AI Discussion (dev branch)

[SuicideKing 233]

Could it be made such that infantry set to CARELESS don't ignore the speed setting? Right now they'll walk even if you ask them to run. CARELESS + FULL SPEED would give us a way to make a "run while under fire to a safe position" possibility, useful post dismount from vehicles inside the AO.

[lexx 1392]

You can set them to aware, disable autocombat so they won't go into "combat", and then set a waypoint to full speed to make them do what you want?

[haleks 8212]

1 hour ago, SuicideKing said:

Could it be made such that infantry set to CARELESS don't ignore the speed setting? Right now they'll walk even if you ask them to run. CARELESS + FULL SPEED would give us a way to make a "run while under fire to a safe position" possibility, useful post dismount from vehicles inside the AO.

 

Are you crazy?! It's much safer to lie down in the middle of the road or behind a streetlamp!

[SuicideKing 233]

44 minutes ago, lexx said:

You can set them to aware, disable autocombat so they won't go into "combat", and then set a waypoint to full speed to make them do what you want?

I mean, I guess I could - it's just more steps (since autocombat then has to be re-enabled) (i didn't think about this, btw, so thanks!).

 

Besides, CARELESS ignoring SPEED settings seems counter-intuitive to me anyway...

[haleks 8212]

12 minutes ago, SuicideKing said:

Besides, CARELESS ignoring SPEED settings seems counter-intuitive to me anyway...

 

That's just one of the many problems with AI behaviours...

COMBAT & STEALTH are pretty much the same - except they use different radio protocols, SAFE & CARELESS are of no use in most situations and turn your soldiers into tired grumpies that don't care for formations, and each behaviour seems to have its own set of rules regarding speed settings and waypoints completion.

Those were designed to simulate realistic soldiers, but the end result is unintuitive and turns your life as a squad leader into a frustrating nightmare.

 

I really hope BIS throws all that clunky heritage through the window for Arma4 : Arma3 hit the same brickwall than its predecessors in terms of single player immersion and functionnality, I mean, the only viable ways to play Arma3 (IMO) are :

- COOP players against AI (the format ShackTac is focussing on at the moment).

- PvP.

- Single player scenarios involving the player alone (no AI squadmates).

 

As a SP player, I feel letdown by Arma3 and won't continue with Arma4 unless a groundbreaking evolution happens...

[biggerdave 56]

The problem is, as a squad leader, pretty much all the commands you can give to adjust your AI soldiers behaviour do nothing. Aware/Safe/Combat/Stealth are all virtually identical, since the AI will always transition to Combat mode when they know about enemies (regardless of how up-to-date that information is, or where the enemy are). Engage At will/Engage/Disengage don't do anything, since the AI always attacks targets of opportunity (sidenote, has "Engage" ever done anything?). Open Fire/Fire/Hold fire are the only ones of that much use, and even then, the AI will leave "hold fire" mode under... some condition? (As best I can tell, it's when the enemy spots them, which seems to suggest the AI can read the minds of the enemy?)

 

I think the various bandage solutions applied to OFP's "AI wrangling" has kinda just made everything the same: the default behaviour (Aware/Disengage) isn't the "default behaviour". Since the AI are (quite rightly, IMHO) being expected to seek cover and engage targets of opportunity without explicitly being told to, but rather than make "Combat/Engage at will" the default behaviour, "Aware/Disengage" has been modified to make it what "Combat/Engage at will" used to be, which in turn has just made "Combat/Engage at will" useless.

 

IMHO, it'd be best to move back towards how the AI handled these things in OFP, with some slight updates:

-Aware has your soldiers keep a rigid formation, and prioritize following orders over everything else.

-Combat becomes the new default, and behaves how aware does right now (so, keep formation when you don't know about the enemy, run around all tactical like when you do)

-Stealth stays the same

-Disengage doesn't attack targets unless told to.

-Engage becomes the new default, attacks targets of opportunity, and doesn't use launchers unless told to.

-Engage at will attacks targets of opportunity, and freely uses suppressive fire and antitank weapons without being told to.

[haleks 8212]

I would suggest getting rid of all those "engage/attack/disengage" shenanighans in the first place : it is obtrusive and slow. The leading squad aspect needs to be fluid above all else : issuing commands should be instictive  and fast instead of navigating through a painfull squad command menu (and sub-menus, argh!).

 

Re-working the entire behaviour approach is necessary too : we need them to be easier to use and manipulate, and actually serve their respective purpose without some kind of hidden rules or hindering scripted approaches, for the sake of mission and mod making. We definitely need more control over the AI, or at least a serious step torwards credible and natural behaviours. In its current state, the AI does a great job at emulating infantry on a more or less large scale, but as soon as you get closer to this more intimate aspect of Arma (playing as an infantry man among many), countless weird reactions (or lack of) and/or unexpected glitches completely break the immersion and fun of it. The mechanics in Arma3 would serve a RTS game wonderfully, but fail to deliver in most of the more immersive aspects, eventhough the latest updates added a lot of improvements on this (sound design especially).

 

Given the love/hate story with the Arma AI, I'm guessing Arma4 will be a total shift towards multiplayer, or a complete rework of the AI to accomodate both SP & MP environments. Well, let's say I hope BIS comes to a clear decision, at least.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

small tweak which would benefit AI modders:

 

A command to return what an AI unit is shooting at, or aiming at.

 

Here is an example use-case

 

<unit> addEventHandler [
	'FiredMan',
	{
		params ['_unit','','','','','','',''];
		_target = currentTarget _unit;
		if (_target iskindof 'car') then {
			_unit doSuppressiveFire _target;
			_unit removeEventHandler ['FiredMan',_thisEventHandler];
		};
	}
];

 

It would nicely compliment the recent addition of: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/targets

 

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/assignedTarget   is not an alternative, as it hooks into the squad command system, and in my experience most of the time AI are engaging targets while their assignedTarget == null object.

[SuicideKing 233]

3 hours ago, haleks said:

SAFE & CARELESS are of no use in most situations and turn your soldiers into tired grumpies that don't care for formations

Not quite sure of this, they'll follow formation but ignore speed (or maybe they just default to a column?). Thus, SAFE tends to be useful for patrols, as they switch to AWARE and COMBAT automatically. SAFE also lets vehicles drive with their lights on, and on the road.

 

CARELESS is probably more useful for vehicles - helicopters don't get spooked and unload troops properly, and ground vehicles don't stop to dismount troops prematurely. It's effectively "ignore all combat" - but then of course it seems to ignore speed (as i mentioned previously) making it useless for infantry.

 

1 hour ago, biggerdave said:

Aware/Safe/Combat/Stealth are all virtually identical,

Well, the differences are in control of lights, etc.

 

SAFE: Vics use roads, keep lights on. Infantry walk in formation, some keep lights on. I think infantry ignore SPEED, can't remember. Both switch to AWARE on spotting threats.

AWARE: Vics use roads, keep lights off. Infantry will jog in formation (by default), I've forgotten the lights setting, though. Both respect SPEED (although sometimes i think the vehicles are ignoring SPEED). Vics dismount troops in the same group, Both switch to COMBAT upon spotting threats.

COMBAT: Vics don't use roads, keep lights off. Infantry seem to ignore SPEED and prioritise safety and take cover, and use all flashlights. I think vics respect SPEED. Helicopters start doing weird shit.

STEALTH: No lights, infantry whispers. Same as COMBAT otherwise, as you said.

 

1 hour ago, biggerdave said:

Engage At will/Engage/Disengage don't do anything,

I believe the difference here is that "Engage" = OPEN FIRE, KEEP FORMATION and "Engage at will" = "OPEN FIRE, BREAK FORMATION".

[cosmic10r 2331]

Interesting... that new target command.

Mikey and i were talking cover mechanic again...

 

Ai laying prone in the open indefinately really grinds my gears... 

[h - 169]

Speaking of AI related scripting:
Targets is nice command but clearTargets would make it nicer, or that forgetTarget would clear the forgotten target out of it.
AFAIK now even if you make an AI forgetTarget a target it's still in it's targets array and stays there for some unknown engine defined amount of time..

The command reveal also behaves oddly, if you just dood reveal [target, 1]  dood gets too precise position information of the target = in 5m offset. Whereas if dood gains knowledge of the enemy "naturally" at knowsAbout of 1 the position offset is hundreds of meters (checked with targetKnowledge).. To fix this you have to first reveal the target with 0.105 or less and then with 1 and you get the "natural" position data. Could be nice if the command did the natural way by default..
 

44 minutes ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

A command to return what an AI unit is shooting at, or aiming at.

I suggested that years ago with no luck (was just suggesting with name currentTarget, but whatever). :(
Maybe in the next engine then.
 

 

1 hour ago, biggerdave said:

the AI always attacks targets of opportunity

This is really infuriating.

They also seem to completely lack any target prioritizing other than how scawy the target is: the AI's scope fetish results AT (when the AT has a magnifying sight) guys screaming about armored targets 800m away while in firefight with infantry 100m away. Of course getting killed because they're watching something else entirely than focusing on the fight at hand, or even engaging and missing the armored target, getting killed by it and thus drawing the armor into the fight as well..

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

>> AFAIK now even if you make an AI forgetTarget a target it's still in it's targets array and stays there for some unknown engine defined amount of time..

 

Ahh, didnt realize the forgetTarget command was a fake tweak as well :\

[h - 169]

Well, it's half-fake as it still makes the AI forget the target

Since for the longest time knowsAbout was the only way to tap into the AI so we've been asking a way to reset it ever since OFP and forgetTarget finally does that after what, 15 years of asking..

[biggerdave 56]

44 minutes ago, SuicideKing said:

Well, the differences are in control of lights, etc.

 

SAFE: Vics use roads, keep lights on. Infantry walk in formation, some keep lights on. I think infantry ignore SPEED, can't remember. Both switch to AWARE on spotting threats.

AWARE: Vics use roads, keep lights off. Infantry will jog in formation (by default), I've forgotten the lights setting, though. Both respect SPEED (although sometimes i think the vehicles are ignoring SPEED). Vics dismount troops in the same group, Both switch to COMBAT upon spotting threats.

COMBAT: Vics don't use roads, keep lights off. Infantry seem to ignore SPEED and prioritise safety and take cover, and use all flashlights. I think vics respect SPEED. Helicopters start doing weird shit.

STEALTH: No lights, infantry whispers. Same as COMBAT otherwise, as you said.

 

I believe the difference here is that "Engage" = OPEN FIRE, KEEP FORMATION and "Engage at will" = "OPEN FIRE, BREAK FORMATION".

Gonna be honest, I completely forgot vehicles were even in the game when making that post XD

 

AFAIK, the only difference between Safe and Aware for infantry is they keep their weapons lowered and tend to move slower. (maybe they have lights on if they have them, which, tbh, kinda useless since they're pointing them at the floor. Good job illuminating that tiny area next to your foot!)

 

As far as I can tell, Engage is a direct order, not a mode (like "Fire") - though, I'm only guessing that because you can spam it, while if a soldiers already in a mode, trying to issue the mode change order again won't produce any chat message.

1 hour ago, haleks said:

I would suggest getting rid of all those "engage/attack/disengage" shenanighans in the first place : it is obtrusive and slow. The leading squad aspect needs to be fluid above all else : issuing commands should be instictive  and fast instead of navigating through a painfull squad command menu (and sub-menus, argh!).

 

Re-working the entire behaviour approach is necessary too : we need them to be easier to use and manipulate, and actually serve their respective purpose without some kind of hidden rules or hindering scripted approaches, for the sake of mission and mod making. We definitely need more control over the AI, or at least a serious step torwards credible and natural behaviours. In its current state, the AI does a great job at emulating infantry on a more or less large scale, but as soon as you get closer to this more intimate aspect of Arma (playing as an infantry man among many), countless weird reactions (or lack of) and/or unexpected glitches completely break the immersion and fun of it. The mechanics in Arma3 would serve a RTS game wonderfully, but fail to deliver in most of the more immersive aspects, eventhough the latest updates added a lot of improvements on this (sound design especially).

 

Given the love/hate story with the Arma AI, I'm guessing Arma4 will be a total shift towards multiplayer, or a complete rework of the AI to accomodate both SP & MP environments. Well, let's say I hope BIS comes to a clear decision, at least.

Yeah, ideally you'd want to be able to go from "sneaky" to "light'em up" with a single command (navigating through menus is a PITA, definitely not convenient when under fire!). Completely overhauling the system right now would probably break pretty every mission that uses waypoints, though... hopefully the next game has it completely overhauled... but dammit! I want fixed AI for the game I've actually brought! =p

[SuicideKing 233]

So based on my recent experience with AI unnecessarily shooting (and wasting ammo) at empty vehicles, I think it might be a good idea to revert this behaviour. They continue to shoot vehicles with dead occupants, for example. Or they'll shoot at vehicles who's occupants have bailed and been killed. They basically don't stop unless they've captured the vehicle (behaviour enabled by mods like ASR AI), or the vehicle is burning.

 

If you're against reverting it*, then it may be an idea to set a time limit on how long the vehicle should be engaged if there are no other enemies around it, or if all occupants and confirmed killed.

 

*I remember this was introduced to prevent an "exploit" where you could just get out of the vehicle to stop the AI shooting it, but the current result is AI transfixed by empty vehicles.

[Vasily.B 529]

3 hours ago, SuicideKing said:

So based on my recent experience with AI unnecessarily shooting (and wasting ammo) at empty vehicles, I think it might be a good idea to revert this behaviour. They continue to shoot vehicles with dead occupants, for example. Or they'll shoot at vehicles who's occupants have bailed and been killed. They basically don't stop unless they've captured the vehicle (behaviour enabled by mods like ASR AI), or the vehicle is burning.

 

If you're against reverting it*, then it may be an idea to set a time limit on how long the vehicle should be engaged if there are no other enemies around it, or if all occupants and confirmed killed.

 

*I remember this was introduced to prevent an "exploit" where you could just get out of the vehicle to stop the AI shooting it, but the current result is AI transfixed by empty vehicles.

Agree, its very frustraiting. AI focus on wrong targets by this way. Its also problematic with modded vehicles, where on commander cupola you got 300 rounds, and tank commander keep firing and wasting this ammo. Empty targets are still recognized as enemy. Connect this for example with RHS mod, which is in first 3 top mods, and this behavior is ruining gameplay - RHS light armored vehicles are not exploding (M117, BRDM, M113) and Ai will waste ALL ammo and will keep trying to destroy empty vehicle.

Second issue with AI that is totally ruining gameplay with RHS (RHS team says it game bug) - is crew behavior. I think Reyhard could explain this better than me, as developer of RHS and now developer in BIS, but in short RHS team limited crews of Russians IFV's to 2 (driver + gunner) keeping commander's seat available. Now, if you place squad with one of those IFV's and 6 men (no matter who is commander) and order them to attack some area, they detect enemy, switch to "Combat" behavior and start engagement procedure, they will stuck at ordering cargo infantry to get out/get in for ages, till propably they will be destroyed or forget about target they saw.
As i sayed reyhard could possibly explain this in your language, i just writed how this looks as observer. Beacuse this behavior people cant place squads with BMP's, BMD's BTR's, and thats why those have been made for.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

12 hours ago, SuicideKing said:

So based on my recent experience with AI unnecessarily shooting (and wasting ammo) at empty vehicles, I think it might be a good idea to revert this behaviour. They continue to shoot vehicles with dead occupants, for example. Or they'll shoot at vehicles who's occupants have bailed and been killed. They basically don't stop unless they've captured the vehicle (behaviour enabled by mods like ASR AI), or the vehicle is burning.

 

If you're against reverting it*, then it may be an idea to set a time limit on how long the vehicle should be engaged if there are no other enemies around it, or if all occupants and confirmed killed.

 

*I remember this was introduced to prevent an "exploit" where you could just get out of the vehicle to stop the AI shooting it, but the current result is AI transfixed by empty vehicles.

 

if given a choice I would prefer AI to shoot at enemy vehicles instead of not shoot, even if just for fun/target practice.

[Strike_NOR 898]

10 hours ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

if given a choice I would prefer AI to shoot at enemy vehicles instead of not shoot, even if just for fun/target practice.

 

I do agree.

 

Imagine the following: An enemy covered truck moves into range, your squad opens up on it and unleashes a lead storm. Two enemy infantry jump out, one from the drivers cabin and one from the back. You kill them quickly. Do you A: Keep firing at the truck? or B: Wait and see?

 

In this situation where you are confident that they are enemy, it is only "natural" to keep shooting the truck. If there are enemies in the truck, they are at a disadvantage (ambushed) and you can deny them from returning fire by eliminating them while still in the vehicle.

 

This automatically holds true for other "windowless" vehicles such as APC's, IFV's, trucks, helicopters, boats etc.

 

 

In Arma, I assume AI do not guess if there are enemy crew still inside, they just 'assume' that enemy vehicles are enemy and keep firing until it is destroyed.

 

There should ideally be a compromise here, because, in real life, when you realize that your squad is the only element of combat that is unleashing fire, the enemy is no longer engaged in combat and presumably fled, surrendered or died.

Another problem arises when the enemy vehicle is a valid target for "low-caliber weaponry", but at the same time very resistant to low-caliber ammo (armored truck/humvee/MRAP). The AI will mindlessly shoot at the vehicle until it explodes, no matter the (ammo) cost.

 

As others have suggested either:

 

• Add a timeout function. (After X amount of time where the enemy vehicle is empty/dead crew - the AI recognize the vehicle as "empty" and will not engage it. (Not realistic, but better. AI magically know that tank is empty based on game engine knowledge)
• Add a threat/timeout function. (If enemy vehicle is already discovered and engaged, but is not firing its weapons or moving for X amount of time, it is no longer a threat and can be ignored). (More realistic simulation - vehicle is inactive over time. Could be dead crew, could be random, if crew is replenished it may re-engage and break the cease-fire law).
• Add a damage/threat function. (After enemy vehicle weapons have been knocked out, it becomes a low priority/low threat target. If, additionally, the mobility is taken out, the threat drops to 0.)

 

To make it even more interesting, maybe AI engagement rules could improve on this. An "Open fire, engage at will" behavior could work as a "destroy all enemies and their assets" function, while "Hold fire, engage at will" is a more relaxed state, where the objective is self-defense and not destruction of enemy targets. Here the AI will cease fire based on one of the above-mentioned suggestions.

 

The ultimate dream would be that AI could employ explosive charges and satchels to destroy static emplacements and abandoned vehicles as a "deny enemy assets" function with the "open fire, engage at will" RoE.

[SuicideKing 233]

12 hours ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

 

if given a choice I would prefer AI to shoot at enemy vehicles instead of not shoot, even if just for fun/target practice.

The problem being they now no longer have ammo (especially rockets) to engage actual threats...

 

2 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

 

This automatically holds true for other "windowless" vehicles such as APC's, IFV's, trucks, helicopters, boats etc.

The situation that prompted this post was all crew and passengers of an LSV (the armed Prowler) being shot dead, followed by the AI expending another minute, dozens of bullets and two RPGs on it until it exploded.

 

iirc the mechanic is simply "enemy/ex-enemy (and now empty) vehicle is hot (has a thermal signature) and thus must be shot at". It corresponds to the functionality of "empty but hot vehicles can now be locked on to by IR launchers/missiles". Except of course, an RPG7 has no such IR sensor, so this is even more strange...

 

I mean, the AI doesn't even have to guess about the crew, it can magically know (via scripting commands) the exact number of people in a vehicle, and easily check whether they are alive or known to be alive or not. AI is literally just code, after all.

[Vasily.B 529]

On 5.12.2017 at 4:55 PM, SuicideKing said:

The problem being they now no longer have ammo (especially rockets) to engage actual threats...

 

The situation that prompted this post was all crew and passengers of an LSV (the armed Prowler) being shot dead, followed by the AI expending another minute, dozens of bullets and two RPGs on it until it exploded.

 

iirc the mechanic is simply "enemy/ex-enemy (and now empty) vehicle is hot (has a thermal signature) and thus must be shot at". It corresponds to the functionality of "empty but hot vehicles can now be locked on to by IR launchers/missiles". Except of course, an RPG7 has no such IR sensor, so this is even more strange...

 

I mean, the AI doesn't even have to guess about the crew, it can magically know (via scripting commands) the exact number of people in a vehicle, and easily check whether they are alive or known to be alive or not. AI is literally just code, after all.

Exacly. I loosed so many missions, where wasnt any rearm points, just beacuse commander was shooting in empty or dead crewed vehicles. Its need some change. As i writed, RHS is sometimes very hard to play beacuse of it. I was witness in vanilla/RHS/other mods while tank was rushing on empty IFV, firing AA mg, (sabot in mods were just going through vehicle making no damage, just wasting ammo) and meanwhile infantry was destroying this tank, beacuse it was not focused on any other target.

[f2k sel 164]

On 12/5/2017 at 3:55 PM, SuicideKing said:

I mean, the AI doesn't even have to guess about the crew, it can magically know (via scripting commands) the exact number of people in a vehicle, and easily check whether they are alive or known to be alive or not. AI is literally just code, after all.

 I hate this aspect of the game it's such an exploit.

If the player doesn't know if a vehicle has a crew or not just let the AI take a look and they will report back if it's a threat, then if it's not  you can walk up to it without a care in the World.

[mickeymen 324]

On 20.10.2017 at 1:37 PM, oukej said:

Completion radius isn't checked all the time in all behaviors. AI checks completion often in combat or stealth. In aware or safe the AI will always go to the precise WP position before completing it.

 

@oukej  I checked my tests a dozen times and found a clear problem - Completion radius will only work for the human player, but the AI does not see it!

 

all the same Repro mission for joined AI-group here  - https://yadi.sk/d/m3xtBifD3M3eKG

At this example, the Completion Radius of joined allied group has 1000 m, but waypoint not wil completed only for AI-squad leaders!

Namely, the BLUFOR AI-squad leader will join only, when reached final point - "JOIN".  Put yourself instead of the AI-commander and this will work immediately, within a 1000 m!

 

all the same Repro mission for moving AI-group here: https://yadi.sk/d/VPphaavg3Nqnjv

The Completion Radius of moving AI-group has 100 m (first waypoint), but it again not will work only for AI-squad leaders! 

Namely,  the CSAT AI-squad leader will switch to second waypoint, only until it completes its first point in fact. 

Turn on the game settings "Show waypoints" and put yourself instead of the CSAT AI-commander and you can see - this will work immediately!

 

Please correct this finally, as this creates serious problems in missions

 

 

[LordJarhead 1725]

What I personally discovered and hated to see lately: I made a mission that had a lot of trigger and waypoint of different groups being synced. When I (player) do my work, the other groups try to keep up. Lets say that in one part of the mission the other group is planting several satchels after we took a town to blow off some AA weapons, and they wait until I reach a certain distance, clear the field and safely blow the shit up. That works in most situations. What I'm really pissy about is the following scenario:

 

I'm group leader, squad of 4 in total. Sneaking, stealth, no firing, keep formation, getting as close as possible to the town and taking them by surprise (Many are in off-duty and walking randomly, sitting and laying around or sitting in the church for what ever reason), I keep sneaking, we get down from a hill area, the town is a little below us, 300 meters maybe, 15 meters below. Of couse we spot some targets, its night, they are simple rebels so no NVG, only the elite is having NVG but they only act when we trigger an alarm system by being seen. So I keep moving, on Malden by the way, through vines, the members of my squad spot the targets and they STOP... they litteraly stop almost in the open, not laying, fucking standing to process and understand the effect of whatever they just witnessed! And we need to get to that stupid waypoint behind a wall to trigger the other group, which is already in position and waiting... so I keep moving but stupid Carl is standing there, keep telling me theres something I knew about 10 minutes ago, I keep telling them to get back into formation but they are so shocked like they didn't knew its a military simulation facing enemies... so they move for like 2 meters, stop... spotting, 4 meters, stop, spotting... repeat... and so on and on. Takes like 5 minutes for a 200 meter walk.. Why can't they just keep on track with the player or squad leader if its said to stay in formation?! They dont shot, they can if they get attacked, no problem, fair enough, but keep f*cking moving you idiots...

 

So yeah, end of story we got spotted,  having like a dinner in the vines and chilling with a group of carls, most of the squad dies when the first rebels seem to care what these people do in their vines... the other group's still waiting not knowing what the heck's going on... great...

 

LJ

 

BTW isn't there something like a arma story telling thread around here? 

[gatordev 219]

3 hours ago, LordJarhead said:

Words...

 

FWIW, I don't have this issue when I switch my squad to Staggered Column.  I typically only run a squad of 4 in my misions to make managing them easier, and using the Staggered Column has been a "fix" I've used for a long time.  They stay with me the entire time.  Sometimes they will go into a crawl only situation, but that can be dealt with by either Robalo's or FHQ's mods.

[LordJarhead 1725]

43 minutes ago, gatordev said:

 

FWIW, I don't have this issue when I switch my squad to Staggered Column.  I typically only run a squad of 4 in my misions to make managing them easier, and using the Staggered Column has been a "fix" I've used for a long time.  They stay with me the entire time.  Sometimes they will go into a crawl only situation, but that can be dealt with by either Robalo's or FHQ's mods.

 

I should try that, thanks man! :)

 

Btw one thing I actually missed, I recently have to delete all binoculars or range finders from the AI as sometimes they switch to the Bino/RF and dont switch back ti their weapon... and they some times end up being shot at without ANY sort of defense...

 

LJ