HETMAN - Artificial Leader

[monyetswa 1]

Groups controlled by a "TERRORIST" leader personality should work under different "Low-level" AI behavior

I agree with this, so maybe a new personality "terrorist" is not the best solution, especially when leaders are set to random personality, and for those who like to keep all conventional wars. For example, it would be bad if you're playing as US army, and you leader gets assigned as a "terrorist" and gives you jihad missions.

LeaderHQ uses mainly "straightforward" tactics.

I think Sabotage missions can be incorporated into the straighforward tactics, especially under "SCHEMER" or "CHAOTIC" LeaderHQs. It can add another level of dynamics in the same way that the SpecOps missions did for HAC A2. Certainly hopeful if Ryd got it 60% done, and if it will be a different project I hope we can use it alongside HAL.

[giorgygr 61]

is not the best solution, especially when leaders are set to random personality, and for those who like to keep all conventional wars. For example, it would be bad if you're playing as US army, and you leader gets assigned as a "terrorist" and gives you jihad missions.

Mission maker can define exactly what personality want/fits the scenario ..or even have the freedom to create a "Custom" personality

Another solution is "Terrorist's" leader personality wouldn't have been in the array-where scripts randomly selects a personality..but only by

"Specific" request.

Anyways Rydygier already said this concept of "Terrorist" leader won't (probably) be a part of "main" HETMAN as it requires quite different approach..

[katipo66 94]

AI (stabilisation forces/occupant)

this is the part that I'm interested in, playing as infiltrator/commando... I've had fun setting up these types of scenarios in editor I.e. A large occupying force with outposts, supply lines (convoys) etc, it's hard to get right though and a lot of work but I've wished for a system that manages supply lines and protection of valuable interests along with believable reaction and response to found dead bodies or wrecks... Would be awesome if player received reports on possible targets as he moved through map... Anyway glad to hear you haven't given up on it.

[HJohnson 16]

Anyone got this to work? In A2 you'd set the leader, an objective, and things would happen. Now? There's an objective, and the riflemen just stand there, never receive an order. Or worse, it tells the helicopter which has been defined as cargo to go and kill everybody by itself....

[delta99 34]

^^ I got the same error. I wonder if it is linked to DEV version or another mod that I use? Actually it COULD be that I was playing the mission in MP instead of SP ?

Mine was using Stable branch not DEV and no mods.

---------- Post added at 20:09 ---------- Previous post was at 20:04 ----------

Maybe... Tested MP usual way - TADST for dedi, I client side from same PC, BB demo exported as MP scenario. Result:

http://imageshack.com/a/img62/943/b5aj.jpg

Just for more info, I was testing in MP but not dedicated server. Although shouldn't be a big difference I wouldn't think.

(odd, unlike in SP editor preview, despite ammo bars in editor are full, at init all my subordinates reported lack of ammo. They really haven't any ammo apparently, as HAL, as we se, considered group as combat ineffective (HAL counts magazines) and assigned rest order... new game bug?)

There is a long standing A3 issue with AT units reporting NO ammo even though they do have ammo. Not sure if this is the same thing you are seeing. Not sure if scripting commands that HAL is using to count mags are also bugged and therefore it looks like they have no ammo. I wouldn't doubt it. It is extremely annoying when BIS does not fix these issues that they MUST see every single day when they do their testing.

Probably nothing you can do to fix this other than wait for BIS to fix it. Or maybe find a different way to count their ammo if there is any!!!

---------- Post added at 20:11 ---------- Previous post was at 20:09 ----------

I m quite sure i have read the HC should be in a separate account (mainly STEAM reasons)

I assume you can probably use the ARMA3.exe where the Server.exe is..but (again assumption) you will still need a different

STEAM account..so a different ARMA3 copy to connect and test as Player.. (2 clients sharing 1 account=impossible to my knowledge)

Most folks run 2 clients to do MP testing all the time. I do it all the time. No separate install, no 2nd Steam account.

HC should certainly be run on a different system only for performance reasons. BUT, for testing to just make sure things work, doing things on 1 system is likely possible. The reason I say likely is because I haven't used HC myself but it probably isn't any different than running a couple of clients or a client and a server instance.

[giorgygr 61]

@ Delta99

Let me put this differently.. See posts #55 , #61

If i m mistaken..i apologize..

[Rydygier 1302]

@ HJohnson

Anyone got this to work?

As you can read... :)

In A2 you'd set the leader, an objective, and things would happen. Now?

Now is the same. Nothing was changed here.

There's an objective, and the riflemen just stand there, never receive an order. Or worse, it tells the helicopter which has been defined as cargo to go and kill everybody by itself....

See first post about proper bug reporting. Want something to be fixed? Give me proper bug description including repro. That way I can do something about fast. Otherwise... Well, I cannot. If I encounter such problems, then I'll fix them. For now - I do not see problems described by you. There is one case, where player leading a group under HAL control does not get any order - if it it set as idle reserve and has designated idle sentry closer than 100 meters from its current position, then there will be no any order notifiation, as he anyway does, what he should - standing there.

Cargo - was CargoOnly init variable defined with the helicopter's group inside?

Just for more info, I was testing in MP but not dedicated server. Although shouldn't be a big difference I wouldn't think.

OK, thanks a lot. So tested also playing as MP scenario server side. Same - no such marker text problem for me. Unfortunatelly, if I cannot repro a bug nor understand, what is a cause (bug mechanism), I'm unable to do anything about. Perhaps I'll be able to reproduce it somehow, sometime.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Rydygier

[Rydygier 1302]

Including that RHQCheck code indeed was great idea. I did that just today, and found some classnames typos. HAL checks for classes are case sensitive. Whereas in some classes, that I obtained from Six Config Browser was uppercase (...Soldier...), in current A3 config is lowercase (...soldier...) or vice versa. This is enough to make HAL "blind" for that classname... I'll correct that of course, but, If I'm remember corectly, devs can sometimes do such "jokes" with new patches, and for example class, that before patch was "O_Truck_02_Ammo_F" after patch may be "O_Truck_02_ammo_F"... So I'm planning to add code, that will make HAL resistant to case change, if possible (may be too complex). Anyway, I'll often do RHQCheck, as there are expected also new classnames, eg for campaign characters.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Rydygier

[Rydygier 1302]

1.02 released. Changelog:

- fixed and updated default RHQ classnames set;

- new init config variable: RydHQ_RHQCheck (common) to show, if any units present on map aren't included in RHQ;

- updated manual.

[kremator 1064]

Cool. Thanks for update.

[giorgygr 61]

^

This :)

[gammadust 12]

Very happy to see you bringing this up to A3, Ryd :)

HAL checks for classes are case sensitive. (...)

Just a suggestion to deal with this: Simply convert both strings toLower when comparing. This allows you to keep you class database as is. Unless for some odd reason you have actually a class which requires that case sensivity.

[Rydygier 1302]

Unless for some odd reason you have actually a class which requires that case sensivity.

Eh, no, only reason, that stops me is that I have about 70 places (where typeOf checks are used) to manual edit to make it work with toLower... :)

Plus, of course, this means 70 additional calculations to make for HAL here and there, while string operations supposed to be heavy. So I'm wondering, if such price is worthy of pay, if HAL can work fine without, just I must be up to date with any such classnames "funny case changes".

[Guest]

Thanks for the headsup about the new version :cool:

Updated version frontpaged on the Armaholic homepage.

HETMAN - Artificial Leader v1.02



Community Base addons A3

==================================================

We have also "connected" these pages to your account on Armaholic.

This means in the future you will be able to maintain these pages yourself if you wish to do so. Once this new feature is ready we will contact you about it and explain how things work and what options you have.

When you have any questions already feel free to PM or email me!

[Rydygier 1302]

Semper grati.

(Latin by Google) :)

[HJohnson 16]

@ HJohnson

As you can read... :)

Now is the same. Nothing was changed here.

See first post about proper bug reporting. Want something to be fixed? Give me proper bug description including repro. That way I can do something about fast. Otherwise... Well, I cannot. If I encounter such problems, then I'll fix them. For now - I do not see problems described by you. There is one case, where player leading a group under HAL control does not get any order - if it it set as idle reserve and has designated idle sentry closer than 100 meters from its current position, then there will be no any order notifiation, as he anyway does, what he should - standing there.

Cargo - was CargoOnly init variable defined with the helicopter's group inside?

OK, thanks a lot. So tested also playing as MP scenario server side. Same - no such marker text problem for me. Unfortunatelly, if I cannot repro a bug nor understand, what is a cause (bug mechanism), I'm unable to do anything about. Perhaps I'll be able to reproduce it somehow, sometime.

I rarely if ever have myself as the leader of a group when running hac/hal, but its setting the group the player is a part of as idle reserve. Is there a variable to define things to be reserve? I tried copy and pasting multiple teams, and still they all went into this "defend the leader" mode. Turning off the recon stage, etc, didn't work.

Yet when I turned on AiA, and used the latest Ryd_Hac for Arma 2, he just went and did things...

[Rydygier 1302]

What can I say not seeing exact case? Just some good advices...

Depends on mission design and Hetman settings some groups will more often set to idle, than others (in general these positioned further from designated mission areas or less adequate for needed kind of job and of course, the more groups, the more of them will stay idle). Possible is to make player group more needed via several methods:

1. Knowing, what tasks my be needed at start, to choose proper kind of group for player.

2. Locate player's group closer to the expected task areas than other groups.

3. Reduce amount of groups - bigger chance to be busy.

4. Set the mission, so Leader will know about some enemies soon after init - this will make busy more groups than recon & capture.

5. If recon is active, play at night, then more recon groups are sent.

6. If recon is off, raise CaptLimit, so more groups will be sent to capture each objective.

7. Use RydHQ_FirstToFight - this ensures, that included groups will be not set as reserve. Stil not guarantees action. If there is less jobs to do than groups, always some will be idle.

8. Reduce value of RydHQ_AttackReserve and/or RydHQ_ReconReserve, even to 0, if needed, still, see point 7 - no more groups are busy with tasks, than amount of current tasks.

9. Do not play as memeber of SpecFor group. These guys are always kept as HQ guard, unless some valuable target will be spotted.

There may be more tricks.

Unless the case is, always all groups are left idle. That means, something is wrong. Usually happens, when HAL doesn't recognize classnames of used units (eg when non-vanilla A3 units are used without set RHQ). Today update may be helpful with that.

If you want more specific help - I need more specific data, means proper repro...

Edited November 2, 2013 by Rydygier

[delta99 34]

OK, thanks a lot. So tested also playing as MP scenario server side. Same - no such marker text problem for me. Unfortunatelly, if I cannot repro a bug nor understand, what is a cause (bug mechanism), I'm unable to do anything about. Perhaps I'll be able to reproduce it somehow, sometime.

understood. If I can repro I will send info otherwise I haven't see it in another run. One question though. Does HAC always out player marker for task on map? I have played where it also doesn't show up at all. I have a task in the task list but no marker. This may have been an idle task but can't remember for sure.

[Rydygier 1302]

Unless I forgot about something, player should get "own" map marker each time he gets a task.

[giorgygr 61]

At least in previous version it worked.I haven't got under HAL command in newer version.

---

Hmm..

Is there something can be done about HAL vehicle attacks?

I have a feeling there are moving 2 slow to the AO.

i.e

I m testing a scenario where Player (+his group) will make a surprise attack to one village under HAL's protection.

When player gets detected by guards or patrols HAL scripts initialize and then HAL's reaction takes place (Just awesome i ll say :) )

I just have a feeling that Armored cars take awfully too long to reach the AO..giving enough time to *attacker for escape.

(IF he s lucky enough to hide from Air units/Arty shells/secretly transported Infantry)

The village its around 5km from HAL's main base (Helicopters/Armored cars/Armors/Arty).

*As I write this Ryd_mega_man.. I want to congratulate you once more :)

Edited November 3, 2013 by GiorgyGR

[phronk 895]

FIA commanders apparently do not utilize AH-9 assets synced to them in the editor. I orbited around the commander awaiting orders for about 20 minutes - maybe a little less - and didn't receive a single order. This was tested using the Altis demo mission. I created a AH-9 on the ground, set myself as the player of the unit, synced the AH-9 to the FIA commander, and didn't get an order. Is this because the AH-9 is not part of the FIA category in the editor? Do factions only utilize assets synced to them that are of the same faction?

[EDIT]

I'd also like to request more informative markers on the map, mainly for identifying who's Alpha, who's a detachment of Alpha, who's in Bravo, and so on and so forth by using the traditional ArmA 3 military symbols/markers that represent infantry, armor, artillery, rotory wing, etc.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Phronk

[Rydygier 1302]

I just have a feeling that Armored cars take awfully too long to reach the AO..giving enough time to *attacker for escape.

I'm not sure, what to do with that. Perhaps just 5 km is too far for quick enough armored response? I understand the feelings, but I need something more substantial to work with... I mean, particular reason, why in your opinion armored vehicles are too slow? Too big delay before sending? Too slow movement? Bad route? AI driver stuck? Depends on reason I can try to do something about, or not.

FIA commanders apparently do not utilize AH-9 assets synced to them in the editor. I orbited around the commander awaiting orders for about 20 minutes - maybe a little less - and didn't receive a single order. This was tested using the Altis demo mission. I created a AH-9 on the ground, set myself as the player of the unit, synced the AH-9 to the FIA commander, and didn't get an order. Is this because the AH-9 is not part of the FIA category in the editor? Do factions only utilize assets synced to them that are of the same faction?

Factions are irreleveant. All synced friendly units should be commanded, and category arrays are common to all Leaders. But no any order after 20 minutes doesn't means necessarily, that something is wrong. Possibly Leader just doesn't need you for anything that long. Note, that aerial units doesn't get any idle orders, these get some task only when needed for real job. All depends on situation. That's why to determine what is gong on, I need exact repro. Read first post about Bug reporting, people... Proper form of bug report really may speed up desired fix, if needed, without it we have delay, when I'm asking for a repro and waiting, until bug hunter log in on the forum again and provide me one, while I could work on that bug report right away and be ready with response before bug hunter next log in.

In this case... Just did simple confirmation. Placed myself, as you did, as pilot of AH-9 under Leader's control. After preview I, of course, did not get any orders, because Leader needed only three land force groups to take objective. These was sent, objective was pretty far thus long waiting for anything more. But next time I set also OPFOR infantry ahead of Leader's position, so there was good chance for quick encounter. As soon, as Leader learned about that enemy, including some delay (waiting for new cycle for that Leader) my AH-9 was sent with ait attack mission - all is fine. All except on screen notification. Text to display is "S&D", displayed was: "S?". Not HAL issue, unless "&" acts there as kind of special symbol or something...

I'd also like to request more informative markers on the map, mainly for identifying who's Alpha, who's a detachment of Alpha, who's in Bravo, and so on and so forth by using the traditional ArmA 3 military symbols/markers that represent infantry, armor, artillery, rotory wing, etc.

But... Doesn't military symbols (Marta) module sufficient? It does exactly that. If not, please, describe in detailed way all data you need (some example picture may be very helpful), and I'll think about.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Rydygier

[giorgygr 61]

@About slow response of vehicle-support

I know there are tenth's of reasons for this behavior.

I just wanted to make sure the attack vehicles doesn't have "limited" or "normal" speed

on HAL's waypoints -especially when the target area is Far away (so any-expected-danger/risk is kinda "limited")

[Rydygier 1302]

"LIMITED" speed is for on foot infantry, if target is far (so will not run so far all the way - this was requested long time ago), or it is idle mission, there is no enemy near and rush variable is false. Withdrawing units towards defensive positions is with "FULL" speed. Rest is on "NORMAL". Unless something was changed in A3, "FULL" differs from "NORMAL" only in that, units do not keep group formation, but just running ASAP. Additionally, when not in combat, vehicles are on "SAFE", that means will prefer move on roads.

[giorgygr 61]

Hmm..

Maybe a major reason could be my CPU *limited power (Q6600).

Probably the results of AI's effectiveness to quickly follow-drive though their routes would have been better

under *other circumstances..