Something that disturbed me about A2: amount of enemies you were up against.

[mr.g-c 6]

Mainly because the AI is not that good, so they simply use more of them.

Thats the reason :-)

However there was a good improvement from ArmA1 to ArmA2 in that manner. Even Maruk, the BIS CEO once confirmed that in an Interview at a game show prior to ArmA2 release.

In ArmA1 you could often take out a complete SLA Squad with your M16A2, especially in Urban combat... In ArmA2 this is not so easy possible

[NoRailgunner 0]

There are only very few missions where the player can see and notice that something else aka "bigger" is going on. Campaign missions are just focused around the player and his team/group - often one can see it by just raising the viewdistance. Nothing to see, no other battles, no other friendlies or enemies in range, no multipliers, no kinetic operations..... Btw didn't BIS said that they want to change AI eg reducing their actions in certain distance to player?

[slatts 1978]

cobalt blues is a good example of large scale battles, while you and your 4-man team are taking the mine. theres a ton of mechanized infantry taking the town down the road

in the background of most harvest red missions, theres marines and CDF roaming the countryside and engaging the chedakis

[batto 17]

According to intel on ArmA3 site it sounds like you will be undercover BLUFOR SF soldier deployed in enemy territory outnumbered most of time. Given the branching storyline you could have more choices how to deal with it. Also if something f*cked up in OFP you was outnumbered too (the evacuation part).

Edited May 27, 2012 by batto

[Jaypaul97 1]

Okay obviously I'm just terrible then XD.

I struggled with "Trial by Fire" mission in A2 in the final part.

But more than that I think the grass needs to be nerfed. My computer isn't the best so 3D res is low and with all that grass I cannot see anything.

But for AI: I don't think humanlike smart AI is even possible. How would you even go about scripting the thousands of things we think of. They don't take into account fear either, I've never seen enemies turn and book it like I do(and would IRL :) ) so many times

[maturin 12]

The first few missions of Harvest Red had extremely low enemy numbers, and the later warfare missions were pretty fair.

[antoineflemming 14]

They are if you dare to change the precisionFriendly/precisionEnemy/UltraAI values. Don't complain about the AI if you don't have the balls to give them some teeth.

Precision vs using actual military tactics. Not talking about how well/how accurately they can hit me from 500m away. I'm saying it'd be great if the AI actually behaved a bit more like actual human players. Like conducting a squad attack for example, where half of them lay down and suppress you while the other half envelopes you on your right or left flank to try to attack you from the side. Things like that.

[krycek 349]

I wasn't impressed by original OFP. Its Cold War Crisis right? Enemies kinda just...looked at me. And thats it. If I did a little dance for them they might start shooting...but still.

Not sure what game you played but OFP was the other extreme of the AI where the phrase "If you see the flash it's already too late" was so appropriate.

Back then a simple soldier could snipe you 1000m away with a slingshot right in the middle of your head.

[wipman 1]

Hi, i think that if they didn't put alot of NMEs on the ArmA2... you could go back home without a single kill or even fire a single shot, as the Force Recon or Special Forces operatives should work... ; but on the ArmA2 you wasn't a SF operative conducting recon missions, you was a FR operative doing combat missions, the thing... is that the missions wasn't very well done and were boring at times, not credible in any case. They should improve the campaign and MP missions along with the MP modes to make more realistic or at least credible but also fun, in my opinion. Let's C ya

[pd3 25]

Okay obviously I'm just terrible then XD.

I struggled with "Trial by Fire" mission in A2 in the final part.

But more than that I think the grass needs to be nerfed. My computer isn't the best so 3D res is low and with all that grass I cannot see anything.

But for AI: I don't think humanlike smart AI is even possible. How would you even go about scripting the thousands of things we think of. They don't take into account fear either, I've never seen enemies turn and book it like I do(and would IRL :) ) so many times

The "grass" in ARMA 2 is essentially see-through for the AI, you should've already downloaded the mod that shrinks the grass.

Bushes are not see-through for the ai, despite much controversy, but the grass definitely is. This was something that BIS flubbed on, but when you make a game of this scale and complexity, somethings things happen.

Trying to compare narrow-scope console FPS games to this is unreasonable, so just remember, there's likely a community fix, and that's just the way it is with this game.

The ai in ARMA 2 has come a long way from the days of OFP, and yeah, I remember, the AI could catch you from 1000m away no problem, they were like terminators. This time around they will coordinate pincer-like attacks, they will sometimes figure out the best way around your terrain defense and neutralize you.

In OFP, they would just bulldoze you, and thats it.

In ARMA 2, they will sometimes avoid areas where guys have been routinely gunned down, they will wait on the opposite sides of walls and buildings, stack-up and then rush you.

I've seen all of these things happen.

You have to understand that again, that working with dynamic ai is a LOT different than scripting individual bits of code for levels as they do in a lot of other console FPS games that really don't have the breadth that the ARMA series has.

Secondly, another thing you have to understand about ARMA is a lot of pretty much everything is community driven, you have to get used to doing a lot of things for yourself, that's why we have such a great mod community, is because BIS allows this.

With the script set ASR_AI, you will experience ai that will flee from bad tactical situations.

The only thing that I personally had to change about ARMA 2 in general that I did not like is the fact that the current values for the variable "sensitivityear" puts the AI on the same level as having some kind of psychic "echolocation"

Its extremely difficult for the AI to not be able to "hear" where you are even though in all fairness you may not in the inverse situation be able to hear them.

I had to tone it down so that they weren't as tactically all-knowing.

This is the one thing I do hope BIS will address in the future.

[metalcraze 290]

The "grass" in ARMA 2 is essentially see-through for the AI, you should've already downloaded the mod that shrinks the grass.

No it isn't the case for a long time now.

[Desert1 1]

IRL ISAF forces are usually about 30 (not sure about that??) vs 70 Taliban ... and the Taliban aren't exactly stupid or have armour.

[dekster 1]

About the A2 missions, I started playing those and actually I quite like them so far. (But I'm not that far into the game)

Arma 2 (OA) manual says that to make a good chance in an attack you should outnumber the enemy 3:1. (AI speaking)

---------- Post added at 09:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 PM ----------

No it isn't the case for a long time now.

other remark: the AI can see trough fallen trees.

[HKFlash 9]

IRL ISAF forces are usually about 30 (not sure about that??) vs 70 Taliban ... and the Taliban aren't exactly stupid or have armour.

From the videos I've seen its usually an ISAF platoon vs 12 or less Taliban. Exceptions have been SF teams, where firefights are usually much more even, like 10 vs 5.

[Jaypaul97 1]

Yeah but in that case the SF usually have all sorts of cool gadgets whereas the Taliban wouldn't. I'm talking about Arma where if you're fighting officially trained soldiers with good armor and tactics and NVG.

[sgtice 10]

Or SF were/are just that good?

SF are trained in Guerilla warfare (Unconventional Warfare) which is all about using a smaller force to harass/destroy larger forces, that's why their so successful, while Conventional forces are trained to fight with numbers on their side.

[-Coulum- 35]

From the videos I've seen its usually an ISAF platoon vs 12 or less Taliban. Exceptions have been SF teams, where firefights are usually much more even, like 10 vs 5.

Platoon + air and mortar support. Even with better training and equipment, it is stupid to let yourself be outnumbered and ISAF tries to outnumber the taliban whenever possible. I don't even know if it is humanly possible to commit to a life or death situation (battle) if you don't think you have the advantage. When you hear of people beating massive odds that's because one side miscalculated his own strength or his enemies strength, whether it be strength in numbers, terrain, training, equipment, morale or a combination of them all. This is why information and deception is such an important part of war - It allows for commanders to be confident that they are infact attacking a force they can beat. the trick is to get an enemy to misjudge and commit to a fight they can't win and then trap them so they can't escape.

anyways, back on topic, it look like arma will be more towards the special forces and stealth in the beginning and build up to larger battles later on. In order for the special forces to be enjoyable it is going to need competent ai and realistic missions, and in order for the larger battles to be enjoyable, they also have to be believable. that means you shouldn't be given 13 men to take a village defended by 30 men, because in reality any commander knows that's suicide.

Overall though ai improvements will do wonders for the campaign.

But a question. will the campaign even have missions. I kind of got the feeling that it would be more like one big continuous mission, where you are placed on the island and you have to then decide what to do from there. Your actions would then determine battles, and different operations. I am probably wrong but for some reason that's the idea I get when I think of arma's campaign. more like one huge sandbox mission rather than a sequence of missions.

[nikiller 18]

hi,

You have to keep in mind that good or bad AI is mostly related to your CPU power. It means that if you play with min spec you will experience stupid AI. And it's even more true if you play missions with 200+ AI on the island with a "crappy" computer.

Just try in the editor to make a mission with 12 players vs 30-40 AI with waypoints other than MOVE (i.e: GUARD, SENTRY...), propper grouping (soldier class wisely choosen, inf grouped with vehicle or static...), realistic alarm/reaction/reinforcement system, good weapon loadout and so on and you can do it with a minimal AI scripting. Believe me, you will have a different result (flanking, supressive fire...) than trying at all coast to make the biggest mission as possible.

This rule is true in ArmA2 and in ofp, more you have AI more they are stupid.

In ARMA 2, they will sometimes avoid areas where guys have been routinely gunned down, they will wait on the opposite sides of walls and buildings, stack-up and then rush you.

I've seen all of these things happen.

What Pd3 wrote is true. I saw some clever AI tactics in ArmA2. Of course, it's AI so you can't hope something human-like but it was pretty good. Unfortunetly if you want to experience that you must have a good computer and even if you have a good computer you are not sure ArmA2 will run well on it.

I still edit and script a lot for ofp (I know I am an ofp addict :)) and I garantee you that AI has been really improved in ArmA2 in matter of tactics.

One thing I would like to be improved with vanilla AI is building behaviour.

cya.

Nikiller.

[Desert1 1]

From the videos I've seen its usually an ISAF platoon vs 12 or less Taliban. Exceptions have been SF teams, where firefights are usually much more even, like 10 vs 5.

It very much depends, in Mazdurak (UK forces tasked with taking) and Marjah (US forces tasked with taking) the Taliban outnumbered the ISAF forces by quite a bit, especially in Mazdurak; that's where I got the 70 Taliban from. Same with 'The Seige of Musa Qala' where ISAF forces were heavily outnumbered by (looking at the charts of the estimated amount of dead) at least 30. But as I said it varies on terrain, time of day, and many other factors. But the fact that in A2 the AI are bone-dead stupid means they have to put a large force against a small one. Even someone of 'limited' capabilities could defeat a fairly large force of Taki troops.

[krycek 349]

anyways, back on topic, it look like arma will be more towards the special forces and stealth in the beginning and build up to larger battles later on. In order for the special forces to be enjoyable it is going to need competent ai and realistic missions, and in order for the larger battles to be enjoyable, they also have to be believable. that means you shouldn't be given 13 men to take a village defended by 30 men, because in reality any commander knows that's suicide.

If we're talking about campaign then yes I agree we should have more realistic missions,if we're talking about the scenarios we make this "13 vs 30 is not realistic" I don't agree and I think BI should not enforce this.Arma series are great games because they give you freedom when you're designing your missions.

Sometimes I do realistic missions with combined support,other times I make scenarios where me and 4 guys eliminate a village of 15 peeps without needing the whole army to back me up.Realistic?Not likely,but it's a choice.

[maturin 12]

other remark: the AI can see trough fallen trees.

Also false. The viewblock geometry of trees rotates with the model itself.

But trees on Chernarus are glitchy. There is a mysterious error with the trunk model allowing AI to see through it, and the viewblock geometry of the canopy leaves is much less accurate than that of low bushes.

[-Coulum- 35]

If we're talking about campaign then yes I agree we should have more realistic missions,if we're talking about the scenarios we make this "13 vs 30 is not realistic" I don't agree and I think BI should not enforce this.Arma series are great games because they give you freedom when you're designing your missions.

Sometimes I do realistic missions with combined support,other times I make scenarios where me and 4 guys eliminate a village of 15 peeps without needing the whole army to back me up.Realistic?Not likely,but it's a choice.

Agreed. Thats the beauty of the editor. You can make whatever you want.

But realistic or not, improved AI will really help the campaign play out better. How many time in A2 have people had to start a mission over because one of their teammembers, whose death results in mission failure, have died standing out in the open trying to shoot the enemy while bullets are snapping by and impacting all around him. These are the things that really ruin the campaign for me.

[HKFlash 9]

It very much depends, in Mazdurak (UK forces tasked with taking) and Marjah (US forces tasked with taking) the Taliban outnumbered the ISAF forces by quite a bit, especially in Mazdurak; that's where I got the 70 Taliban from. Same with 'The Seige of Musa Qala' where ISAF forces were heavily outnumbered by (looking at the charts of the estimated amount of dead) at least 30. But as I said it varies on terrain, time of day, and many other factors. But the fact that in A2 the AI are bone-dead stupid means they have to put a large force against a small one. Even someone of 'limited' capabilities could defeat a fairly large force of Taki troops.

You're right. The majority of combat operations videos I've seen are patrolling not village taking/defending.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Yeah more ennemies to equilibrate thet fact that AI can't think like human :D

[icebreakr 3105]

That is why I prefer playing on a map like Duala where you're "up against all odds" where we play 10 vs 150 ;) but of course, longer missions with respawn base option :)