HETMAN - Artificial Commander

[euly 0]

The other thing is that you feel that by carrying out the Commander's instructions, you are contributing to the shape of the battle and its outcome. Non combat recon patrols have a reason - observe the enemy, contribute to the commander's knowledge, let the commander work out a plan, wait for his next instructions.

That's exactly why I believe HAC is the best script ever developed for ArmA (or at least, one of the best). HAC allows the player to be given commands, just like any other AI on the field, so the player is part of the action, rather than all the action revolving around the player's level of involvement.

I'm not a big fan of High Command because I'd rather watch the AI make it's own choices based on it's knowledge of the battlefield. One problem I do have with HAC, though, is it doesn't seem to help squads with organization. I see many squads have accidents because of issues such as motorized/mechanized vehicles running over friendly units and same-squad friendly fire incidents that occur because units are ignoring formation. I hope Rydygier implements more actions on the squad level to help units cancel orders that conflict with their abilities. I do use SLX and I've tried ASR_AI (Does anyone know if these conflict?), but I wish the AI was a bit more intuitive with orders issued by the commander, but maybe that's asking too much? I don't know. :cool:

[orcinus 121]

Vehicles running over friendly troops has become much more frequent since 1.60 along with generally much worse AI driving (not that it wasn't dire before!). Nothing HAC can do about that. Avoid placing motorised units close to grunts in the efitor.

Friendly fire incidents occur much more frequently if you set AI skills too low - check your settings. But they will occur anyway.

ASR_AI and COSLX are OK together, thpugh I only use a limited set of the SLX modules - ai_dodge, ai_findcover, slx_wounds, ai_noautoengage (reduces AI being sent off on SSS attacks). You need cloud, netcode & shout for this combo to work.

[euly 0]

I realize that vehicular accidents are mostly due to the game (as they've always been, even back in OFP days), but what I'm talking about is the formations and mode of travel. Even if I spread the groups out to keep them away from vehicles, they tend to run into each other in the process of moving to waypoints, which is why I picked-up on SLX because one of it's features is having the AI walk along the side of the road(?). I'm fairly certain that HAC could attempt to separate vehicle paths (not to extreme levels though), so tracked armor wouldn't have the high probability of vehicular manslaughter every time they drive by a squad walking down the road. I don't know, I'm fishing for ideas here on how to solve a problem I see way too often. If HAC can do things like avoid sending tanks into wooded areas, couldn't it avoid heavily trafficked roads?

I'm using the standalone SLX because Gunter hasn't put COSLX or CoWarMOD on Six Updater yet. I know I sound like a total noob with this stuff, but I've just been doing it too long without getting deeper into writing code. I didn't take the time to learn more scripting in my early 20's (with OFP), so now I'm paying the price.

[Rydygier 1302]

If HAC can do things like avoid sending tanks into wooded areas, couldn't it avoid heavily trafficked roads?

Method, that makes possible first thing (choosing target point in area of given topography/terrain) will not make possible the second one (pathfinding with traffic factor, route forcing etc). Such thing, interesting however, will need, I suppose, quite heavy scripting (constatly active "crowd" searcher or something). Sorry, if I disappoint, but not see, how this may be done in reasonable way. Also this is really not HAC's focus, such things. HAC will not to replace/fix vanilla AI behaviour, it is not an unofficial patch, that will repair everything and change Arma in something perfect. HAC is "only" a "waypoint giver", and how groups will fulfill own waypoint orders - this is another story. A fundamental HAC principle... And he gives only target waypoints (with one exception), so also pathfinding between start and end point isn't his concern. HAC assumes, that groups will act reasonable, and gives them orders with this assumption - it simulates commander of trained troops, not a babysitter for mindless idiots, that must be hand-holding, step by step... And if troops in Arma, especially drivers, often acts like drunk idiots... well, pity&shame. If I will try to do such AI driving/pathfinding fixes someday, then this will be separate addon, especially, that issues, that we are talking about, can be with every new patch changed/reduced/removed, which will make all made fixing work futile.

In other words: yes, technically, probably is possible, via combat mode, to make, that HAC will sent vehicles off-road, through "bushes and briars", so they will not kill foot troops on roads, or probably can same way make, that only vehicles will use roads, but this is unrealistic. Army will use roads for distant movements. Will not spread out and wade through the scrub and hills all the way, but only in battle, exactly in combat mode. Setting all in combat mode all the time, where roads are mostly ignored, is possible, but not good. Also will slow down greatly any movement because of combat mode specificity.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Rydygier

[orcinus 121]

In other words: yes, technically, probably is possible via combat mode to make, that HAC will sent vehicles off-road, through "bushes and briars", so they will not kill foot troops on roads, or probably can same way make, that only vehicles will use roads, but this is unrealistic. Army will use roads for distant movements. Will not spread out and wade through the scrub and hills all the way, but only in battle, exactly in combat mode. Setting all in combat mode all the time, where roads are mostly ignored, is possible, but not good.

And if you did it anyway, as soon as the grunts spread out on & off the roads in combat, the imbecile AI drivers would squish them anyway.

@lucidity: it's a problem in the game engine; a real solution will have to wait for BIS. Ryd is correct about patches breaking mods that address engine issues. Very much to the point, read the thread on SakuraChan's SakuDrive.

Also: COSLX is a major improvement on the original, with many bugs fixed. Not that big a download, & worth every byte :)

[jiltedjock 10]

hi, been playing this a lot over the last few days - one of those mods that makes you want to spend a lot of time trying things out (-:

One thing I have noticed is that I haven't yet seen HAC Garrison groups making any use of buildings (Takistan is where I have been doing most of my testing. The groups are properly named and they are showing as garrisoned in debug mode. But it seems they would rather occupy the areas outside.) My workaround is to use GL4 and have as much of it disabled as possible, then synchronize the GL4 Defend module with the groups that I want to occupy buildings defensively - GL4 is very good at getting units into buildings.

Looking at snkman's garrison function, the buildingpos searching etc in his code looks pretty extensive. I wonder if you could make use of any of his techniques to make the AI use buildings a bit more?

[Rydygier 1302]

Because of some code specificity, currently only "groups", that contain only one member will go inside buildings. Rest will man near static weaponry and will stay outside. Probably HAC's garrison routine can be better, and if can, then probably someday will be. :)

[jiltedjock 10]

Ah, ok, thanks for the answer (-:

[orcinus 121]

Ah, ok, thanks for the answer (-:

Have you tried using the latest asr_ai? - units enter buildings, snipe from rooftops, fire from windows, etc.; as well as some great improvements to stance & firing mode, especially for MG/AR & snipers.

[euly 0]

hi, been playing this a lot over the last few days - one of those mods that makes you want to spend a lot of time trying things out (-:

One thing I have noticed is that I haven't yet seen HAC Garrison groups making any use of buildings (Takistan is where I have been doing most of my testing. The groups are properly named and they are showing as garrisoned in debug mode. But it seems they would rather occupy the areas outside.) My workaround is to use GL4 and have as much of it disabled as possible, then synchronize the GL4 Defend module with the groups that I want to occupy buildings defensively - GL4 is very good at getting units into buildings.

Looking at snkman's garrison function, the buildingpos searching etc in his code looks pretty extensive. I wonder if you could make use of any of his techniques to make the AI use buildings a bit more?

I've noticed this as well. Placing guards/lookouts near towers tends to result in a high probability that they'll do what garrisoned units are supposed to do, but I think they overall general behavior is affected by the timing of HAC. Sometimes the units climb the towers and stay there; other times they don't climb the towers at all, and sometimes, they climb the towers, then climb back down and stay down.

I agree, GL4 does it effectively. Units climb buildings like ants, no matter how many are in the group, but I don't like blending HAC and GL4, so I just tend to not use guard towers with HAC. One thing I haven't tried yet is setting the units on top of the towers/buildings in the mission editor. I'm willing to bet they would climb down though, so I just stick to vehicle garrisons pointed in the direction I want them to face. I've also yet to see garrisoned units take missions.

[Rydygier 1302]

I've looked at GL4 garrisoning method. Seems to be nice, based on doMove - doStop, while HAC's method is based on setWaypointHousePosition. Because waypoints works with whole groups, so here is limitation for only one-member groups (otherwise, I think, all group will crowd around a single position...). Well. Probably should be possible replacing this method with more flexible doMove-doStop as one of future improvements, despite, that this is micro-AI level :P .

[jiltedjock 10]

Yes I use ASR AI too. The trouble is that it doesn't kick in until they are in combat mode.

What GL4 is good at is affecting the behaviour of units that are not in combat mode yet, which is more immersive if, say, you are observing them at a distance through binoculars. So in the case of the GL4 Defend module, distant enemies are likely to already be occupying buildings etc.

The biggest immersion killer in Arma for me is when you look at distant enemies and they are standing stock still in wedge formation.

Of course the issue with GL4 is that it can be a bit heavy on the FPS, even if you are only running the bits that you want. Robalo's code for the search nearby and the house search is nice and lightweight, it would be great if he did a Defend Module based on that, or created a new Defend variable within the ASR AI that could have an array of groups in it, where the AI would take up nearby buildingpos and stay there.

---------- Post added at 10:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 AM ----------

Or if HAC garrisoning was going to be changed, perhaps if the code:

searched for nearest building <200 metres that had 50% or more buildingpos in its index than units in the group, then 50% of the group moved to a random selection of the buildingpos array (I am no coder, as you might have guessed :) ). Robalo does something a little like this in his searchhouse function.

Edited July 10, 2012 by jiltedjock

[wolffy.au 9]

FYI - Rydygier's Big Boss of HETMAN Artificial Commander

http://www.ausarma.org/blog/4/entry-29-rydygiers-big-boss-of-hetman-artificial-commander/

[BasileyOne 10]

q: sorry for stupid question, but how HETMAN was compared to WOO ? :)

confused because partial similarity:-)

q: is there any chances to HETMAN become co-operate/join with/to A2Warmod ? :-)

[kremator 1064]

WOO puts the player in charge of all forces, HETMAN puts AI in charge of force deployment.

Shame that WOO wasn't further developed but I think Mondkalb said there were problems with stupid AI.

[Rydygier 1302]

That's right. I not used WOO (damn, when finally I'll have time to try this?), but I see, that WOO is kind of very special, RTS gameplay mode. Hetman is field commander-level (soon, hopefully, also higher) AI behavior enchancement. HAC is a smart "waypoint giver" for groups put under his control (as his "army" or "task force"), where his goal is to take all chosen for him objectives on map and to destroy all known enemies, all this in organized and sophisticated way. So he is using for that purpose flanking, reserves, logistics, transport handling and more. If there are any similarities, it can be only in the behavior of AI used in WOO.

(CO)WarMod is, if I'm not mistaken, big pack of chosen addons matched and optimized to work fine together. So as long there is no included in this compilation any addon, that will mess with group's waypoints (ask Gunter about that) - all pack should be fully compatibile with HAC. There is no need to merge/combine them, just play with both if you want.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Rydygier

[BasileyOne 10]

ok, tnx.

Warmod also include some WOO-alike portions/feats.

would be nice to see it in action together on Warfare maps ;)

about A2W, as i get it, after reading their frontpage [http://warmod.webs.com/]

A2Warmod comes in five-seven different flavors/builds/forks:

A1

A2

A2 with ACE

A2CO

A2CO with ACE

A2CO with Invasion 1944

both with or without SLX

some others i didn't uderstand properly

Edited July 29, 2012 by BasileyOne

[subroc 4]

Released Epic Battlefield System Scripted version and included support for HAC:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?137963-EBSS-Epic-Battlefield-System-Scripted-version&p=2197300#post2197300

[euly 0]

Will Big Boss replace the HAC system (will I be able to simply replace the HAC files), or will it need to be set up?

[orcinus 121]

(CO)WarMod is, if I'm not mistaken, big pack of chosen addons matched and optimized to work fine together. So as long there is no included in this compilation any addon, that will mess with group's waypoints (ask Gunter about that) - all pack should be fully compatibile with HAC. There is no need to merge/combine them, just play with both if you want.

Correct, though I'm not sure how Zeus will interact with HAC (I don't use Zeus any more).

[Rydygier 1302]

Will Big Boss replace the HAC system

This will be an optional addition, not replacement. A new feature. Currently objectives for each Leader are manually chosen by mission maker. BB will do this automatically and, hopefully, reasonable. Will also change objectives dynamically during gameplay until all points on map considered by him as strategic will be taken or when his forces will lose combat effectiveness. And for this purpose should use all "task forces" of given to him Leaders in coordinated manner. That is the plan - BB is the higher level HQ of a more general look over the whole battlefield, commanding the Leaders.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Rydygier

[euly 0]

This will be an optional addition, not replacement. A new feature. Currently objectives for each Leader are manually chosen by mission maker. BB will do this automatically and, hopefully, reasonable. Will also change objectives dynamically during gameplay until all points on map considered by him as strategic will be taken or when his forces will lose combat effectiveness. And for this purpose should use all "task forces" of given to him Leaders in coordinated manner. That is the plan - BB is the higher level HQ of a more general look over the whole battlefield, commanding the Leaders.

Sounds awesome. Though, I still enjoy having a unit on the map that represents a general or commander.

Is there any chance that some objectives could be reinforced by some simple means of garrisons? I ask because I've been using the CWR2 maps lately, specifically Kolgujev, which have lots of bases with guard towers. I'm hoping they could treat some objectives as bases by reinforcing them with look-outs, scouts, or patrols. I know this occurs on a nominal level currently, but the AI tends to be spread out and reammo, resupply, and refuel are way out in the middle of nowhere.

Maybe I'm all wrong, but it seems like the objectives are treated with little importance once they are captured. The commander does seem to try, but as I've played many hours of HAC in groups (not the leader), I've noticed that the problem tends to be forces are unable to move into position fast enough. Once forces enter the area, they simply park in whatever position is convenient. I enjoy playing a lower ranking unit in a large group, so what happens often is our group will be on foot patrol somewhere when we receive a capture order 2000+ meters away. If a chopper shows up for us and we're flown in, then timing is not a problem, else, we're stuck walking at-ease until the commander realizes we'll be there in an hour. If we are flown in, we just exit the helicopter and run into an open position and wait for new orders. I'm sure Orcinus will rip up my argument to make me sound like an idiot, but I don't know, it just feels like something better can be done once the AI captures objectives.

Also, remember to address the issue of non-destroyed enemy vehicles in the proximity of objectives. Even if the crew of the vehicle are dead, if the engine is running, the friendly AI seems to consider the vehicle enemy, but not a threat.

[Rydygier 1302]

Yep, I'm thinking about some kind of garrison handling for BB. Something like: objective captured? So we leave here as "garrisoned" eg. 5% non garrisoned yet groups (rounded down, so if force contain less than 20 gropus in this example, there will, be no garrison assigned, so no all forces should be spent on garrisons). Or something similar... Still garrison service, if no enemy nearby, will be very monotonous. :) The problem with HAC as a gaming tool is fact, that it tries to simulate in some degree real war course, and in real war, I think, most time is spent on sitting, waiting or marching very far, very slow. Only minority on killing and dying. Not so playable for guys, that want action, action and more action, still this depends on mission setup...

BTW

My current long-term plan looks as follows: to finish BB (in August perhaps? We will see) plus some minor things from to do list and slight code refreshment, then new HAC release. Next stage would be attempt to implement guerilla AI, but this still needs some thinking, so meanwhile will concentrate on some of my other projects/ideas (promised to some people Arma-chess, 2 or 3 SP missions on Chernaruss and Lingor, CEMS)... All dependent on my eagerness, which is changeable, and time. Well, I think, that when I finish with all stuff, I have in mind, no one will use it, as Arma3 will be released till then. :)

[euly 0]

Yep, I'm thinking about some kind of garrison handling for BB. Something like: objective captured? So we leave here as "garrisoned" eg. 5% non garrisoned yet groups (rounded down, so if force contain less than 20 gropus in this example, there will, be no garrison assigned, so no all forces should be spent on garrisons). Or something similar... Still garrison service, if no enemy nearby, will be very monotonous. :) The problem with HAC as a gaming tool is fact, that it tries to simulate in some degree real war course, and in real war, I think, most time is spent on sitting, waiting or marching very far, very slow. Only minority on killing and dying. Not so playable for guys, that want action, action and more action, still this depends on mission setup...

BTW

My current long-term plan looks as follows: to finish BB (in August perhaps? We will see) plus some minor things from to do list and slight code refreshment, then new HAC release. Next stage would be attempt to implement guerilla AI, but this still needs some thinking, so meanwhile will concentrate on some of my other projects/ideas (promised to some people Arma-chess, 2 or 3 SP missions on Chernaruss and Lingor, CEMS)... All dependent on my eagerness, which is changeable, and time. Well, I think, that when I finish with all stuff, I have in mind, no one will use it, as Arma3 will be released till then. :)

I'm sure porting HAC to ArmA 3 will be easy as the code will at least be legacy and, at that point, will need to be updated with new commands ArmA 3 introduces.

[instagoat 133]

I am wondering if there´s a way to handle large mixed-class units. For example, in one of my missions, I am running a company assault where the platoons are actually single units (so about 40 Units + 5 vehicles of different types in one group.)

Right now, the AI commander seems very reluctant to use these units, instead resorting to little 5 man SOF squads or units with few or no vehicles at all, or non-mixed vehicle units. So the bulk of the force gets left behind or LMCU´d while the recon squads do all capturing and fighting. I am currently trying to make a workaround by forcing the units trough the init.sqs with the RHQ_firsttofight thing to actually be used.

Have to say, I love this mod. Probably the greatest addition to Arma in ages for me.