Campaign AI

[Raneman 1]

Will ARMA 3 once again expect us to handle everything because the lovely AI can't? It's a bit hard to control an entire armored battalion while also participating in the battle, and things like that would better be left to the AI in my opinion. A squad I can handle, but it gets absurd at some points.

[antoineflemming 14]

I hope not. It's good to be able to manage a squad, or a platoon, but the player shouldn't be micro managing dumb AI. Hopefully there's some unit structure system in ArmA3, so that instead of having to micro manage every single AI member of a squad or platoon, you can just manage squad leaders or team leaders.

[HKFlash 9]

Company commanders don't participate in the battle directly. They move behind friendly lines inspecting the battlefield and coordinating the troops.

[antoineflemming 14]

Company commanders don't participate in the battle directly. They move behind friendly lines inspecting the battlefield and coordinating the troops.

Well you don't just play as Company Commanders. You can play as Platoon Leaders, Squad Leaders, Fire Team Leaders, or just soldiers. You still shouldn't have to micro manage. As a company commander, you're looking at like 200 or so units (soldiers) under your command. You shouldn't have to micro manage all 200 of them. You should only have to manage your AI platoon leaders. Your AI platoon leaders should manage their AI squad leaders. The AI squad leaders should manage their fire team leaders. See how that works? When the AI can effectively micro manage subordinate AI (as in like I described above), then we won't have to worry about having to do everything because the AI can't. Having some sort of built-in unit structure (and NOT these color-coded teams crap) would most definitely help. As in, having this organizational structure in the editor, where you can determine which unit is a company commander or platoon leader or section leader or squad leader or fire team leader. Then behavior-wise, it can be coded in what a platoon leader does, what commands he gives to subordinate units, etc. AI behavior can then be based off of what position they are in. A company commander can behave differently than a platoon leader, a squad leader differently than a fire team leader.

[HKFlash 9]

Well you don't just play as Company Commanders. You can play as Platoon Leaders, Squad Leaders, Fire Team Leaders, or just soldiers. You still shouldn't have to micro manage. As a company commander, you're looking at like 200 or so units (soldiers) under your command. You shouldn't have to micro manage all 200 of them. You should only have to manage your AI platoon leaders. Your AI platoon leaders should manage their AI squad leaders. The AI squad leaders should manage their fire team leaders. See how that works? When the AI can effectively micro manage subordinate AI (as in like I described above), then we won't have to worry about having to do everything because the AI can't. Having some sort of built-in unit structure (and NOT these color-coded teams crap) would most definitely help. As in, having this organizational structure in the editor, where you can determine which unit is a company commander or platoon leader or section leader or squad leader or fire team leader. Then behavior-wise, it can be coded in what a platoon leader does, what commands he gives to subordinate units, etc. AI behavior can then be based off of what position they are in. A company commander can behave differently than a platoon leader, a squad leader differently than a fire team leader.

I know how the chain of command works thanks I'm ex-military. I wasn't arguing anything just stating. You can't command companies in ArmA, High Command is Platoon Commander.

[antoineflemming 14]

I know how the chain of command works thanks I'm ex-military. I wasn't arguing anything just stating. You can't command companies in ArmA, High Command is Platoon Commander.

Oh, I know, I was just clarifying my previous statement. A company would be a lot of AI on screen at one time too. Talk about lag fest.

[krycek 349]

Hope it's better than A2 because right now I don't even bother with High Command,on large scale ops I have some dude acting like company commander then I have squad leaders set as playable.Basically I just give myself orders.:p

If you're playing with HC module and want to load squads in vehicles or choppers you'll have better luck to launch rockets in space.

I'll be very glad if we get some improvements or at least tweaking in the way HC works for A3.

[sgtice 10]

Actually, you could if you really wanted to. It just get's very tricky.

A refined version of BF2's squad system would be grand, given it a more flexible/adaptable set up though, with the Americas Army 3 briefing/prep screen would be quite interesting/nice to be able to manage your whole team from one screen, assign orders, etc. at say a laptop?

While the above statement should go into a wishlist thread I am lazy, if anyone feels that it should go there feel free.

[antoineflemming 14]

Actually, you could if you really wanted to. It just get's very tricky.

A refined version of BF2's squad system would be grand, given it a more flexible/adaptable set up though, with the Americas Army 3 briefing/prep screen would be quite interesting/nice to be able to manage your whole team from one screen, assign orders, etc. at say a laptop?

While the above statement should go into a wishlist thread I am lazy, if anyone feels that it should go there feel free.

I still like the idea of America's Army's squad system. At least the authentic organizational structure of it, since BF's "squads" are really fire teams.

[-Coulum- 35]

I like the idea of high command but don't like how it is currently. This is because of

a) like mentioned, the ai need to be micro-micro managed by you, when you ahould only have to command squad leaders and they do the rest from there.

b) tactics you would use in real life are not possible in a2. ie. a Heavy weapon team carrying HMG has a very different role in arma than its real life counter part because of lack of suppression or What you would think is good defensive terrain (forested or urban) doesn't actually give you as much of an advantage as in real life becaus ehte ai is too dumb to use it and it is just as easy for an ai to spot someon in a forest as in the wide open.

I found I got frustrated using high command because I would try to employ basic tactics and it would turn out that just giving everyone an attack order on one enemy unit would more effective.

[Jaypaul97 1]

I agree.

BTW this title is obviously SO much more detailed than my 10 word titles and hence obviously mine should be locked for "undescriptive title"...I'm ashamed.

[Guest]

BTW this title is obviously SO much more detailed than my 10 word titles and hence obviously mine should be locked for "undescriptive title"...I'm ashamed.

This earns you another infraction.

§18) No public discussion on how the forum is moderated

If you have questions/complaints/comments about the forum or moderators please PM them to a moderator, we will do our utmost to reply to any that we receive. If you have an issue that you feel cannot be solved by another moderator then please PM the head moderator (Placebo), he will be happy to look into the matter. You may also ask your questions in the "Ask a mod" thread; however that thread is not to be used to attack/rant against specific moderators or about specific rules but more for questions/answers.

[Wiki 1558]

I wondered about ArmA3 campaign and SP missions:

I liked OFP, cause we were led in a big part of the campaign.

I don't really like High Command system, nor always leading a team.

That's why I didn't really enjoy ArmA 2 campaign.

What will it be for ArmA 3?

do we have any information about it? does anyone know? I'd like to have an answer from a dev. or from someone who KNOWS.

BTW, do we have any information about the length of the campaign?

something long like OFP?

or short like ArmA 1 and ArmA 2?

last but not least, I liked the ArmA 1 system, in which we had to choose (or not) side missions before the major mission - and that we could'n play both of them.

I'd like to see something like that in ArmA 3.

for the moment, I'm kind of afraid, because of "Single-Player Campaign - evolve from a lone prey into a military commander in the open-ended & story-driven campaign. "...

I will see, but I don't realy like how it sounds... I prefer a campaign with major operations - like the old OFP campaign...

anyway, I'm still looking forward to the game!

[jake_krieger 10]

I think they should implement Elements of the AI Mods for ArmA II like ASR AI or ZEUS MOD !

To enhance the immersion it would be awesome to see more life signs from the NPC´s , like it is done in the mod RUG DSAI (Which enables the AI Forces to talk ,for specific actions ,like when they get shot or hear someone in the near ,Random and dynamic units voices.