ARMA series - Great Soldier Sim, not so great Tactical Shooter ?

[max power 21]

Hmm, ok... I should try high command first =)

Well, it's for the RTS type game. You can stack waypoints for whole units, not sub unit fireteams like you're talking about.

SWAT 4 had a really good and intuitive dynamic squad control system. Raven Shield aswell. Would be a dream to tell to a squad to clean a building and so.

Current A2 system isn´t good at this point.

I didn't like RS as much as I liked SWAT. SWAT was a really tight game and I didnt' feel like I needed to be into tactical pre planning in order to play it. There was still a certain exploration element to it which I found quite nice.

You definitely do lack the tactical option to clear a building in a coordinated way. On the plus side, you do have the tactical option to knock the whole building down. Fortunately, there's no HRUs in ArmA 2.

[froggyluv 2136]

CoC mod also has a more advanced waypoint system

Edited May 23, 2012 by froggyluv

[metalcraze 290]

Preplanning phase really doesn't fit the warfare in open areas.

In R6 you always have an idea where enemies are. It's really obvious to you judging from all the corridors where they may be.

ArmA is about conventional warfare mostly. How can you predict everything on a huge battlefield with so much free approach for both you and the enemy?

One of the things that I liked about CWC campaign is that a lot of missions never went according to plan. Which in retrospect is a point against R6 system being useful in a war simulation, unlike in a limited counter-terrorism operation.

CoC mod also has a more advanced on the waypoint system

There's no CoC mod for ArmA2 though.

SWAT 4 had a really good and intuitive dynamic squad control system.

That's how it seems to you because in SWAT4 all enemies are static turrets standing in one place all the time, waiting for you. It sure is easy to control your squad when nobody is trying to counter-attack you. I always wondered why an enemy facing a door with a gun and clearly hearing your team moving behind it, preparing to attack, even seeing the camera you insert below the door - never tries to blow your brains out by simply firing at a door.

They always wait until you'll storm in.

Edited May 23, 2012 by metalcraze

[Smurf 12]

Really? Have you played SWAT 4? I don´t think so because that is pure BS dude.

Enemies not only have a random placement but also roam around and react to the player's actions.

But I really don´t want to enter in a discussion with you.

[vini_lessa 10]

ignore this post.

Edited May 24, 2012 by vini_lessa

[MrBump 10]

That's how it seems to you because in SWAT4 all enemies are static turrets standing in one place all the time, waiting for you. It sure is easy to control your squad when nobody is trying to counter-attack you. I always wondered why an enemy facing a door with a gun and clearly hearing your team moving behind it, preparing to attack, even seeing the camera you insert below the door - never tries to blow your brains out by simply firing at a door.

They always wait until you'll storm in.

They're not static turrets, I've had to deploy door wedges to stop enemies from attacking my team from behind.

[vini_lessa 10]

Hehe, lot of familiar faces around here! Metal from the codex and Smurf from adrenaline, how are you guys ? ;)

Well, on the SWAT4 matter I think I agree more with Smurf, even if Metal has a good point. In my experience (finished Swat3 and reached mission 11 on Swat4 ) the enemies are in fact randomly placed and they DO react when they hear or sense you by opening/checking out doors, shouting things out ("what da fuck!?", "Who is there?", etc), and even panicking. On the other hand, I think they could be a bit smarter sometimes and actually shoot doors or look (and shoot) through windowns, etc.

Anyway, I think SWAT4 is the appex of CQB tactics, surpassing anything else (R6s and H&Ds included) in interface functionality and teammates AI behaviour. What brings us to my original point:

The degree of "tactical tightness" seen in SWAT3/4 is light-years ahead of ARMA´s. And by "tactical tightness" here I mean teammates responsiveness, precision in executing maneuvers, and capacity to react to new situations - I can play the game just giving orders and watching my teammates do it, and they will do their jobs most of the time. While in (vanilla) ARMA2 not only the command interface seems awkward and labour-intensive to operate (resulting in high-risk operation if you encounter yourself in a hot firefight), but the tactical behaviour of your teammates is inconsistent at best. God knows how many times in the SP campaign I tried to execute simple commands like suppress, fix-and-flank, cover, retreat, etc. just to see the AI not responding in the way I intended, or taking too long to do so, or simply not doing anything at all ! Its really frustrating, and ends up with me doing almost everything by myself and simply giving the most basic of commands to my teammates (like changing stances and RoE).

Now, I see 2 valid counterarguments here:

1. The ARMA series environment is much more complex than the other games cited. Thus its much more difficult for the AI to asess all variables involved in a fast and flawless manner, resulting in a more unpredictable and inconsistent tactical behaviour (but a more realistic one, one could argue). Well, I totally agree with this. At the same though, this argument somehow helps to validate my original point: the game´s drive for realism and simulation made its tactical aspect feel "fragile" in comparison to the other less "simulationistic" games.

2. "Vini you moron, you didnt play the game recently did you? They released a lot of patches and mods that enchance your teammates AI tactical behaviour greatly!". If thats really the case, please tell me. Because I played the hell out of ARMA2 when it came out (stopped in last mission due to a game-breaking bug) and in that state the AI really felt fragile tactically - I remember there was a suppresive-fire command that simply didnt work; there was this issue where no fast retreat was possible because the AI entered a "bounce-dancing" [playing "

" for those from Brasil :icon_mrgreen: ] whenever a enemy was nearby; I remember setting up and coordinating fireteams was a chore; And I remember the impossibility to give and stack waypoints on the map for them (the fireteams) to follow. If those things were addressed somehow, just tell me and I will gladly reassess the situation (I will even reinstall my game here).

P.S:

The problem with Rainbow Six's planning is that you can't change it mid-operation [you should be able to do it in realtime]

Ghost Recon does this. You dont have a "planning phase" like in R6, but you can create on-the-fly "plans" in a very easy manner - just set (stackable) waypoints, fire-arcs, RoEs, etc. and give "go-codes". And the game is set in open-area environments like ARMA (its a military engagement game, not a counter-terrorism one). Just remember to use some gfx enhancing mods if you try it today, because its from 2001 (same year as CWC).

P.S²:

This "CoC" mod seems exactly the thing that could enhance the command interface. Its not for ARMA 2 ?

[max power 21]

The ARMA series environment is much more complex than the other games cited. Thus its much more difficult for the AI to asess all variables involved in a fast and flawless manner

Well, that and there are only so many hours in a day, and money in the world. There's a reason games have a limited scope. BI are not, as some might propose, infinite monkeys sitting at infinite typewriters.

[Smurf 12]

Well, that and there are only so many hours in a day, and money in the world. There's a reason games have a limited scope. BI are not, as some might propose, infinite monkeys sitting at infinite typewriters.

Well, since OFP era we had mods that greatly enchace the AI in every aspect. Things like sharing informations, more efficient manouvers in overall, proper use of handgranades\GL\launchers, better use of buildings have been present in mods that have a limited scope to work with (engine wise) and somehow haven't been incorporated by the default game.

___

Well, Vini sums the "problem" very well: inconsistent AI (they are far from bad, but there is a huge room for improvment), no CQB habilities at all and problematic interface for control.

Hell, a high command like mode for your squad would make a huge difference.

[max power 21]

Well, since OFP era we had mods that greatly enchace the AI in every aspect. Things like sharing informations, more efficient manouvers in overall, proper use of handgranades\GL\launchers, better use of buildings have been present in mods that have a limited scope to work with (engine wise) and somehow haven't been incorporated by the default game.

___

Well, Vini sums the "problem" very well: inconsistent AI (they are far from bad, but there is a huge room for improvment), no CQB habilities at all and problematic interface for control.

Hell, a high command like mode for your squad would make a huge difference.

Probably because BI has certain design goals that are not compatible with hacking in external scripts? The AI does share information. In fact, it reports to an HQ about the things it sees and hears, and the HQ coordinates unit tasks. Since the OFP era I have not liked to play with AI enhancements despite trying many because I don't like them... although, maybe with A3's enemies with landwarrior type suits of armour some psychic AI script would make more sense.

Besides, taking external scripts would still require money, either to integrate, to hire the guy to rewrite it, or to buy it.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Max Power

[batto 17]

Well, that and there are only so many hours in a day, and money in the world. There's a reason games have a limited scope. BI are not, as some might propose, infinite monkeys sitting at infinite typewriters.

They should do it like Google

post count whore mode off

[Smurf 12]

Probably because BI has certain design goals that are not compatible with hacking in external scripts? The AI does share information. In fact, it reports to an HQ about the things it sees and hears, and the HQ coordinates unit tasks. Since the OFP era I have not liked to play with AI enhancements despite trying many because I don't like them... although, maybe with A3's enemies with landwarrior type suits of armour some psychic AI script would make more sense.

Besides, taking external scripts would still require money, either to integrate, to hire the guy to rewrite it, or to buy it.

You are aware that in most Ai mods they only share info (to actually help each other, not only to know whats going on) in a certain radius, right? Nothing about paranormal there.

And that is only one improvement, will you just ignore all the others and say that a full time employee can´t do what a random dude does in his free time?

And I forgot what I would write cause was in the RO2 topic.....

[metalcraze 290]

Enemies that are placed in their respective rooms will never go anywhere in SWAT4.

I've played through the half of it before getting bored and never did I see enemies trying to even counter attack.

[max power 21]

You are aware that in most Ai mods they only share info (to actually help each other, not only to know whats going on) in a certain radius, right? Nothing about paranormal there.

And that is only one improvement, will you just ignore all the others and say that a full time employee can´t do what a random dude does in his free time?

And I forgot what I would write cause was in the RO2 topic.....

What am I ignoring? I didn't realise we were in the middle of an argument where I need to pick up every example of every mod you make and write a counter answer. I answered you more generally. Let me rephrase it... or ARE you IGNORING it?

BI have a fixed budget, certain goals, a certain number of employees, and certain other factors. They decide what resources they have, what their goals are, and then they allocate 1 unit of resource per 1 unit of task until there are no resources left. Surely even you can't IGNORE that obviously they felt they had higher priorities to address than whatever it is you think is so easy that the community can just snap their fingers and make. Moreover, what about the computing resources? How much would it cost to make super macro, super micro AI, that can roam around a landscape and then come looking for you in houses like Sam Fischer? And if they did pour all of these resources into such a program, they need to replenish them with sales. How much would such a software cost? This brings us back to my infinite monkeys comment. This comment is about vast resources. If infinite monkeys on inifinite typewriters did eventually (instantaneously) create a simulator that was everything to everyone, you would probably need infinite monkeys printing money on infinite mints to pay for it.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Max Power

[Smurf 12]

What am I ignoring? I didn't realise we were in the middle of an argument where I need to pick up every example of every mod you make and write a counter answer. I answered you more generally. Let me rephrase it... or ARE you IGNORING it?

Nope. But you make it sound that this single feature would break everything and thou everything else should be dropped.

rest

Its not about making EVERTHING, but replicate what have been done in the pas ELEVEN years. Again, if someone can do those amazing stuff in his free time, why a full time employee, designated to do such thing that have acess to the actual source\core of the game, can´t ?

This protecionism towards BIS is making me sick. They are a great developer (probably the best all around), making a game that no one else dare to do, have a great post sale support but the lack of little things that have been done over and over again and only would improve the game just......ahh forget it. Made my point already and the topic went kind offtopic anyway.

Enemies that are placed in their respective rooms will never go anywhere in SWAT4.

I've played through the half of it before getting bored and never did I see enemies trying to even counter attack.

Well, we've must been playing different games. Actually, from our previous discussions and other post around the forum I think we live in diferent universes.

[MrBump 10]

Enemies that are placed in their respective rooms will never go anywhere in SWAT4.

I've played through the half of it before getting bored and never did I see enemies trying to even counter attack.

So you're claiming something in a game that you've hardly played, I bet you didn't even play at Elite level with the more aggressive AI. I've played through SWAT 4 many times over and I've seen it happen often, it's the reason there are door wedges. Would an example from youtube change your mind?

[max power 21]

Nope. But you make it sound that this single feature would break everything and thou everything else should be dropped.

Its not about making EVERTHING, but replicate what have been done in the pas ELEVEN years. Again, if someone can do those amazing stuff in his free time, why a full time employee, designated to do such thing that have acess to the actual source\core of the game, can´t ?

You're obviously not getting it. Read the words and please attempt to understand them at least. You're hanging on to the wrong statements. I'm not making a logical argument based on infinity. I was just using that as a metaphor because I was exploring an idea creatively. In plain english: There is a hierarchy of goals, and based on that hierarchy, they chose what they wanted to allocate their resources to. Period. Obviously what they wanted to achieve was higher up their cost/benefit/pragmatic analysis- or even based on the potential of future development of a certain idea. It's not that they can't, it's that they choose other priorities.

edit: I don't see what's an inherent value statement in that explanans. Based on factors, they chose. Whether you like what they chose are not, it's up to you.

This protecionism towards BIS is making me sick. They are a great developer (probably the best all around), making a game that no one else dare to do, have a great post sale support but the lack of little things that have been done over and over again and only would improve the game just.......

What protectionism? I think you're not only not reading what I'm writing but actually putting stuff in there that isn't there. I guess, to come at it from another angle, just for fun, what would you cut from the game to integrate this AI?

Edited May 24, 2012 by Max Power

[mr burns 132]

Happens all the time, AI in SWAT 4 qualify as sneaky bastards :D

[onlyrazor 11]

Happens all the time, AI in SWAT 4 qualify as sneaky bastards :D

Also, they have an affinity for standing in doorways, usually right in front of grenades.

[Smurf 12]

You're obviously not getting it.

I am. It is a question of time/money for each feature versus their priority in doing so. Nothing fancy about it, that's how everything in the business world work.

Mine is, if that have been done before (read: shouldn´t be that time\money expensive), it works (to a degree in some cases, but hey, we are still beta testing some stuff..), every iteration of the series spawn the same type of mods (means that people want it), why not make it default?

I am not discording from you, actually I agree, just adding a question to it; One that only the play callers at BIS can answer.

[metalcraze 290]

So you're claiming something in a game that you've hardly played, I bet you didn't even play at Elite level with the more aggressive AI. I've played through SWAT 4 many times over and I've seen it happen often, it's the reason there are door wedges. Would an example from youtube change your mind?

If completing 10 missions is not properly playing then what is a "properly played" then? Completing it several times?

Yes please give me a video example where AI in SWAT4 bothers to counter-attack or outmanouver the player.

[maturin 12]

SWAT 4 features armed criminals, not squads of enemy soldiers. The AI runs all the fuck over the place once the shooting stops, but this tends to be more individual evasion than tactical movement. And I can see this from a few LPs.

[MrBump 10]

If completing 10 missions is not properly playing then what is a "properly played" then? Completing it several times?

Properly played? What on Earth are you talking about?

Yes please give me a video example where AI in SWAT4 bothers to counter-attack or outmanouver the player.

Nice try, but if you do actually want a video that refutes your statement that "Enemies that are placed in their respective rooms will never go anywhere in SWAT4." and I'll happily to provide one.

[vini_lessa 10]

Another game that I feel deserves mention for its "tactical tightness" is GRAW2 (for X360, not the PC version). Despite some console trappings, its tactical aspect is one of the best Ive seen (easily the best there is for a console ), and a great example of easiness of use and responsiveness we´re talking about here.

P.S: tried to play Rogue Spear here but no sucess. The game wont run on Win7 with ATI cards. Damn. :(

Edited May 25, 2012 by vini_lessa

[batto 17]

P.S: tried to play Rogue Spear here but no sucess. The game wont run on Win7 with ATI cards. Damn. :(

You better get Raven Shield. It should be like Rouge Spear with enhancements. I plan to buy it too in some way where my money will not go to Ubisoft.