;

waituntil{DAC_Basic_Value > 0};

if(!isServer) then

{

{[_x] spawn DAC_fReleaseGroup}foreach inf_group_z1;

{[_x] enableAttack false}foreach inf_group_z1;

{[_x] spawn DAC_fReleaseGroup}foreach inf_group_z2;

{[_x] enableAttack false}foreach inf_group_z2;

};

waituntil{time > 1};

nul = [] execVM "RydHQInit.sqf";

RydHQ_Debug = true;

RydHQB_Debug = true;

RydHQ_Personality = "GENIUS";

RydHQB_Personality = "GENIUS";

That releases DAC-created units immediately & HAC grabs 'em. Note you still must have some waypoint numbers entered into the DAC inits or it will halt with an error.

My SP mission is derived from the script example for Chernarus in the DACv3C demo package; I didn't edit anything other than the camp configuration (yet).

The

{[_x] enableAttack false}foreach inf_group_z2;

command is the one that disables the AI sole-unit engage orders that I'm currently experimenting with. Just edit those 2 lines out for a vanilla experience.

Note I also have a few teams (same size/type) on each side placed in the editor, mainly so I can choose the group & team composition & player role in the group in which I decide start off. Placed a few ammo crates as well. Chose Chernarus so Rydygier & other A2-only players could have a look if interested.

And yes, it does indeed give extended battles - increasing the number of DAC respawns makes for longer fights.

To exclude DAC-generated units from HAC I think can be done (haven't got that far yet, on the list of things to do) by setting up additional DAC spawn & waypoint zones but using different array names (e.g., inf_group_y1, inf_group_y2) in the DAC init then putting those arrays into the HAC exclude lists, e.g.:

RydHQ_Excluded = [inf_group_y1]

There is also the possibility of releasing DAC units from a HAC-excluded array when certain conditions are met (e.g., they have reached specific targets/triggers) - that is in the DAC manual. So you could set up one or more DAC 'HAC excluded' zones with designer-set waypoints & targets, with triggers to release the units to HAC.

I'm not sure whether you can prevent HAC from sending other forces to those targets. I can't see any strong reason for doing so anyway, other than for scenario protection.

BR

Orcinus

---------- Post added at 01:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 PM ----------

If you read through the manual, there is actually a way to delay the start more than it does already.

Duh, I missed that! Thanks a lot for the heads-up :), will implement that this evening.

BR

Orcinus

---------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:11 PM ----------

I'm sorry I'm so silent, but constantly working on new version. If things will go well, soon I'll need some alpha-testers for changes already implemented. For now I deal with bugs extermination.

I don't think you have any need to apologise; I'm sure everyone is as grateful as I am for your sharing this brilliant development.

I would be delighted to help with some alpha testing as & when needed (especially as I'm a dunce at scripting per se).

BR

Orcinus

Edited January 4, 2012 by Orcinus
Additional information

[friznit2 350]

I think I understand what you're getting at. Currently your plan appears to use DAC as a ready made spawn generator, which it is of course a very fleixble one. Adding the DAC spawned groups to the RydHQ_Excluded array prevents HAC taking control until they are released (removed from the array by a trigger or somesuch to let HAC take over again). There'd need to be a line added to the DAC spawn script to add every group to the exlude array as they are created though. Essentially this gives the mission maker a method to release BCR's (reinforcements) to HAC under control - such as when side count reaches a certain threshold.

Now all we need is to make the objectives movable or switchable, so the HAC attacks the next objective after the first is complete. If Ryd can get this working with multiple commanders, we'd get an instant battlegroup of AI rolling across the map, attacking objectives as they advance, going defensive as they get pushed back, taking reinforcements and advancing again. And all with very few actual AI present at any one time, so load on the server would kept to a minimum.

[katipo66 94]

The only thing with DAC you need to be aware of is the unit reducing/caching.

I had used a unit caching script and this had effect on commanders decisions because he only sees the leader and not full squad.

[orcinus 121]

I think I understand what you're getting at. Currently your plan appears to use DAC as a ready made spawn generator, which it is of course a very fleixble one. Adding the DAC spawned groups to the RydHQ_Excluded array prevents HAC taking control until they are released (removed from the array by a trigger or somesuch to let HAC take over again). There'd need to be a line added to the DAC spawn script to add every group to the exlude array as they are created though. Essentially this gives the mission maker a method to release BCR's (reinforcements) to HAC under control - such as when side count reaches a certain threshold.

At its simplest, yes. However, the array command in the DAC initialisation line means that allthe spawned units of that type from that camp will be excluded, e.g. using a DAC initialisation line like

fun=["z3",[5,0,0],[],[],[8,[1,4,1],8,2,"res_group_z3"],[],[1,1,1,7]] spawn DAC_Zone;

puts some mixed (armour plus infantry) groups on hold. You could use the same spawn zone to generate wheeled vehicles and/or helos for immediate use.

Alternatively, you could set up one or more DAC zones for reserve units with delayed activation (induced automatically by an event like heavy losses, or by radio trigger to give control to the player). That might be better as it reduces the load on the PC while/if the reserves aren't needed. OTOH, a designer might want some sub-mission(s) outside HAC control; the DAC array + HAC exclude calls will allow for this.

Also one can of course use randomisation of the group generation in the different spawn zones to increase unpredictability & replayability.

Imagine the above combined with some player-invisible randomisation scripts for the LeaderHQ / Leader HQB parameters... some combinations would make winning very hard or impossible, which is not unrealistic.

Now all we need is to make the objectives movable or switchable, so the HAC attacks the next objective after the first is complete. If Ryd can get this working with multiple commanders, we'd get an instant battlegroup of AI rolling across the map, attacking objectives as they advance, going defensive as they get pushed back, taking reinforcements and advancing again. And all with very few actual AI present at any one time, so load on the server would kept to a minimum.

Heh, that's a way off I think - I'm focusing on getting some single SP large-scale battles going for now.

Cheers

Orcinus

PS added later: Actually I'm not sure if you can't have rolling targets, etc., without the need for multiple commanders. Would it perhaps be possible to have a script triggered by (e.g.) LeaderHQB forces being reduced below a threshhold - absolute, or relative to surviving HQ forces - which would deactivate the current HQB zones, change the HQB commander's position to a predefined location and activate a new DAC zone at that location? Surviving forces retreat to that location. When certain criteria are met (e.g., number of HQB forces in the original HQB zone drop to a sufficiently low level), Leader HQ & his surviving troops are moved to the old HQB position & a new HQ DAC zone activated.

I think it might even be possible to have several different retreat zones set up (it's just a copy & paste exercise, after all) with a script making random choice of which one LeaderHQB retreats to. Given the effect of terrain on battle outcome, that would make progress through a series of battles highly unpredictable.

I suspect that HAC plus DAC is going to get me spending a huge amount of time in the editor so I can have a huge amount of fun in huge battles. IMVHO, HAC is a huge development in Arma. O.

---------- Post added at 09:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 PM ----------

QUOTE=Katipo66;2084029]The only thing with DAC you need to be aware of is the unit reducing/caching.

I had used a unit caching script and this had effect on commanders decisions because he only sees the leader and not full squad.

Hmm, if that's also the case with DAC it could make for bad decisions (well, at least it's the same for both commanders).

However, the count of units (which is of total units, not just leaders) revealed by Rydigier's counterU.sqs script doesn't seem to go up or down as DAC reduces / reinstates units & groups, even when those amount to quite a sizeable number so maybe HAC does 'see' reduced DAC units. I'll run a test by setting up a reserve camp with a couple of hundred grunts well away from the battlefield & see what happens to the counter figures.

BR

Orcinus

Edited January 4, 2012 by Orcinus
Additional information

[mikey74 187]

all the spawned units of that type from that camp will be excluded

So when you release units from dac... It also releases them from being re spawned? Is there away around this. To just release them from Dac's control but not from dac's respawning?

I love the release thing with using HAC, but ID like the respawning and camp part of Dac, but Id like HAC control. lol Ive abandoned that but you bring me hope ;) my hero :) seriously though that would be call to use Dac's camp's with HAC's AI control.

[taro8 806]

I think this isnt thing concerning HAC, but you guys may find this a nice little addon for Scouts and FO units. http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=15369 This is a very effective and automatic hide addon, IIRC it can be set so only selected units can hide. I tested this out and it works great for player controlled squad. More info are available on download page.

Just a quick note, this script fools AI, the unit is still there and can be seen by player.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Taro8

[orcinus 121]

So when you release units from dac... It also releases them from being re spawned? Is there away around this. To just release them from Dac's control but not from dac's respawning?

I love the release thing with using HAC, but ID like the respawning and camp part of Dac, but Id like HAC control. lol Ive abandoned that but you bring me hope ;) my hero :) seriously though that would be call to use Dac's camp's with HAC's AI control.

Not sure quite what you mean. With a normal (non-exclusion) DAC spawn zone, although HAC takes control of the units, DAC still keeps track of the units - reduction, rebuilding, & respawning as they get destroyed/killed off. You can watch this if you have the right com settings, etc., in the DAC config.

As for the excluded units, I haven't got that far yet - haven't had time to more than set up reserve camps. For one thing I need to figure out the syntax for releasing them; I'll use simple radio triggers for testing (I said I'm a total novice at scripting!).

It depends on your scenario what approach to take. If you want the ability to spawn a single batch of replacements when the original DAC camps spawns are almost consumed, better to use a call to activate a single-spawn DAC zone (fewer units for the CPU to handle before it needs to) either by radio trigger or by activating it automatically - you could implement both, ofc.

Why I want to use HAC exclusion is that it enables repeated waves of units on demand without the need for multiple DAC zones plus the replacements all originate from one or two points (e.g., a nearby harbour) which is both more realistic and avoids issues such as placing camps capable of spawning helos (hard or even impossible in large areas of Takistan, for example).

BR

Orcinus

Edited January 5, 2012 by Orcinus
typos

[mikey74 187]

this releases them. Place this in your init.sqf

DAC_Basic_Value = 0;
waituntil{DAC_Basic_Value > 0};

if(isServer) then
{
{[_x] spawn DAC_fReleaseGroup}foreach inf_group_z1;
};

Then in your zone trigger place this in its onact:

fun=["z1",[1,0,0],[5,3,30,8,"inf_group_z1"],[],[],[1,2,50,0,100,10],[1,1,1,3]] spawn DAC_Zone;

This will release all units spawned in this zone... BUT they will not respawn when killed. If you'd like to see a demo mission of what Ive got let me know. Not sure if its what you are looking for. I'd just like them to release but still respawn. :(

Why I want to use HAC exclusion is that it enables repeated waves of units on demand without the need for multiple DAC zones plus the replacements all originate from one or two points (e.g., a nearby harbour) which is both more realistic and avoids issues such as placing camps capable of spawning helos (hard or even impossible in large areas of Takistan, for example).

Have you tried http://www.kylania.com/ex/?p=31 also http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=7074 I like this one better http://www.mediafire.com/?4dyjmzmnimy

I can probably write you up a small simple wave script depends on what you want.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Mikey74

[Rydygier 1317]

Okay. This is admittedly unstable alpha, but I tried to, that RPT was clean, therefore it is not a bag of bugs, I hope. Of course this is not a release of a new version. As I mentioned, I would like to invite volunteers to alpha-test of what I did so far.

HAC 1.1 alpha 1

(only script version for now, included init.sqf with some config)

There is not much innovations, but required a large amount of code, so is a good time for the first alpha-test. In this version focused on the aspect of the movement (on foot and with caro units assistance) of units on the battlefield. Crushed quite a few bugs too.

About on foot movement: The method depends on the type of mission, the distance to the target and the situation on the battlefield (greater haste, if known enemy is close to the target point, to the unit itself or to commander). If the unit moves fast - provided brief rest stops.

About cargo movement: I allow for use both air and ground transport. Group will call for transport and wait for it if target point is far enough. If there is no cargo units available and target point is far, there will be assigned additional waypoint in half of the way with rest stop also speed may be set to "LIMITED". Utilized can be either empty vehicles, and, temporarily assigned to a group vehicles with crew. I advise not to place cargo units and other units too close together, it threatened impediments and collisions during loading. Suggests a spacing around 50 - 100 meters. Vehicle temporarily assigned will take unit to the destination or, if in the vicinity of the enemy, and if cargo unit is unarmed or aerial, disembark soldiers in the middle of the way. Then return to the starting point, or will move on to other tasks. In the event that either unit stuck along the way, there are some fuses impemented that call off mission, if the unit remains motionless for too long.

New config variables:

(default values ​​in brackets)

RydHQ_MAtt - (false) Switches on/off manually defining personality. If false - personality is randomized taking into account the whole package of attributes.

RydHQ_ExInfo - (false) - if true - leaderHQ receives information about the enemy also from excluded units.

RydHQ_UnlimitedCapt - (false) - Does the commander should withhold sending new units to the objective, once there is a certain number of them.

RydHQ_CaptLimit - (30) - What is the number of allied units (not groups) near the objective, that commander will consider as sufficient.

RydHQ_ResetTime - (600) - Interval between resets of some values (denoting executed reconnaissance etc.) in seconds.

RydHQ_CargoFind - (0) - radius in meters for search empty vehicles. Not recommend too large values - ​​can cause lags. When this variable is equal or less than 0, there is turned off whole cargo transportation system.

What interested me the most:

- exact version of the game used for the tests;

- presence of other addons (preferably none);

- short description of the set of mission (roughly the amount of units, their general nature, used cargo units, whatever you feel is important)

- whether there are error messages in the RPT, and if so - what errors (optimally a quote from a file)

- if noticed something undesirable;

- general impressions and observations

for example my own report:

Tested on: Arma 2 1.10;

other Addons: Duala Isle, nocutscenes;

mission: about 70 units per side, mostly infantry, cargo units: trucks and choppers, battle conducted on Duala;

RPT: clear;

other issues: choppers has sometimes tendency to blow itself up after unload on nearby trees or other obstacles. This is probably generic Arma 2 1.10 AI issue. Chopper not rises just after lifting off the ground before depart towards next waypoint;

Conclusion: helicopters are in action more showy, but trucks more efficient and reliable. Maybe would be possible to allocate to helicopters an additional waypoint located directly above them at safe height. Overall distribution of units across the battlefield is now more diverse and looks better. Script seems to work smoothly enough. Is allocated more attacks in the cycle.

EDIT: RydHQ_CargoFind is only for empty vehicles. Land cargo vehicles with crew are called in radius of 1000 meters, aerial - 3000 meters.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Rydygier

[mjolnir66 48]

Nice, just testing it now. Nice to see units walking in column, much more realistic. :D Also, is there a variable to reset the commander values manually rather than having to wait for x amount of time?

Also, is RydHQ_CargoFind measured in metres?

Edited January 5, 2012 by Mjolnir66

[Rydygier 1317]

There is no such variable, but this should be easy to implement. Yes, radius is in meters.

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

Tested on: Arma 2 1.10, ArmA 2 Operation Arrowhead 1.60

other Addons: none

mission: 71 units in total exactly on Takistan:

• 65 infantry
  
• 1 KAMAZ
  
• 1 Mi-8-MTV3
  
• 1 MVTR
  
• 1 MV-22
  
• 1 UH-1Y
  
• 1 BMP-3
  

RPT: clear

other issues: Tested this five times in total. During test where distance was completely cross map, units would use all transports except: BMP-3 & UH-1Y. Sometimes air units acted strange. First test everything was fine, second test not as much. Mi-8 on the second test loaded troops, then flew 50 meters, stopped, flew 50 more meters, stopped, etc. and did this for a few minutes. Eventually it just quit all together and dropped the troops off basically at the same place they started. Each test after that was one of two things, Mi-8 would either drop them off and return or continue flying until they were shot down, then let troops out. MV-22 would fly straight to the objective, but instead of landing, it just circled around it endlessly. Each time I tested it after that it would either land and let troops out, or just circle.

Conclusion: Helicopters were mostly unpredictable, you weren't really sure what was going on with them. Trucks however worked perfectly fine, they would move, drop troops off, then return.

EDIT:

Maybe make two separate cargo classes, one for boarding air units and one for ground units. This way, you are able to turn one of them off if you want to, ex: I want them to fly as opposed to boarding that vehicle because there could be enemy AT guns, etc.

Edited January 5, 2012 by stupidwhitekid75

[Rydygier 1317]

Thanks a lot. On mentioned strange choppers behavior I can add one thing - if there is an medevac chopper, often will be called to heal somebody and even, if there is cargo on board, will go and stop over wounded unit in Arma 2 1.10. When under fire or near enemy, choppers on cargo mission, especially unarmed, gone crazy and often abandon its target. This behavior:

Eventually it just quit all together and dropped the troops off basically at the same place they started.

is implemented for such problems backup system, otherwise chopper will to imprison group endlessly...

About MV-22 - it is a plane and HAC don't support planes landigs, beacuse they need for this specified airfield ID. Do not know, how to force them to land outside airport.

EDIT: or maybe it is considered by game as helicopter? I'm not sure...

Separate cargo class for aerial units is great idea. I suppose, that I can add an option that HAC no longer counted air or land units into cargo category.

About

units would use all transports except: BMP-3 & UH-1Y.

- these units are also cargo, but often HAC will assign them, as armed units, combat missions and may not be available for cargo missions. Edited January 5, 2012 by Rydygier

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

Thanks a lot. On mentioned strange choppers behavior I can add one thing - if there is an medevac chopper, often will be called to heal somebody and even, if there is cargo on board, will go and stop over wounded unit in Arma 2 1.10.

This is a good feature to have, it is one great step towards progress when it comes to healing units out on the battlefield, I wonder if something similar can be applied to MEDEVAC HMMWV/GAZ? One question though - Does the cargo on board only include troops grouped to the helicopter? Or does it act as a regular cargo unit and anyone can join it?

When under fire or near enemy, choppers on cargo mission, especially unarmed, gone crazy and often abandon its target. This behavior:

Eventually it just quit all together and dropped the troops off basically at the same place they started.

is implemented for such problems backup system, otherwise chopper will to imprison group endlessly...

The more I think about it the less I think this is a bad thing that it abandons its target, that way you don't end up losing both infantry and aircraft to enemy fire. I can think of several alternatives, though I don't know how they'd work out...

A) HAC commander quickly assigns evasive order, basically just throw the unit into behavior: "CARELESS" and speed: "FULL", then order it to move far away to the left or right of the enemy shooting at it, once its passed a safe distance it can return to original objective.

B) HAC determines what kind of threat is shooting at helicopter and makes decision based off of that.

Infantry = continue moving

Cars = Helicopter fall back 50-150 meters, drop off infantry and then assign them to deal with them. Chopper waits at position, once infantry eliminate threat, they re-board and continue moving

Light Armor = Helicopter fall back 100-200 meters, drop off infantry and then assign them to deal with threat. Chopper waits at position, once infantry eliminate threat, they re-board and continue moving on

Heavy Armor = Retreat

I don't know how easy it would be for you to implement this however, that's why I think that both air and ground classes would be the best decision. That way the player can decide whether or not he wants to deal with potential problems aircraft may cause.

About MV-22 - it is a plane and HAC don't support planes landigs, beacuse they need for this specified airfield ID. Do not know, how to force them to land outside airport.

I did not think of the MV-22 acting as a plane because of being tilt rotor and always starting out in helicopter mode, I understand how it would have trouble working out all the time, although I was able to get it to land for me once or twice at the end objective. Its rotors tilted upwards and it came down, dropped off infantry and flew off. This was hardly consistent though.

About

units would use all transports except: BMP-3 & UH-1Y.

- these units are also cargo, but often HAC will assign them, as armed units, combat missions and may not be available for cargo missions.

This is probably the best solution as well now that I think about it, transport units should be left the way they are, armed units are better off not picking up infantry so that they stay true to their original role unless of course infantry are grouped with them. I like this.

Keep up the great work!

[katipo66 94]

Hey man sounds great, would preset groups like motorized and mechanized infantry request transport if their transport is destroyed?

Also just a thought, could groups if they get below a certain level join another group if near by, for example group of nine wins an engagement but lose 6, could they team up with any other that may have lost units.

Would like to help beta test but still on holiday on beach

[Rydygier 1317]

This is a good feature to have, it is one great step towards progress when it comes to healing units out on the battlefield

It is, but it's not my job, it was already here... :)

One question though - Does the cargo on board only include troops grouped to the helicopter? Or does it act as a regular cargo unit and anyone can join it?

Medevacs are regular cargo units now, same as any other except mentioned heal behavior. This may, and probably will be changed so will be no longer cargo, when I implement to HAC medevac and logistic support handling.

A) HAC commander quickly assigns evasive order, basically just throw the unit into behavior: "CARELESS" and speed: "FULL", then order it to move far away to the left or right of the enemy shooting at it, once its passed a safe distance it can return to original objective.

B) HAC determines what kind of threat is shooting at helicopter and makes decision based off of that.

A - HAC can't react so quick, because it work in cyclic, no realtime control. In Arma2 1.10 even "CARELESS" may not help - unit still may react odd when under fire (land units in this mode then go prone, I think)

B - Hmm. This means an event handlers... EH are probably rather heavy, but most difficult will be implement proper reactions, because when chopper is under fire, ceases to listen to any waypoint based commands. Would have to completely disable choppers AI and control it manually, and that HAC should not do.. Will see, but small chances.

There is also option, that HAC will use choppers for cargo mission only, when there is no enemy nearby, and something similar is implemented - chopper will disembark group in half of the way, when there are enemies nearby target, but it is still not enough, HAC considered only known enemy units, and even in half the way often means in range of enemy weapons.

I think that both air and ground classes would be the best decision. That way the player can decide whether or not he wants to deal with potential problems aircraft may cause.

Not tested, but implemented already (it was easy and quick). With some variables air and/or land units can be easily removed from cargo units category in the next alpha.

---------- Post added at 20:23 ---------- Previous post was at 20:17 ----------

Hey man sounds great, would preset groups like motorized and mechanized infantry request transport if their transport is destroyed?

Script checks whether currently the group has its own transport, so will take into account loss of the vehicle.

Also just a thought, could groups if they get below a certain level join another group if near by, for example group of nine wins an engagement but lose 6, could they team up with any other that may have lost units.

Would like to help beta test but still on holiday on beach

Hmm. Merging of groups will be difficult - means saving in a special variable initial state of the group and cyclical comparing it with the current. It is possible, but ... Well. We'll see.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Rydygier