Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chris2525

Suggestions for giving ArmA3 a working "Supressive Fire" function.

Recommended Posts

I'm posting this as a suggestion to the devs.

It seems that a recurring theme from successive versions of ArmA is the lack of a functioning "suppressive fire" command for use with AI subordinates.

The issue

In the existing command menu, we do have a "suppressive fire" command, but as with ArmA2, it doesn't cause subordinates to fire suppressively at a piece of ground. Although i can't get it to work at all in the alpha, I suspect it's meant to function the same as in ArmA2 where you command "suppressive fire" against a known enemy, in the same way you'd command "engage that...." against a known enemy, the only difference between the two commands being that with "engage that", units will only shoot at the target if they can see it whereas with "suppressive fire" they'll fire at the target's last known location if they don't currently have visual contact with him - but only until their knowledge of the enemy expires (or such is my understanding anyway).

The issue here being that a unit has to have knowledge of an enemy at a location before you can get that unit to shoot there.

What I'm suggesting is that we be given the ability to command units to fire at a location/area whether or not they currently "know about" an enemy at that location. You should be able to command your squad to begin laying down fire on any area at any time, regardless of enemy being acquired there.

The reasons are simple:

In a firefight, it's perfectly reasonable for a commander to order his subordinates to fire at a piece fo ground where said subordinates don't see enemy. The contexts where this is done include, but are not limited to:

-Suppressing a *suspected* enemy location as opposed to a known one.

-Higher units or lateral units informing you of enemy at a location even if you can't see them.

-Denying ground to the enemy i.e. cutting off likely escape or reinforcement routes with fire.

-Speculative fire, or "recon by fire", engaging an area to see if you get a reaction.

-The commander knowing about an enemy at a location that the others cannot see.

(sometimes you spot an enemy, but the the behavior engine doesn't think you see him, so there's no communication of "Rifleman, 300m, bearing....", even though you're looking right at a unit)

All of these techniques are perfectly reasonable in the real world, and they involve a commander ordering subordinates to shoot at a place as opposed to a seen enemy. As such, we should have that same freedom in ArmA.

Even more importantly, the ability to fire at locations regardless of whether enemy are seen there is critical to supporting fire. Indeed, that's preciceley what supporting fire is - trying to keep an enemy's head down in order to enable another friendly element to maneuver.

Shooting only at targets you can see is not supporting fire. That's just firing at targets of opportunity, and has little suppressive value. Effective supporting fire results in not being able to see the enemy because you've forced him to keep his head down. So having units only capable of shooting at targets they can see means precisely that you have no supporting fire function in your simulation. And anything deserving of the term "infantry simulation" would have supporting fire modeled, being that it's one of the most fundamental concepts of land warfare.

Suggested solution(s):

I feel that the current system for controlling AI's direct fire is very convoluted and disjointed, and which is very unrealistic. In reality, all an infantry section commander really does is either points at a piece of ground (which may or may not contain a seen enemy), and says "shoot there" or "shoot those guys", or he says "Just watch out and shoot any targets that pop up", or he tells them not to shoot.*

To realistically simulate squad fire control, they should model several rates fire and use that as a basis for how the commander orders the AI to engages/fire. At the very least, the rates of fire should be should be "Slow Rate (suppressive)", "Rapid Rate (suppressive)" and "Watch and Shoot" (and of course, hold fire).

While pointing the cursor at a place on the terrain, ordering "Slow Rate" or "Rapid Rate" to your subordinates should cause them to shoot slowly or rapidly respectively (exact RPMs being open for debate) at the area you're pointing at (not unlike "fire at location" for artillery). They should fire randomly within a general area centered around the designated point (as opposed to directly at the precise point, for obvious reasons). And while they're doing that, they should be free to take aimed shots at any targets of opportunity that appear in the vicinity of their designated target area, and then go back to firing suppressively within the designated area once the target is gone, and continue to fire there until you tell them to stop. This is how section/squad fire is controlled in the real world.

Ordering "Watch and Shoot" should simply make your subordinates watch the designated area, and shoot anything that appears in front of them.

(Note: The watch and shoot *area* would want to be modeled larger than the suppressive fire area as "watch and shoot" is a speculative, "keep an eye out" kind of command, where "suppressive fire" is specifically directed at a particular place/area. This could serve as a decent analogue for assigning arcs/sectors of fire/observation to individual subordinates)

*The other thing a section commander does is he divides the ground up into "arcs" or "sectors" and allocates them to individuals/teams. This stops the whole section observing the same area and potentially missing things in front of them.

I don't see this being all that difficult to model. In fact, you could even use the existing "Fire at Location" command menu item, and then have the sub-menu offer "Slow rate" and "Rapid Rate" or "Watch and Shoot" (where for mortars it has "Single round, 2 rounds, 3 rounds" etc).

So that's my $0.02 on the squad fire control modelling in ArmA2&3. I hope the devs see this and give it some consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, supressive and covering fire is an essential combat tactic that has been missing for too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

please god! don't overdo it like bf3, but definitely need some sort of suppression system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for a robust suppression system, though i realize it's not for everyone and at the end of the day, it's a game and people want to have fun.

For the ultra-hardcore milsim enthusiasts however, there really ought to be an optional, if not scalable suppression system so that so that those who want a realistic experience can employ proper tactics.

At the very least, suppression and neutralization should be modeled for AI. We're not concerned about their gameplay experience after all.

And as "overdone" as the BF3 model may be, even that is unrealistically forgiving. In BF3, what you're usually experiencing is neutralization - being compelled by overwhelming incoming fire to change your course of action (i.e. turn around and run away, then carry on). Suppression is total incapacitation (i.e. you can't do anything except stay put and try to dig your way out using your helmet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a good idea for the ai. Of course for it to actually be useful, first you need the ai to actually respond to incoming fire realistically - which they don't.

In BF3, what you're usually experiencing is neutralization - being compelled by overwhelming incoming fire to change your course of action (i.e. turn around and run away, then carry on). Suppression is total incapacitation (i.e. you can't do anything except stay put and try to dig your way out using your helmet).

I am interested to know where you learned this. I always thought suppression was merely hampering the enemies ability to actively spot, shoot and maneuver by making them fear that doing so will cost them their life. Then I figured there was simply degrees of suppression, ie. ranging from "don't expose yourself more than necessary lads" to "get the fuck down!". Never heard of neutralization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep we need 2-9 / Suppressive fire to designate some radius (let's say 5-10m) where soldiers will shoot. If some enemy appears within or very close to that area - take shots at him then get back to suppressing.

If we can designate a point for AI to watch, why can't we designate for him to fire at and around it? Why not just create a target with this command a la the virtual one that is created for pilots when you lase something with the designator?

And of course AI and players must produce reactions to incoming bullets. Especially AI since they can happily be under fire and shoot back at you without getting stressed.

See TPWCAS mod for how it's done well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah when I first played the Infantry Showcase I was disapointed to find no real supression. I'm so used to playing with the TPWC AI Supression System that I almost imediately start laying down fire in the direction of the enemy even if I dont have eyes on them. They just started running up the side of the hill in the open instead of hunkering down behind the nearest rock tree for cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm so used to playing with the TPWC AI Supression System that I almost imediately start laying down fire in the direction of the enemy even if I dont have eyes on them.

Well, that's the drill IRL!

---------- Post added at 03:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 AM ----------

Its a good idea for the ai. Of course for it to actually be useful, first you need the ai to actually respond to incoming fire realistically - which they don't.

I am interested to know where you learned this. I always thought suppression was merely hampering the enemies ability to actively spot, shoot and maneuver by making them fear that doing so will cost them their life. Then I figured there was simply degrees of suppression, ie. ranging from "don't expose yourself more than necessary lads" to "get the fuck down!". Never heard of neutralization.

The term "suppression" is used loosely in the way you describe, but in doctrinal land warfare vernacular, it's quantified and separated into two main effects - completely inhibiting the enemy's ability to act (suppressed), or turning him around and sending him somewhere else (neutralized). So when we apply fire, we do so knowing it will have one of 3 outcomes - the enemy will either be suppressed, be neutralized, or remain effective. No matter what, the result will always be one of those. And even diminished effectiveness still constitutes effective in this context.

A diminished capacity to act - as little as one guy holding his AK above the trench - constitutes him still being effective - because if he can do that, he can also do other things like throw grenades, shoot your assaulters when they approach or what have you. The point is he's still resisting and can still inflict casualties. That means he's not yet suppressed. In tactics language, suppressed means not able to do anything. So suppression is either a one or a zero. You've either suppressed someone or you haven't. And while it may sound like semantics, suppression is a very important event in a firefight that triggers subsequent steps being set into motion.

I'll use the example of the typical canadian section attack drill to illustrate what i mean.

Once the advancing section comes under effective enemy fire, the next thing they do is try to gain fire superiority over the enemy position they're taking fire from and which they want to attack. The section will actually stay put (no longer advancing) and try to put down a volume of fire on the enemy that totally forces him to hunker down. The section commander will know this has been accomplished when there's no more fire coming from that location. That point in the attack is what we call "winning the firefight". And once the section commander knows he's won the firefight, then and only then will the section begin their advance up the the enemy position. And they'll do it while simultaneously keeping constant amount of fire on the enemy location that's sufficient to KEEP the enemy's head down. But the point is, the "winning the firefight" is a very concrete landmark in an attack. It's the point where the targeted enemy is no longer firing back. That's what we refer to as "suppression". It's a black and white thing, although we sometimes refer to suppression as being subjective.

Oh, and to answer your question - 16 years in the infantry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All in all, it should work like how we do it in Close Combat titles, only this time we do it in first person view.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The term "suppression" is used loosely in the way you describe, but in doctrinal land warfare vernacular, it's quantified and separated into two main effects - completely inhibiting the enemy's ability to act (suppressed), or turning him around and sending him somewhere else (neutralized). So when we apply fire, we do so knowing it will have one of 3 outcomes - the enemy will either be suppressed, be neutralized, or remain effective. No matter what, the result will always be one of those. And even diminished effectiveness still constitutes effective in this context.

A diminished capacity to act - as little as one guy holding his AK above the trench - constitutes him still being effective - because if he can do that, he can also do other things like throw grenades, shoot your assaulters when they approach or what have you. The point is he's still resisting and can still inflict casualties. That means he's not yet suppressed. In tactics language, suppressed means not able to do anything. So suppression is either a one or a zero. You've either suppressed someone or you haven't. And while it may sound like semantics, suppression is a very important event in a firefight that triggers subsequent steps being set into motion.

I'll use the example of the typical canadian section attack drill to illustrate what i mean.

Once the advancing section comes under effective enemy fire, the next thing they do is try to gain fire superiority over the enemy position they're taking fire from and which they want to attack. The section will actually stay put (no longer advancing) and try to put down a volume of fire on the enemy that totally forces him to hunker down. The section commander will know this has been accomplished when there's no more fire coming from that location. That point in the attack is what we call "winning the firefight". And once the section commander knows he's won the firefight, then and only then will the section begin their advance up the the enemy position. And they'll do it while simultaneously keeping constant amount of fire on the enemy location that's sufficient to KEEP the enemy's head down. But the point is, the "winning the firefight" is a very concrete landmark in an attack. It's the point where the targeted enemy is no longer firing back. That's what we refer to as "suppression". It's a black and white thing, although we sometimes refer to suppression as being subjective.

Oh, and to answer your question - 16 years in the infantry.

Thanks man! Appreciate the in depth explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is hardly looked into regarding suggestions' date=' If you want to add a suggestion and wish not to disturb people on there useful discussion time - you should check [url']http://feedback.arma3.com[/url].

I think that until we get an "Arma 3 Suggestions Forum", this is the right place discuss suggestions like these.

I like the idea but if it were to be implemented now, it would be useless. First we need some sort of suppression system, if not for the player, then definitely for the ai. Then features like the one suggested can be implemented to take advantage of the suppression system. So although I'd like to see this, I want to see other things first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GL series has suppression, it’s the ai knowing when to stop suppressing that’s the problem. GL4 for instance, several groups engaged, some suppressed, stopping the ai from running out of ammo too quickly, whilst suppressing, is a concern..

A 'just whats needed to do the job' attitude, easy taught to humans, just teaching 'ai' that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic again? GOD NO.

The term "suppression" is used loosely in the way you describe, but in doctrinal land warfare vernacular, it's quantified and separated into two main effects - completely inhibiting the enemy's ability to act (suppressed), or turning him around and sending him somewhere else (neutralized). So when we apply fire, we do so knowing it will have one of 3 outcomes - the enemy will either be suppressed, be neutralized, or remain effective. No matter what, the result will always be one of those. And even diminished effectiveness still constitutes effective in this context.

A diminished capacity to act - as little as one guy holding his AK above the trench - constitutes him still being effective - because if he can do that, he can also do other things like throw grenades, shoot your assaulters when they approach or what have you. The point is he's still resisting and can still inflict casualties. That means he's not yet suppressed. In tactics language, suppressed means not able to do anything. So suppression is either a one or a zero. You've either suppressed someone or you haven't. And while it may sound like semantics, suppression is a very important event in a firefight that triggers subsequent steps being set into motion.

I'll use the example of the typical canadian section attack drill to illustrate what i mean.

Once the advancing section comes under effective enemy fire, the next thing they do is try to gain fire superiority over the enemy position they're taking fire from and which they want to attack. The section will actually stay put (no longer advancing) and try to put down a volume of fire on the enemy that totally forces him to hunker down. The section commander will know this has been accomplished when there's no more fire coming from that location. That point in the attack is what we call "winning the firefight". And once the section commander knows he's won the firefight, then and only then will the section begin their advance up the the enemy position. And they'll do it while simultaneously keeping constant amount of fire on the enemy location that's sufficient to KEEP the enemy's head down. But the point is, the "winning the firefight" is a very concrete landmark in an attack. It's the point where the targeted enemy is no longer firing back. That's what we refer to as "suppression". It's a black and white thing, although we sometimes refer to suppression as being subjective.

Oh, and to answer your question - 16 years in the infantry.

Chris wins this thread, at least in defining what the term actually means. Also, here's a bonus featuring REAL suppressive fire as described above,





Can you peeps spot it?

Chris, if your proposition is only limited to AI and not BF3-like schizoid effects on the player, then Good luck to you.

Edited by Iroquois Pliskin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BIS did it right in ArmA3. In firefights you hear bullets flying everywhere. New weapon sounds scare me even if they're only 20 m away. Leafs falls from trees when shooting through trees. I hear bullets flying near me and immediately go prone even thought they're just random bullets not directed at me. I played several PvP games and I have to say that overall impression of firefights is much scarier. I'm prone and suddenly I hear damn loud shots and bullets breaking sound barrier EVERYWHERE and I'm freaking scared to move. That's the damn suppression effect!

Can't speak for AI, sorry.

Edited by batto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is hardly looked into regarding suggestions, If you want to add a suggestion and wish not to disturb people on there useful discussion time - you should check http://feedback.arma3.com.

So, learning about neutralization and suppression isn't considered useful? I mean, I just learned something I had previously misunderstood- that's quite useful.

Also, isn't this a forum? A place to discuss, suggest, joke, learn, debate, and overall a place for players to communicate?

While I understand where you're coming from, as in the Devs might not look into this post, I completely disagree with you about 'disturbing' people's discussion time- It is completely oxymoron, since people choose to be on the internet, and choose what they read, who they communicate (discuss) with, what they see, when they do it and when they don't.

Back on topic, I agree with OP. Although, so far after 58 hours, I have been pinned down by the AI many times (although they were custom scenarios) and it was awesome.

Also, thanks for sharing your knowledge!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have to say that the AI in the alpha is much better about seeking cover. I was playing some Dynamic War Sandbox and more than a few times when my AI squad came under fire I looked arround and they were hunkered down behind cover. In A2 they might have kneeled down or dropped to their bellies, even if there was some cover right next to them.

So even if nothing is implemented or continued improvements made into base game, I'm pretty sure that TPWCAS (TPWC AI Suppression Systemem) will be ported over from A2 and further developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic again? GOD NO.

Hehe. he isn't directly suggesting a suppression system so no need to get into that again... I could make another thread about it if you'd like though:D

BIS did it right in ArmA3. In firefights you hear bullets flying everywhere. New weapon sounds scare me even if they're only 20 m away. Leafs falls from trees when shooting through trees. I hear bullets flying near me and immediately go prone even thought they're just random bullets not directed at me. I played several PvP games and I have to say that overall impression of firefights is much scarier. I'm prone and suddenly I hear damn loud shots and bullets breaking sound barrier EVERYWHERE and I'm freaking scared to move. That's the damn suppression effect!

I actually find the sounds in arma 3 to be pretty weak. I rarely hear any sonic cracks. But anyhow, the OP is not suggesting a suppression system but rather a better way to direct ai's fire, even at locations rather than targets. I like the idea, and generally think that the ai control is far too limited as is. Besides micromanaging ai into cover and telling them to engage specific targets you can't really do that much to help your ai subordinates perform optimally, once the firefight has started.

If this were implemented though how would the ai squad leaders use it if at all. Because although they are good at laying down a fair volume of fire now, especially with machine-guns, it is used more as a reaction rather than an preemptive action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem I have is that the sonic cracks seem to be in the background of everything else. No shots ever sound like they're close to you, even when you see a tracer fly right past your face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only problem I have is that the sonic cracks seem to be in the background of everything else. No shots ever sound like they're close to you, even when you see a tracer fly right past your face.

Agreed. I think that bullet snaps should be much louder than they currently are in the game. This would improve the suppression modelling by giving the player a sense of "oh s***t!!!!" when accurate fire comes down near them. If nothing els,e we should be able to clearly differentiate near flybys and far flybys. As it stand right now, the only way i can tell if rounds are coming at me is by hearing impacts in the dirt nearby. In reality, bullet cracks are quite loud. They sound like firecrackers going off over your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suppression is more effective in games where you only have one life. Respawning players don't have to worry so much about fighting for their survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×