AI Discussion (dev branch)

[gammadust 12]

So are you rolling your eyes because you honestly think it's ok for gameplay that enemy troops basically have their own version of aimbot against the player?

Exacly the opposite, that the gains in AI firing while moving would bring, would likely only exacerbate their current inhuman accuracy, leading to even more "whining".

I would be one of those whiners, i dislike already their ability to more often than not one-shot you down. (AI accuracy starts too high and lowers to fail levels too abrubtly - it should start lower and the degrading much smoother)

[bonchie 39]

Exacly the opposite, that the gains in AI firing while moving would bring, would likely only exacerbate their current inhuman accuracy, leading to even more "whining".

I would be one of those whiners, i dislike already their ability to more often than not one-shot you down. (AI accuracy starts too high and lowers to fail levels too abrubtly - it should start lower and the degrading much smoother)

Just making them center their fire on the torso would go a long way if that's possible.

As it is now they seem to headshot more then gutshot, which is absurd on it's face.

[gammadust 12]

As it is now they seem to headshot more then gutshot, which is absurd on it's face.

Speculation mode:

It looks to be an engine shortcut. If AI aimed for the gut, when AI is in cover it would be most of the time shooting the cover itself, only additional conditioning and checks would allow to distinguish both situations (in-cover/no-cover) which would burden the cpu. So the engine always aims for the head and nulls that step, of course we don't like the consequences of it.

If i am not mistaken the AI actually aims at the chest height (the position as returned by nearTargets), and relies on the fact that usually targets are at a closer distance than zero'ed weapon distance, the projectile will hit slightly above if closer and bellow if farther. This would result in headshots in a good deal of instances. But i am just speculating.

[maturin 12]

AI accuracy isn't good enough to choose headshots, I'm pretty sure. They only recognize a certain part of a soldier's model as target (groin up and excluding the arms, basically) and shoot at whatever's visible. Headshots just happen.

[Bouben 3]

Just to share my recent experience with you. I had a great fun with a lot of excitement and thrilling moments with AI yesterday when I set their skill on 0.56 in the difficulty settings on both sides. When I put TPW EBS in it was obviously better but was good without it too.

[Tyl3r99 41]

are we getting more AI fixes or is it up to us now?

[maturin 12]

Of course we're getting more fixes.

Although I would love to hear a two-sentence mini report on the progress of that AI accuracy investigation and balancing project.

[oukej 2910]

Of course we're getting more fixes.

in progress

Although I would love to hear a two-sentence mini report on the progress of that AI accuracy investigation and balancing project.

First of all you can expect some little improvements in the documentation on this matter (and confirmations or modifications of what was already unveiled by the community).

Rather soon we'd like to adjust the way you can setup the AI - both on global and per-unit level. I've already tried to take some of your notes into the account, but expect me to approach you with some feedback desideratum & an offer you won't refuse. :devil:

Disclaimer: no new features

[Bouben 3]

in progress

First of all you can expect some little improvements in the documentation on this matter (and confirmations or modifications of what was already unveiled by the community).

Rather soon we'd like to adjust the way you can setup the AI - both on global and per-unit level. I've already tried to take some of your notes into the account, but expect me to approach you with some feedback desideratum & an offer you won't refuse. :devil:

Disclaimer: no new features

While ignoring the disclaimer, I say: good news!

[-Coulum- 35]

in progress

First of all you can expect some little improvements in the documentation on this matter (and confirmations or modifications of what was already unveiled by the community).

Rather soon we'd like to adjust the way you can setup the AI - both on global and per-unit level. I've already tried to take some of your notes into the account, but expect me to approach you with some feedback desideratum & an offer you won't refuse. :devil:

Disclaimer: no new features

Sounds good. The ai captains log has been a bit "slow" the past few weeks. I look forward to new info even if its just documentation or reading about what you guys are doing.

[fabrizio_t 58]

in progress

First of all you can expect some little improvements in the documentation on this matter (and confirmations or modifications of what was already unveiled by the community).

Rather soon we'd like to adjust the way you can setup the AI - both on global and per-unit level. I've already tried to take some of your notes into the account, but expect me to approach you with some feedback desideratum & an offer you won't refuse. :devil:

Disclaimer: no new features

very nice.

Please fix units pathfinding so AI units led by player can properly fall back into formation, when in combat mode.

After some combat units supposed to be in formation end up far away and become unresponsive to fall back orders, or just keep at distance.

This happens a lot in urban areas (Charkia for instance).

Also units still get stuck near buildings, moving in circles.

This stuff is breaking the game.

[xendance 3]

very nice.

Please fix units pathfinding so AI units led by player can properly fall back into formation, when in combat mode.

After some combat units supposed to be in formation end up far away and become unresponsive to fall back orders, or just keep at distance.

This happens a lot in urban areas (Charkia for instance).

Also units still get stuck near buildings, moving in circles.

This stuff is breaking the game.

Regarding pathfinding: It would be nice if it was possible to define what sort of terrain the groups used when traveling from waypoint to a waypoint.

Right now it seems that infantry prefers open terrain too much, making groups gravitate towards roads and openings far too easily. With multiple groups moving towards same objective it essentially means that the groups clump up after 100 meters of traveling.

I'm guessing the pathfinding uses some sort of 'cost' per terrain type for pathfinding purposes. The effect of the cost on infantry groups should be tuned down.

[-Coulum- 35]

Regarding pathfinding: It would be nice if it was possible to define what sort of terrain the groups used when traveling from waypoint to a waypoint.

Right now it seems that infantry prefers open terrain too much, making groups gravitate towards roads and openings far too easily. With multiple groups moving towards same objective it essentially means that the groups clump up after 100 meters of traveling.

I'm guessing the pathfinding uses some sort of 'cost' per terrain type for pathfinding purposes. The effect of the cost on infantry groups should be tuned down.

this is to a degree, controllable with behaviour of the unit. If they are in safe or careless they will prefer to travel on roads and on a more direct route. On aware they are a bit more cautious. And in danger they go for the route with most cover (or they try to). But still I agree it would be nice for mission makers/modders to have more control over the ai's "tendacies". For example it might be cool to set the a urgency/aggressiveness of ai groups - 1 means they will sit down and hold cover until they are absolutely sure the way is safe and 10 is a suicidal rush at all costs. Or to be able to set the ammunition conservation of a given group - 1 is only firing if you believe you can kill and ten is unloading a clip at when a bush rustles too much - stuff like that would be neat to be able to easily access.

Of course this is wishful thinking though. First individual level ai needs to be improved before these can really be useful (Ie they would first actually need to know how to use cover (better than they do currently))

[SaOk 112]

I am using repositioning for whole player led group in my mission when player "dies" (custom script preventing actual dieing), cutscenes are played or player uses custom fast traveling. Often after teleporting (unit setpos position) the team-mates with player to new location far away, some of the units might head back to the orginal location ignoring all orders. Happened again a minute ago, enemy vehicle shot me and almost whole squad (that were following me normally without any move orders). Me and remaining AI team-mates was teleported to new location and one of them started to head back again ignoring everything (move orders, return in formation).

I tried to use debug console to make him follow me again but all these had no effect:

{dostop _x;_x dofollow player;} foreach units group player - [player];
{_x dofollow player;} foreach units group player - [player];
{_x dofollow _x;} foreach units group player - [player];
{_x domove getposATL player;} foreach units group player - [player];
{_x commandfollow player;} foreach units group player - [player];

Edited November 22, 2013 by SaOk

[xendance 3]

this is to a degree, controllable with behaviour of the unit. If they are in safe or careless they will prefer to travel on roads and on a more direct route. On aware they are a bit more cautious. And in danger they go for the route with most cover (or they try to). But still I agree it would be nice for mission makers/modders to have more control over the ai's "tendacies". For example it might be cool to set the a urgency/aggressiveness of ai groups - 1 means they will sit down and hold cover until they are absolutely sure the way is safe and 10 is a suicidal rush at all costs. Or to be able to set the ammunition conservation of a given group - 1 is only firing if you believe you can kill and ten is unloading a clip at when a bush rustles too much - stuff like that would be neat to be able to easily access.

Of course this is wishful thinking though. First individual level ai needs to be improved before these can really be useful (Ie they would first actually need to know how to use cover (better than they do currently))

Yup, in combat/stealth mode AI isn't afraid to go through woods. I would like if they did that even in aware mode too, hence my desire for the setting. Just setting a combat/stealth waypoint doesn't work, I don't want my squads yelling "COVERING, GO - MOVING" when they're 1 km away from expected enemy contact. But I'd still like to have them use proper concealed routes instead of roads....

[Bouben 3]

Yup, in combat/stealth mode AI isn't afraid to go through woods. I would like if they did that even in aware mode too, hence my desire for the setting. Just setting a combat/stealth waypoint doesn't work, I don't want my squads yelling "COVERING, GO - MOVING" when they're 1 km away from expected enemy contact. But I'd still like to have them use proper concealed routes instead of roads....

The "Covering, Go" shouts should be reduced anyway. It sounds stupid when whole squad is constantly doing such a loud mess.

[dnk 13]

On this subject, it would be nice to have a new menu for AI engagement modes. I mean, this is a bit unintuitive, and there seems to be no way to set "white", and also it's not clear to a newcomer what the various modes (stealth-safe) do to this (nothing, but that's not clear - I would think "stealth" would be "green"):

Combat Modes:

• "BLUE" (Never fire)
  
  • When hostile units are detected, they will track them, but will never fire back, even when fired upon.
    
  • This mode can only be set through the editor or script. No in-game commands to subordinates can set them to combat mode Blue.
    

  [*] "GREEN" (Hold fire - defend only)

  • When a player orders his units to "Hold fire", the units are set to combat mode Green.
    

  [*] "WHITE" (Hold fire, engage at will)

  [*] "YELLOW" (Fire at will)

  • If AI spots a target and decides it is in effective range, he will open fire. By default AI is set to YELLOW.
    
  • If a leader calls Target, the unit with aim without breaking formation.
    

  [*] "RED" (Fire at will, engage at will)

  • When a leader commands his units to Engage at will, combat mode RED is set. The AI does not keep formation and each member moves individualy. The leader command Disengage will set the units back to fire at will (YELLOW)
    
  • If Attack and Engage is called, the unit will break formation to find the best place to attack from (combat mode RED).
    

Something that's bothered me since the beginning...

Also, you can't force the AI to fire on someone with the "fire" command if they're out of range (even if that's well within weapon's lethal range). So, a sniper can't fire on a target at 600m no matter what, since he's locked at under 500m.

Also there's no way to use a "target" mouse command (unless I missed something), only "engage". So, if I have a sniper and want him to target X soldier but stay in place to do so, how? Scroll through the 20 "soldier" entries in the target menu? It's one of those little things that really annoy me.

[Bouben 3]

Also there's no way to use a "target" mouse command (unless I missed something), only "engage". So, if I have a sniper and want him to target X soldier but stay in place to do so, how? Scroll through the 20 "soldier" entries in the target menu? It's one of those little things that really annoy me.

Actually, the context sensitive engage command will act as a target command when first used on an enemy unit. Your unit will stay in place. You then have to give him the engage order to actually engage the target.

However there seems to be a bug, I already reported, that disengage command (or the same automatic "one-shot" functionality in the simple engage command) is not functioning properly. That means a unit remember the engage command as if engage at will command has been given - therefore engaging automatically even if you only target an enemy unit.

[icebreakr 3157]

Thanks to Dwarden to directing me to this thread, really appreciate it. Since I cannot go through all 140 pages, I wonder if AI accuracy will be downsized for vanilla setting? So far they are extremely accurate and deadly with 1-2 shots max on considerable distances.

[-Coulum- 35]

Thanks to Dwarden to directing me to this thread, really appreciate it. Since I cannot go through all 140 pages, I wonder if AI accuracy will be downsized for vanilla setting? So far they are extremely accurate and deadly with 1-2 shots max on considerable distances.

I don't think that they are going to straight out nerf the ai's accuracy but I think we can probably expect some documentation and hopefully an easy way of customizing the accuracy:

in progress

First of all you can expect some little improvements in the documentation on this matter (and confirmations or modifications of what was already unveiled by the community).

Rather soon we'd like to adjust the way you can setup the AI - both on global and per-unit level. I've already tried to take some of your notes into the account, but expect me to approach you with some feedback desideratum & an offer you won't refuse. :devil:

Disclaimer: no new features

I think that BIS is well aware of the complaints. My guess and hope is that they don't want to make the ai too nerfed - and simply decreasing their accuracy will do exactly that. Because although sometimes the ai are way to good at shooting, sometimes they aren't good enough. I think the goal should be to have ai with dynammic accuracy based on the situation around them and their target. The closest example of this is TPW suppression or fabrizios bcombat where ai accuracy is degraded in dire situations. But I doubt this is an easy tweak - rather more of a feature - so it will take time if BIS even has it in mind. And until then I would rather ai that are a bit overpowered than an ai that is underpowered.

And currently if you go into a fight not expecting more than a kill or two at most and having to use cover and teamates extensively to "unpin" you, the ai actually aren't that bad to play against. Unfortunately most missions aren't setup in that way - usually you have to kill a dozen ai and quickly to be successful. And this is why the accuracy seems to be a problem.

[dnk 13]

The AI are almost always too good at shooting. The issue is they often:

1. don't shoot back at all or
   
2. don't take cover appropriately (and use smoke in a pinch) and
   
3. are relatively unaggressive under fire, typically just staying roughly in place and wandering around as they're slowly shot down, rather than having move/attack orders created dynamically (if this is the case, I've never seen it in action at least) and truly engaging the enemy, especially when they are vastly superior numerically
   

(A) is an issue with engagement limits I think, but it's really only a problem because of (B) and ©. If (B) and © were functional, (A) would make sense, but without (B) and ©, (A) sticks out like a sore thumb since it's what we have to fall back on - sitting in place mostly and returning fire.

(B) is perhaps the most necessary. You can't have real suppression when the AI don't even understand "cover", where it is, or how/when to use it.

© requires more computation, and it requires the AI to find higher-level "cover". I'll give an example to illustrate what's needed: I'm on a ridge 200-400m away from a city. There are 8 members of my squad (7AI+me). The town has 4-5 groups of 6-8 AI wandering around inside and patroling the outside. We open up on one group 400m away in an open road. Their reaction is the following:

Oh, hey, Johnson just fell down, hey we're being shot at. Hey, like, let's lay down. Oh, wait, no I'm going to stand up now and slowly walk to the left 5m. Now I'm going to crouch. Oh, hey, I can't figure out where the shots are coming from, they're too far (400m). Is it to the west? The north? Let me look at those ways. OW! I was shot! Oh, there you are! Let me now crouch and start shooting at you in the open. Oh, I am dying now. Life is unfair. We should've called one of the 5 other squads to help us, but they're all slowly walking around in a blind confusion too. What is "flank"? What is "double time"? bleaaahhhhhhhh (dead)

Yeah, that behavior needs to change. The AI need to know when they're in a vulnerable position and need to be able to find less vulnerable positions and they need to know when to move to those other positions as fast as possible and to take cover behind obstacles appropriately and they need to be better at figuring the direction of incoming fire at a distance. The distance they are willing to travel to find "better ground" needs to be relative to the distance of the force engaging them as well.

[Tonci87 163]

Something i would really like to see is AI running for nearby woods if tanks appear and they don't have AT weapons. Currently they just stand there and wait to be killed.

[maturin 12]

The AI already runs away from armored vehicles. It just sucks at it. Which is the case with a lot of features.

[dnk 13]

I feel like a lot of the sucking has to do with speed. They do things slowly. They rarely actually run, but if you ever see humans playing it's really binary: still or sprinting. It makes a huge difference both in the AI's ability and the human's sense of that ability.

[OMAC 254]

Something i would really like to see is AI running for nearby woods if tanks appear and they don't have AT weapons. Currently they just stand there and wait to be killed.

Yes. A fast-paced "scatter" effect to find cover or concealment when an AI squad comes under fire would be great. But when no cover/concealment is available within say 50m, then the squad would behave as now, entering combat mode, going prone, etc.