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

[vini_lessa 10]

Hello there boys and girls,

Im on that period of the year (again) when I must play a lot of tactical shooters. Thus Ive been playing Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, GRAW, SWAT, Full Spectrum Warrior, Hidden & Dangerous, etc. for the last weeks. And I noticed something interesting that I would like to share, and hear your opinions about.

See, all the games cited have, in their single-player modes, have very efficient squad-based tactical functionalities - you issue orders through a simple and intuitive interface and your teammates (in general) execute it quickly and precisely. In ArmA/OFP:CWC, though, the tactical aspect always felt very unreliable to me: the interface is convoluted, making the issuing of orders and management/coordination of your soldiers/fireteams very awkward and slow ("weapons hold, go to house, turn north, lay low, weapons free"). And the teammates behave erraticaly at best - I remember simple commands like suppressive fire, flank, take cover, etc. being executed poorly, with teammates sometimes taking too long to follow the order, and other times simply doing anything at all (eg: one issue I remember is the impossibility to make a quick retreat in ARMA2 because your teammates would adopt a slow "bouncing-dance" advancing if there are enemies around; ). So the overall feel is that, despite being an unsurpassed experience in the sense of "being there" in the skin of a real soldier in a real war, the series always had a somewhat inconsistent and unreliable tactical aspect.

This always made me consider it a great soldier sim, but a not so great tactical shooter, if that makes any sense.

What are your opinions on it ?

[jakerod 254]

I only really remember SWAT 4 because that is the one that I have played recently. I feel that ArmA gives you better overall control of units with the added "bonus" of uncertainty. Like in Rainbow Six (the original that I played anyway) you could only move guys in teams before the mission and you had to plan it out and execute and even then the AI wouldn't always use the best clearing tactics. Full Spectrum Warrior seemed quite limited to me. Ghost Recon I feel was similar to Rainbow Six but you could order them around in real time.

SWAT 4 the AI is still unreliable. I've had men die or do other stupid things a number of times when it should've been easy for them (ex. flashbanging the SWAT team instead of the enemy). I think certain tactical aspects of ArmA could be better but I don't think I would trade it for another game's.

[mr burns 131]

Remember all the games mentioned and still like playing them.

Yet i don´t see any of it coming to arma, mainly because of borderline stupid AI which you´ll never want to have on your own side/team.

Coop is (borderline) fine, but depending on "2 - cannot get there!" for a full fledged SP thing that does´nt feel anything near as good as OFP did, i´ll pass.

Just saying it´s not an issue with overlays, gui's or planning tools - rather than the gameplay mechanics that happen in execution.

[max power 21]

I think they always billed it as a combat sim. I'm not exactly sure what tactical shooter means, but if it means a lot of CQC functionality, then the answer is self evident. ArmA's action still exists on a tactical scale, though.

[instagoat 133]

Arma is about open spaces. The other games are almost exlusively about CQC. They excel there, while Arma excels at the open spaces. It´s still tactical. And many people would like it to be a proper soldier sim down to the nuts and bolts, but thankfully it isn´t quite there yet.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

There are a lot of facets of warfare that the ArmA series does much better than all those games listed. Sadly, CQB isn't one of them.

[NielsS 10]

Those games you mentioned all have scripted AI. Meaning they follow certain scripts and use predefined pathways to get where they going. It may look tactical but that's because it has all been planned out with the developement of those games. There's no actual real AI. Arma's AI is unscripted and therefore a bit unpredictable but is in a sense much more tactical than those games mentioned as they use real tactics to perform the orders you give them. It's unpredictability however can cause some frustration but i found that when you divide them into small groups they tend to behave a bit better then when u use them as a hole squad.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Arma's AI is unscripted and therefore a bit unpredictable...

If it's not scripted than what is it? Surely you aren't suggesting that it's real "AI" that BIS has in their game. I mean, if private and public universities with their millions in grants can't create AI, what makes you think BIS could? Hell, it took them 10 years to finally fix warping, but you want me to believe they have "AI" that's not "scripted"?

[kireta21 13]

If it's not scripted than what is it? Surely you aren't suggesting that it's real "AI" that BIS has in their game.

In gaming world, "scripted" means "by mission script".

[metalcraze 290]

If it's not scripted than what is it? Surely you aren't suggesting that it's real "AI" that BIS has in their game. I mean, if private and public universities with their millions in grants can't create AI, what makes you think BIS could? Hell, it took them 10 years to finally fix warping, but you want me to believe they have "AI" that's not "scripted"?

10 years? It was broken in ArmA2 bro. Or at least I don't remember OFP having such issues.

There are a lot of facets of warfare that the ArmA series does much better than all those games listed. Sadly, CQB isn't one of them.

There were a lot of times when I shot a guy less than 5-15m away from me. Likewise I was shot by a guy less than 5-15m away from me.

If that's still not CQB to you then what is? Hugging the enemy?

Edited May 23, 2012 by metalcraze

[Tijai 1]

I think the ArmA engine certainly gives you more control over your AI than the other games you mentioned.

The trick is finding the unpredictabilities (is that a real word?) and working with or around them.

There are alot of posts and tutorials on AI and mods which improve some aspects.

For example I use the zp_at fix mod and have it signed on our server as I hate the fact that the ai will use their longest range weapon to engage far enemies which is usually the AT launcher.

This of course waste that vital resource unecessarily.

Up to now it seems to work.

There are many other little tweaks around like this to customise the game to your requirements.

Dont think any other game has this expandability.

[metalcraze 290]

ZP_at fix needs more customization itself.

Since rockets being fired at infantry is something I began to notice in OA most of all I take it it was BIS trying to let takistani insurgents use RPGs against infantry (which is what insurgents in Asia/Africa do actually). The problem is that BIS made all sides act like that not just insurgents. And zipper's fix makes everyone not act like that.

I don't mind some BlackHawkDown-style RPG hell once in a while you know.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

There were a lot of times when I shot a guy less than 5-15m away from me. Likewise I was shot by a guy less than 5-15m away from me.

If that's still not CQB to you then what is?

I would suggest there is a lot more to CQB than simply expending rounds at 5 - 15m, and also that I said CQB is one of the facets that the ArmA series doesn't do well, not that it isn't done at all.

To further detail my statement, where the ArmA series falls down in CQB is in the movement of units in close terrain, particularly AI (who often refuse to participate at all where buildings are involved, whether mounted or on foot) and a lack of responsiveness/interruptibility in avatar animations which, at the ranges you describe, become fatal errors.

[batto 17]

I think what OP means isn't CQB exclusive. In ArmA you can give single order at a time to units. In real life you could say "go to that hill, cover us till we apporach LZ, then regroup". I'm not sure how it's done in real military but I think it's better to tell short but a little bit more complex plan in cover before going to danger than issuing order while under fire (and you know the sequence of orders you'll issue before you advance).

In R6 (Rouge Spear) "wait till we do something complex that you stupid AI can't understand" would translate to "wait for code alpha/beta/gama/delta".

Yeah, something like this would be cool. Going to ArmA3 wishlist thread soon =).

EDIT: You can argue that I should wait till my units get to the hill before advancing but I may be changing my position with rest of my group in cover in the meantime (eg. being busy).

Edited May 23, 2012 by batto

[NielsS 10]

If it's not scripted than what is it? Surely you aren't suggesting that it's real "AI" that BIS has in their game. I mean, if private and public universities with their millions in grants can't create AI, what makes you think BIS could? Hell, it took them 10 years to finally fix warping, but you want me to believe they have "AI" that's not "scripted"?

"Scripted AI" means that NPC's use predefined pathways to move around and perform actions with triggers and scripts. For example a soldier is in a room, the predefined pathways tell him to move around the room and he will always use the same route. A trigger like the player opening the door to the room tells the NPC to move to a certain location like a desk and fire at the player from behind the desk. The NPC does not think for itself but is guided by scripts. The term Intelligence is therefore a bit misguided.

"Unscripted AI" does not use predefined pathways and scripts to move around and perform actions. In the same example an unscripted NPC roams the room choosing it's own path wich means it will not be at the exact same place everytime you play that mission. One time it might engage you from behind the desk, the other time it might be laying on the floor in a corner.

Now like you said it is not real AI but it does have a wide variaty of paramaters to choose from to determine what action to take, for instance when i order a fireteam to move through a village , they are not all going to use the exact same route to get through it. Also when you play that mission multiple times it can happen that the fireteam uses a different route each time you play it. With scripted AI they all would choose the same route everytime you play it.

[batto 17]

Those games you mentioned all have scripted AI...

I still don't get why better (non-scripted) AI justifies lack of tactical functionalities.

http://www.generation5.org/content/2001/images/rs02.jpg (146 kB)

It may look very old-school and little bit arcadish. Imagine you could make such plans on ArmA map. The plan is controlled by issuing codes.

Edited May 23, 2012 by batto

[maturin 12]

It's two dimensional with a bunch of dots...

And from the looks of it, they can dedicate 80% of their resources to the AI.

[max power 21]

If ArmA had a preplanning phase like Rainbow six, I would not use it.

[batto 17]

It's two dimensional with a bunch of dots...

And from the looks of it, they can dedicate 80% of their resources to the AI.

It's 13 years old game =). Rainbow 6: Rogue Spear it is. The thing is that you can make plan from orders. In ArmA you can do just issue single order at time. Here's example of planned first mission:

(Alpha go is issued alpha code). IMO it could really benefit ArmA. Consider village sweep vanilla single mission (the one in Takistan with NV and lasers). Currently everything is setup by mission makers (eg. landing, two teams, ...). It would be more fun if you could plan it by yourself (eg. choose LZ, create teams, equipment, plan, ...). Or consider big attack on some town with several tanks, helis, ... much more fun coming up with good attack plan (including extraction of Spetnaz from Hind =)). Of course it's possible to do it in editor to some degree, but in-game planning would be better.

If ArmA had a preplanning phase like Rainbow six, I would not use it.

Not pre-planning. Just planning in real-time.

[celery 8]

The problem with Rainbow Six's planning is that you can't change it mid-operation. The planning phase is basically scripting the AI teammates to do exactly what is says on the map, minus the autonomous shooting.

[max power 21]

I would not enjoy a map with fake lines and crap or the ability to somehow magically share my on-the-fly map plan with my fireteams through remote telepathy.

[batto 17]

The problem with Rainbow Six's planning is that you can't change it mid-operation. The planning phase is basically scripting the AI teammates to do exactly what is says on the map, minus the autonomous shooting.

Yeah exactly. It should be realtime. You probably missed my last post.

I would not enjoy a map with fake lines and crap or the ability to somehow magically share my on-the-fly map plan with my fireteams through remote telepathy.

Well, when you plan you may draw on the map. Sharing lines could be done by contacting teams and telling them the plan. Or maybe there is some other way to stack orders (tell more complex orders like in real life).

[max power 21]

Well, there's a way to stack waypoints in high command.

[batto 17]

Well, there's a way to stack waypoints in high command.

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

[Smurf 12]

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.