Time to fix armor warfare for AI.

[silentghoust 132]

So I decided to boot up Arma 2 :AO and did the Arma 2 Russian Bear mission. This has you command a tank platoon why playing a warfare style mission. I enjoyed it greatly and was wondering why this can't be replicated in Arma 3.

 

So after doing some test I realized their is a major issue with Arma 3 AI regarding tank platoons.

 

The biggest issue is the AI seems to use infantry behavior for the purposes of formations instead of vehicle ones. To test this, try controlling a tank platoon both in Arma 2:AO and Arma 3. You will notice that unlike Arma 3 AI, the Arma 2 AI will properly keep pace at all times with the formation. They will halt when you do, and will slow when you simply order your driver to move "slow". The biggest flag is when you order your platoon to relax. In arma 3, it appears they act like they are infantry and will attempt to wounder around as such. I have opened this ticket http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=26300in hopes that this might get fixed in the next patch before the focus is complete shifted to the new expansion. Please up vote so we can have cool armor battles again!

[OMAC 254]

Voted up.  Subsidiary tanks take too long to respond to orders.  Maintaining formation was better in A2CO in alert mode.

 

But in safe mode, the behavior is more or less the same in A2 and A3.  Units will wander a bit, leaving formation, in both games.

 

Bear Rising was one of my favorite missions in A2.  Especially after Community Config Project (CCP) fixed the Refleks missiles on the T-90s.

[ppitm 43]

How do tanks do if you set them to Column mode?

 

It's a little much to expect them to stay in a decent wedge formation on terrain as rough as Altis.

 

Imho the biggest problems with armor AI is their reluctance to use HE on infantry, and the engagement logic that always puts them in RPG range.

[mamasan8 11]

Maybe the problem has to do partly with radio commands to AI too. When I order AI to go prone, they rarely do.

 

Tanks...AI can't drive in towns, ramming every house they see. On top of that they get stuck at every rock or "barrier". You know those small rock barriers that are good cover for infantry. Tanks just ram over those and then can't get loose. Basicly sitting ducks. It never takes long for something like that to happen so I usually just wait for it to happen, so much easier to kill tanks that way.

[OMAC 254]

Yep.   ^_^   Tanks are easiest to kill when they've flipped over, which happens too often.

[[evo] dan 79]

Yep.   ^_^   Tanks are easiest to kill when they've flipped over, which happens too often.

^this, seems to just be tracked vehicles using "Physx" from experience.

[drebin052 323]

How do tanks do if you set them to Column mode?

 

It's a little much to expect them to stay in a decent wedge formation on terrain as rough as Altis.

 

Imho the biggest problems with armor AI is their reluctance to use HE on infantry, and the engagement logic that always puts them in RPG range.

 

They still have the same problem as in A2 where they'll accidentally pop one or two rounds (with predictable friendly fire results) on the vehicle in front of them if the front vehicle crosses the rear gunner's line-of-sight while they're shooting a target (applies to both Column and the compact Column). Apart from that they actually do try to keep in formation as close as possible, and if you need to stop they won't crash into you if you slowly decrease your speed. However AI drivers still can't handle sudden stops with armoured vehicles and will always crash into you in these cases, especially in such a close formation.

 

As for the HE problem I think that might have to do with the cost value of the CfgAmmo entries. I've seen AI T-100s engage players from time to time with their HE shells, although it's still a pretty rare sight since they'll almost always switch to the co-ax or have the commander's HMG be used instead.

[mamasan8 11]

Yep.   ^_^   Tanks are easiest to kill when they've flipped over, which happens too often.

So true, only that I don't have to destroy the tank, knowing the AI has exited the tank and it's no longer a threat.

 

There also seems to be no check of a tanks or infantries coordinates when it's spawning. You know, tanks flying or exploding at mission start, infantry spawning inside rocks.

I have a mission with MP spawn. Couple of times I have spawned inside rocks, same for AI. The spawn point is near some bigger rocks.

 

Collision detection could use some work.

[pulstar 55]

 

This one minute video from an older SBPE build shows why Arma will never provide an exciting armor environment. Look how the driver positions the hull relative to threats, reverses promptly when overwhelmed by numbers, hull-down tactics. Arma fails on all accounts. In terms of aesthetics, Arma's vanilla tanks might have a healthy number of polygons, but they act like pea-shooters. Recoil is minimal, round impact is almost imperceptible, and the crew popping out in microseconds is ludicrous.

[ppitm 43]

I don't recall seeing any serious recoil in Steel Beasts either. Except as a cosmetic feature. And round impacts in ArmA are plenty visible. If anything Steel Beasts' primitive effects are exaggerated. 

 

 

 

reverses promptly when overwhelmed by numbers, hull-down tactics. 

I saw one tank pointlessly reverse about two meters, and two groups of tanks fighting hull-up on a featureless plain that could be navigated by the most primitive AI.

 

I'm sure Steel Beasts' AI actually does those things, being a dedicated tank sim and all, but you're not making the most pertinent comparisons here.

 

 

ArmA's insta-unbutton feature is pretty silly, it's true. But the ability to use rifles, grenades and binoculars while turned out redeems everything. It's one of the best things to happen in vehicle gaming.

[semiconductor 309]

why Arma will never provide an exciting armor environment

Because it is not a military-grade application dedicated towards tank environment simulation with price for personal edition starting from $115? Oh man, who would have thought?!

[pulstar 55]

How hard is it for BI to programme AI reversing (since it can't reverse to begin with), and to conduct this technique with gunner or loader to break line of sight with hostiles while loading the next round? Anyway at this point I've given up on BI doing armor right. If it's even half as good as Combined Arms (a side-project from ED) I'd not complain as much :P

[ppitm 43]

How hard is it for BI to programme AI reversing (since it can't reverse to begin with), and to conduct this technique with gunner or loader to break line of sight with hostiles while loading the next round? Anyway at this point I've given up on BI doing armor right. If it's even half as good as Combined Arms (a side-project from ED) I'd not complain as much :P

Very hard. 

 

Altis is hundreds of square kilometers of boulder-strewn fields, cramped villages and mountains. You want tanks to start crazedly driving backwards across that, in the hopes that they might get lucky and break line of sight?

 

This is like asking why dogs can't be taught to use iPhone GPS when they can't read maps in the first place.

 

It's a ludicrously complicated, labor-intensive proposition, equally expensive in CPU cycles.

[pulstar 55]

Trained tankers make use of overwatch positions to engage their targets. That way drivers can "duck" behind cover by reversing. In case of open-spaces like Kuwait in 1990-91, tanks dig in because there's no other choice.

[ppitm 43]

Trained tankers make use of overwatch positions to engage their targets. That way drivers can "duck" behind cover by reversing. In case of open-spaces like Kuwait in 1990-91, tanks dig in because there's no other choice.

I'm trying to remember the last time I saw a human tanker use an overwatch position in ArmA. Mostly they just have a waypoint, and they drive towards it, shooting everything in the way.

 

 

So yes, tanker AI could be taught to reverse back into cover, but everything would still have to be carefully arranged ahead of time by the mission maker. You'd have to point out the overwatch position for them, and define the vector and distance they should reverse. And the conditions for pulling forward again. And for when to exit this behavior and resume normal maneuvers. Oh, and the threat direction/main targets would have to be defined.

 

At this point you might as well just create a totally scripted CoD or BF4 campaign mission, since your system is too rigid to work in any normal sandbox environment.

[pulstar 55]

Haha I use overwatch and hull-down tactics all the time. Provided I have a crewman/men who are willing to cooperate :p You do have a point about the terrain being a bit too complex to simplistic AI routines that were used in the likes of M1TP2 (sadly even this does armor better than Arma), but it can be overcome given enough manpower. MBTs are designed to engage each other at distances quite large, tank rushing is a tactic only used effectively in RTS games.

[FrozenLiquidity 3]

I think we could all agree that they could use some improvement, yes?  That's what I think is being aimed for here, so I'm on board.

[pulstar 55]

I think we could all agree that they could use some improvement, yes?  That's what I think is being aimed for here, so I'm on board.

 

Of course it does. It's commendable that the framework is there (most importantly the damage system, to elevate it from Battlefield's hitpoint system for example), but AI and aesthetics need a lot of work.

 

 

Btw I could use expert opinions on Combined Arms, and how it compares to Arma. RHS's efforts have upped the ante obviously, but I feel in areas like AA CA still has the upper hand. Another plus for Arma is that the terrain is far superior, at the cost of longer engagement ranges as seen in DCS.

[OMAC 254]

Have you checked out Iron Front: Liberation 1944?  The armor-related updates to A2OA engine were spectacular.  Completely new damage model, for one thing.  Really good. It was really an armor-focused game.

[pulstar 55]

Have you checked out Iron Front: Liberation 1944?  The armor-related updates to A2OA engine were spectacular.  Completely new damage model, for one thing.  Really good. It was really an armor-focused game.

 

Why of course, but the AI has the tendency to fire on the move and do all the mistakes of vanilla routines. :D

[andersson 285]

I would love to have the MicroAI disabled in tanks (vehicles) and the old OFP AI used there. Let the MicroAI be for infantry.

Buuut I guess it's easy to wish for and hard to achieve...

[Vasily.B 529]

I still cant believe tanks cannot drive reverse.... after so long time. Try to make them driving reverse near any object - they will simply start to rotate. Village, city, no matter where. In case when you havent enough already, there comes physx faailures.... people, arma 3 isn playable for me, and it will not be playable after next decades, if they will not start fixing bugs started 2 years ago (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). Never seen slower support EVER.

[autigergrad 2034]

The biggest immersion breaker for me in a mission is watching these "steel beasts" slingshot into each other, then flip into the air as if they weighed 3 pounds.  That's after they suddenly zoomed across a space after ramming into their 75th building.

 

I'm not asking for a full fledged Tank sim...but I am hoping for vehicles that act like vehicles and not like pinballs in a giant pinball machine bouncing off every object on the map.