HETMAN - Artificial Commander

[orcinus 121]

BTW: Orcinus, I have pretty nead idea for more immerse respawn then just using DAC. I will put it in words and pretty pictures and will send you PM. You know more about scripting then I do, so you could judge if my idea is feasible.

Umm, I think you're in danger of over-estimating my scripting skills - I'm very much a beginner. However, please do PM me - I would love to see what you're planning.

On another note, using DAC with HAC can alleviate the issues some players have raised about the delay before any contact occurs. Set up the DAC bases near the respective commanders and just inside the waypoint zone; set a delay before HAC activates; then play around both with how far the respective waypoint zones extend towards the opposing sides, & with the delay setting (you will need to edit the init to allow HAC commanders to get intel from all allied units/groups). Contacts made before &/or while HAC takes over seem to get passed to HAC & groups are ordered into the fray (while others are still pulled back). This will be clearer when I post my basic HAC-DAC beta as you'll be literally able to see what I mean. Caveat: I haven't had time to test it with the new HAC release yet but don't expect it to be much different, if at all.

BR

Orcinus

[KeyCat 131]

Thanks for the update Rydygier! Looking forward to see all improvements in action....

/KC

[DomZ 15]

Thanks your program makes the game much more fun. Is it ok if I create extra missions with it as examples and playable missions and demos as examples with further High Command Extension releases? I've made some already to play at home that seem to play well for 2 hour games. Will credit you and recommend HAC.

[Rydygier 1317]

Sure, DomZ. It is absolutely OK to use HAC in demo missions for yours releases. I'm very happy whenever HAC is useful to others in their projects. Among other reasons (like huge bags of dollars, immortal glory and such stuff...), for this purpose I created HAC, that people have used it. :) Of course I will be grateful if you recommend HAC.

[abdel 1]

Hello guys,

Just wondering, under what RHQ array shall the 9K22 Tunguska fall?

I can't find a Light armored array for AAs.

Thanks in advance.

[Rydygier 1317]

Well. RHQ_LArmor and RHQ_AAInf or only RHQ_AAInf if should be used by HAC only against air forces. There is no separate RHQ for AA vehicles beacuse RHQ_AAInf is covering also AA vehicles: Ural Zu-23, ZSU, Avenger and Tunguska. I know, this is misleading. There will be changed info in manual about that, because not only unarmored AA vehicles should be assigned here, but all of them. Thanks for good question. :)

EDIT: also, I see, there is needed correction in AAInf and ATInf RHQs description. Of course only AA/AT infantry should be included also to Inf category, unarmed vehicles to Cars, and armoured AA to LArmor.

EDIT2: just tought it would be nice to be able also to subtract given category from internal category array. Someone for example may want to exclude GRAD from Cars category, so become only Art unit and so on without HAC files editing. Will try to implement such option.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Rydygier

[abdel 1]

Rydygier thanks for your reply, Good idea you got there !!!

Best of luck with your modding =D

[KeyCat 131]

Just spent 1+ just looking at the AI fighting a war on Chernarus, excellent work Rydygier! I did noticed a couple of wierd things that I will list below, not sure if they are bugs/issues or by design?

1. Armoured vehicle crew members disembarks along with the infantry when reaching their destination (the one I observed was a US AAVP7A1).

2. UH1-Y heli reaching the Rec X point but did not land to unload the infantry, it just hovered ~1 m above ground for 1 min then took off again.

Thanks again for this great stuff and I'm looking forward to whatever you may release next!

/KC

[sbua16 19]

2. UH1-Y heli reaching the Rec X point but did not land to unload the infantry, it just hovered ~1 m above ground for 1 min then took off again.

/KC

I've also had this error, though the Helicopter stayed there hovering indefinitely for the rest of the mission with the AI commander constantly ordering a disembark and getting a 'negative' as a reply. It probably has something to do with the fact the Heli was hovering over some difficult terrain, possibly?

[Rydygier 1317]

@KeyCat

Yeah, cargo system is most troublemaking part of HAC and probably always will be. :)

Choppers as cargo vehicles sometimes do such strange things. But this was recon mission, there is no assigned external cargo for such mission, therefore this UH1-Y was probably sent as air recon unit and just did its job... Disembarking crew however is something unexpected. I have seen something similar long time ago, fixed, and hoped, that this will not occur again. This was AAV grouped with infantry or used as external assigned cargo transport? Can you say, what kind of mission it was? Take a look at this...

---------- Post added at 22:53 ---------- Previous post was at 22:50 ----------

I've also had this error, though the Helicopter stayed there hovering indefinitely for the rest of the mission with the AI commander constantly ordering a disembark and getting a 'negative' as a reply. It probably has something to do with the fact the Heli was hovering over some difficult terrain, possibly?

I learned a fatalistic approach to the helicopters. In their case, everything is possible. Therefore, the cargo system is disabled by default, you can also deactivate separately air or land transport. Lack of convenient landing nearby is rather probable explanation.

EDIT: All right. Just reproduced issue with disembarking AAV crew. This occurs when AAV is grouped with infantry (I suppose, that same issue will occur for other grouped cargo vehicles). However then team leader issus order to two of crewman to get in. I have a theory, what may cause this, so will check and try to fix this.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Rydygier

[KeyCat 131]

Choppers as cargo vehicles sometimes do such strange things. But this was recon mission, there is no assigned external cargo for such mission, therefore this UH1-Y was probably sent as air recon unit and just did its job...

Thanks for clarifying.

Disembarking crew however is something unexpected. I have seen something similar long time ago, fixed, and hoped, that this will not occur again. This was AAV grouped with infantry or used as external assigned cargo transport? Can you say, what kind of mission it was? Take a look at this...

Unfortunately I don't know if the AAV was grouped with infantry or not. It was the complex demo mission I tested with tonight. I will set up my own HAC test mission (the complex demo is a bit to much for my current rig) coming weekend and post here if I see it again (hopefully with some more info).

Thanks again for making and sharing!

/KC

Edited February 16, 2012 by KeyCat

[Rydygier 1317]

I think, that this crew disembark issue is fixed for next release, HAC 1.11, although new disembarking code was tested for now only once. Thanks for reporting.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Rydygier

[humvee28 10]

Well. RHQ_LArmor and RHQ_AAInf or only RHQ_AAInf if should be used by HAC only against air forces. There is no separate RHQ for AA vehicles beacuse RHQ_AAInf is covering also AA vehicles: Ural Zu-23, ZSU, Avenger and Tunguska. I know, this is misleading. There will be changed info in manual about that, because not only unarmored AA vehicles should be assigned here, but all of them. Thanks for good question. :)

EDIT: also, I see, there is needed correction in AAInf and ATInf RHQs description. Of course only AA/AT infantry should be included also to Inf category, unarmed vehicles to Cars, and armoured AA to LArmor.

EDIT2: just tought it would be nice to be able also to subtract given category from internal category array. Someone for example may want to exclude GRAD from Cars category, so become only Art unit and so on without HAC files editing. Will try to implement such option.

So, to simplify this in a short manner, we could say that you have to enter the Unit in the Fields which it will "fit in", e.g :

- UAV : MQ9 Predator (unarmed Air Recon Unit) --> RHQ_Recon, RHQ_Air, RHQ_RAir, RHQ_NCAir

- Helicopter : UH60M BlackHawk (Air Transport Support Unit) --> RHQ_Air, RHQ_Support, RHQ_Cargo

It seems like that these "correct" Entries are essential for HETMAN, to use the Units the right Way.

[Rydygier 1317]

- UAV : MQ9 Predator (unarmed Air Recon Unit) --> RHQ_Recon, RHQ_Air, RHQ_RAir, RHQ_NCAir

- Helicopter : UH60M BlackHawk (Air Transport Support Unit) --> RHQ_Air, RHQ_Support, RHQ_Cargo 

Exactly.

It seems like that these "correct" Entries are essential for HETMAN, to use the Units the right Way.

This is true. Simply by RHQ_ (from next release also by RHQs_) you telling HAC, what kind of unit is this, what it can and what not. Also, if someone is sure what he does, and he knows well enough "way of thinking" of HAC, can this way to manipulate within certain limits behavior of groups controlled by the HETMAN (when and how they are used).

---------- Post added at 11:13 ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 ----------

Maybe some funny example: try to put into RHQ_BAir (bombers) and, if needed, subtract from other classes when RHQs_ will be introduced, some sniper class (RHQ_BAir = ["SomeSniperClass"]; RHQs_Snipers = ["SomeSniperClass"]; RHQs_Inf = ["SomeSniperClass"];). Why? Because bombers, unlike other planes, receives "destroy" waypoint attached to given enemy group teamleader's vehicle. This way is possible to make HAC will send some alone sniper with assassination mission. :) Of course there is some risk, that Team leader of chosen hostile group will be in some tank or Car, because air units are often used against such enemy, then sniper become useless, but if enemy forces are only on foot infantry... (not tested, I don't now if this will work fine, for example sniper will be running all the way, and may approach to close to enemy before will use weapon...)

Edited February 17, 2012 by Rydygier

[humvee28 10]

Helicopter : UH60M BlackHawk (Air Transport Support Unit) --> RHQ_Air, RHQ_Support, RHQ_Cargo 

RHQ_Support shouldn´t be used for Transport Helos. Otherwise they´re only moving like other Support Vehicles (Ammo-Trucks etc.), but doesn´t picking up Troops.

New tested Arrays are : RHQ_Air, RHQ_NCAir, RHQ_Cargo, RHQ_NCCargo. Behaviour is very good now (Picking up Troops, Transport to Objective, Back to Base, and the same again). :)

[Rydygier 1317]

Helicopter : UH60M BlackHawk (Air Transport Support Unit) --> RHQ_Air, RHQ_Support, RHQ_Cargo 

RHQ_Support shouldn´t be used for Transport Helos. Otherwise they´re only moving like other Support Vehicles (Ammo-Trucks etc.), but doesn´t picking up Troops.

New tested Arrays are : RHQ_Air, RHQ_NCAir, RHQ_Cargo, RHQ_NCCargo. Behaviour is very good now (Picking up Troops, Transport to Objective, Back to Base, and the same again). :)

Great. MH60S for example is for HAC also support by default (for those, who wants aerial medevac for USMC and just because it IS support vehicle in Arma). With soon available RHQs may be easily excluded from support array, so will be not used by HAC for support missions, still when flying over injured troops may be redirected for medevac action, because this is generic Arma behavior.

[humvee28 10]

Great. MH60S for example is for HAC also support by default (for those, who wants aerial medevac for USMC and just because it IS support vehicle in Arma). With soon available RHQs may be easily excluded from support array, so will be not used by HAC for support missions, still when flying over injured troops may be redirected for medevac action, because this is generic Arma behavior.

That would be a great Solution, cause it´s one of the things that aren´t steerable by now with given Arrays and Variables. :)

I´ve tested HAC with FAW today, and it´s great. Thanks for that nice Piece of Work!

Have to setup the FO Mode by now, to prevent that every Rifleman is calling in Arty. :D

[abdel 1]

Rydygier, I've been wondering if you can implement a Special Forces Mission to HAC, for example a specific array for special forces units would include Spec Ops Units, then we can make a trigger that assigns a special forces objective.

For example, I want a spec ops team to destroy a scud and only this spec ops team can attack not any other unit.

[orcinus 121]

Rydygier, I've been wondering if you can implement a Special Forces Mission to HAC, for example a specific array for special forces units would include Spec Ops Units, then we can make a trigger that assigns a special forces objective.

For example, I want a spec ops team to destroy a scud and only this spec ops team can attack not any other unit.

If you are planning to lead that team, it's fairly easy. Give your leader unit a name & add that name to the HAC excluded array. Put the Scud unit somewhere that isn't visible to the allied troops (Scuds are not front-line weapons at all, they are long-range & would always be sited well away from any fighting). The Scud unit would best be excluded from the enemy HAC - apart from the difficulty of finding it if the enemy leader keeps moving it around, a Scud landing on your HQ & Leader might make for a rather short mission (hmm - some evil ideas just started bubbling away in my mind). Give your team a way point as near or as far from the Scud as you like. You might want to add a trigger that includes your team in HAC once the Scud is destroyed.

It's trickier if you want the Spec Ops team to be AI led - you'ld have to give it a route that skirts the enemy positions before it attacks, with stealth & hold fire orders at the least. If they do make contact, & aren't alll killed off, you'ld likely need to implement some way of having them run away as fast as possible before resuming the task. I've never tried to design a mission with an all-AI Spec Ops team, so I'm pretty hazy about the mechanics, or what the chances of success would be.

BR

Orcinus

[abdel 1]

Orcinus, Thanks for your reply.

The AI led team isn't my Aim, but that Exclude RHQ Array is a good idea, I would love to have a trigger that brings me into the leader's command.

Perhaps you tell how to make such a trigger, I'm very bad with scripting and stuff :D

Regards,

[DaveP 66]

An interesting subsystem for HETMAN would be a guerilla/insurgency routine that could be run under a certain personalities/loss states

Units would resupply with booby traps (IED's, at mines, etc) and then plant them on locations where enemy forces have been and withdrawn from, have a strong prevelance towards run and gun attacks and ambushes rather than straight on engagements -as per one of the existing personalities (I forget the name of)

[Rydygier 1317]

Orcinus, Thanks for your reply.

The AI led team isn't my Aim, but that Exclude RHQ Array is a good idea, I would love to have a trigger that brings me into the leader's command.

Perhaps you tell how to make such a trigger, I'm very bad with scripting and stuff :D

Regards,

For group exclusion input this in init HAC config (version for "A" Leader):

RydHQ_Excluded = [NameOfLeaderOfSpecOpsGroup];

And the trigger for example:

Condition field (should be not default "this"):

not (alive NameOfScud);

or

(damage NameOfScud) >= 0.9;

Act field:

RydHQ_Excluded = [];

Not tested, but should work.

You also should to exclude Scud from opponent Leader control (init config for "B" Leader version):

RydHQB_Excluded = [NameOfScud];

or

Scud's init field:

ScudGroup = group this;

and HAC init:

RydHQB_ExcludedG = [scudGroup];

Without separate RHQ array with Scud's class name Scud will be not recognized by HAC, but still my receive idle orders if not excluded.

---------- Post added at 00:32 ---------- Previous post was at 00:28 ----------

An interesting subsystem for HETMAN would be a guerilla/insurgency routine that could be run under a certain personalities/loss states

Units would resupply with booby traps (IED's, at mines, etc) and then plant them on locations where enemy forces have been and withdrawn from, have a strong prevelance towards run and gun attacks and ambushes rather than straight on engagements -as per one of the existing personalities (I forget the name of)

This is something to think about, still looks not easy. Maybe in some future versions, but no promises...

Edited February 18, 2012 by Rydygier

[Rydygier 1317]

Some ideas to which I came, thinking about this "Insurgency mode".

1. Probably there should be another, ninth Leader with hardcoded such behaviour, dedicated for guerilla/insurgency forces commanding, based on infantry and maybe cars (I wonder, if is possible to change for example LeaderB to LeaderIns during game with all consequences, I'm not sure yet, but this will make concept more flexible);

2. This mode if possible, will consist of following behaviours and routines, similar, as you said, DaveP:

a) recon on concealed, but with good view forward (towards single objective, that will mark overal direction/sector of operations) positions (for example forest on elevated position) to follow the movement of enemy;

b) attack missions will be designated only in chosen previously, large area ("fronts" should be ideal) or in favorable terrain with no wide field of view or/and with many hidings, and will be conducted different than usual. Infantry will fire at enemy from larger distances and quicly to withdraw after given time or when enemy will close to much (hit&run tactics). Problem is, that infantry in Arma aren't so willing to withdraw/run away when engaged in fire fight even in "safe/blue" mode.

c) most sophisticated and hard to implement will be ambush behaviour. For this purpose Ins Leader must to know: where enemy is, to where enemy goes and which route will choose. Then should to recognize good ambush spot (slopes, rocks, trees, buildings nearby road at probably enemy route, and maybe with mission designer's help - additional, optional triggers to mark chosen by mission maker for that purpose spots) and must do this quick enough (hardest, I think, to achieve). Next should to place IEDs and so on on road and withdraw quickly or hide on ambush positions. I think, that this will be rather scripted explosives than visible objects (plus real mines and pipebombs perhaps) with trigger containing proximity condition and executing some explosion script.

d) there should be no defend or capturing behaviour, only fluid movements here and there, rapid attacks from nowhere/everywhere and equally rapid retreat (as said this may prove impossible). "Be flexible as the willow, to defeat the enemy" or "Oak in the gale breaks, and the reed only bends" etc :).No external cargo for maximize stealth factor, support only in selected randomly spots somwhere deeply behind...

Hmm... Something else important?

Edited February 19, 2012 by Rydygier

[kremator 1065]

Hmm... Something else important?

If you could knock all of that up by teatime please :) Just kidding mate...... keep on the good work !

[orcinus 121]

For group exclusion input this in init HAC config (version for "A" Leader):

RydHQ_Excluded = [NameOfLeaderOfSpecOpsGroup];

And the trigger for example:

Condition field (should be not default "this"):

not (alive NameOfScud);

or

(damage NameOfScud) >= 0.9;

Act field:

RydHQ_Excluded = [];

.

One small point: that act field entry will work fine as long as NameOfLeaderOfSpecOpsGroup was the only group excluded. If abdel is excluding other [allied] groups and doesn't want them all released to HAC at the same time, that empty array will need to list all the groups that are to remain excluded.

---------- Post added at 02:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------

If you could knock all of that up by teatime please :) Just kidding mate...... keep on the good work !

Heh, it took Ryd just 4 minutes to think up that schema - including posting time! Still, tea-time does seem a bit unlikely :)