High AI casualties

[ZU23 2]

So I have set up an AI battle mission were 60 defenders, divided into 3 man teams each man inside a 360-degree small sandbag fort spread out in an area of 1 X 2 KM.

 

The attackers number 540 and have the same weapons and skill as the defenders, plus an additional 8 tanks which the defenders have no weapons to counter.

 

Virtually every time the attacker suffer extremely high casualties despite outnumbering the defenders by almost 10 to 1, on average the ratio of casualties was 7 to 1.

 

Is this realistic or do I just have a great defensive strategy?

[Laqueesha 474]

What draw distance do you have set?

[ZU23 2]

9 hours ago, Laqueesha said:

What draw distance do you have set?

1500

[kremator 1065]

Unfortunately the AI attackers won't be using their weapons effectively.  In a real battle the tanks would nail those fortifications (with the main cannon in HE) immediately before you'd killed one of the attacker troops (or showered the fortifications in a hail of MG fire)

 

Perhaps what you need is proper suppression.  The defenders would be severely suppressed and shouldn't be able to get a shot off.

[ZU23 2]

8 minutes ago, kremator said:

Unfortunately the AI attackers won't be using their weapons effectively.  In a real battle the tanks would nail those fortifications (with the main cannon in HE) immediately before you'd killed one of the attacker troops (or showered the fortifications in a hail of MG fire)

 

Perhaps what you need is proper suppression.  The defenders would be severely suppressed and shouldn't be able to get a shot off.

The tanks actually had no problem getting kills and were the ones getting the majority of the kills on BLUFOR side, but because I had spread out each 3-man strongpoint with at least 200 meter distance between each other it was not easy for the tanks to kill them all at once http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=942313394

[haleks 8212]

That's something that bothers me whevener I try to set up battles with AIs : their inability to watch for their lives.

Unless you lead them yourself, it turns into a killing fest as soon as they engage... That makes large scale missions a bit frustrating to play alone, sadly.

[froggyluv 2136]

 

 Would you mind posting it as a mission -Id like to play around with it. Generally Id start adding sub-Skill modifiers to certain situations to get a better effect.

[ZU23 2]

51 minutes ago, froggyluv said:

 

 Would you mind posting it as a mission -Id like to play around with it. Generally Id start adding sub-Skill modifiers to certain situations to get a better effect.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bb34kvz3p4twq7s/defensemission.zip?dl=0

You need the G.O.S N'Djenahoud terrain that is available on steam workshop

 

Disabling body cleanup on the mission seem to have lowered casualties probably due the AI assessing the situation differently for the attacker from 7 to 1 ratio to around 4 to 1, the attacker nonetheless suffered disproportionaley high casualties 

[kremator 1065]

Attackers do tend to take more casualties unless in real life unless there is more than a 3:1 ratio.  This is due to the suppression (or lack of it).  In Arma3 the AI don't care about dying and therefore are a bit more gungho.  The only real AI mod that made AI react appropriately was bCombat - if you suppressed (and kept suppressing) a position the AI wouldn't even be able to fire back at you.  Sure it was a fudge, but quite a realistic one.

[domokun 515]

42 minutes ago, kremator said:

Attackers do tend to take more casualties unless in real life unless there is more than a 3:1 ratio.  This is due to the suppression (or lack of it).  In Arma3 the AI don't care about dying and therefore are a bit more gungho.  The only real AI mod that made AI react appropriately was bCombat - if you suppressed (and kept suppressing) a position the AI wouldn't even be able to fire back at you.  Sure it was a fudge, but quite a realistic one.

I quite agree that AI behave recklessly. That's why I use a mod that enhances BI's suppression mechanic (limited to degrading AI accuracy) by also altering AI's stance (AI will often kneel, sometimes even go prone) or seeking cover:

 

[ZU23 2]

1 hour ago, domokun said:

I quite agree that AI behave recklessly. That's why I use a mod that enhances BI's suppression mechanic (limited to degrading AI accuracy) by also altering AI's stance (AI will often kneel, sometimes even go prone) or seeking cover:

 

Isnt there already a built in suppression system? https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_AI_Behavior#Suppression

[domokun 515]

Just now, ZU23 said:

Isnt there already a built in suppression system? https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_AI_Behavior#Suppression

Yes there is. Read my reply more carefully and you'll understand why TPWCAS is a welcome improvement to BI's Suppression.

[haleks 8212]

9 minutes ago, ZU23 said:

Isnt there already a built in suppression system? https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_AI_Behavior#Suppression

 

Unfortunately the suppression system doesn't have enough of a drastic effect on the AI behaviour. There is also the fact that AI never use suppressive fire unless commanded so by a player leader.

[joostsidy 685]

Well if you set up your battlefield like a WW1 battle you get WW1 casualty numbers.

 

I'm guessing you are sending these 500 units right at the enemy? :-)

 

Arma AI is not sophisticated enough to coordinate well between units and make optimal use of their weapons, so you have to help them a bit.

 

The experiment of just plunking down some units is fun, but for a more conventional attack the attacking force would use a combination of HE shells, mortars and suppressing fire to annihilate the small force in a vulnerable static defense situation on a desert terrain like N'Djenahoud  (super cool map by the way). Defenders would have a little more chance using their own mortars, AT weapons and maybe large mine fields!

 

Even though the AI can use improvement, one has to realize it is VERY difficult to program AI for so many degrees of freedom that Arma has. So it can be done but it would need some scripting.

 

One simple tactic is diversion. In some of my specOPS missions I launch a low flying drone over the enemy compound. The OPFOR look and shoot at the drone while I let the SpecOPS attack. With the drone diversion they can take on a defended position that would be impossible to destroy otherwise.

[ZU23 2]

2 hours ago, joostsidy said:

Well if you set up your battlefield like a WW1 battle you get WW1 casualty numbers.

 

I'm guessing you are sending these 500 units right at the enemy? :-)

 

Arma AI is not sophisticated enough to coordinate well between units and make optimal use of their weapons, so you have to help them a bit.

 

The experiment of just plunking down some units is fun, but for a more conventional attack the attacking force would use a combination of HE shells, mortars and suppressing fire to annihilate the small force in a vulnerable static defense situation on a desert terrain like N'Djenahoud  (super cool map by the way). Defenders would have a little more chance using their own mortars, AT weapons and maybe large mine fields!

 

Even though the AI can use improvement, one has to realize it is VERY difficult to program AI for so many degrees of freedom that Arma has. So it can be done but it would need some scripting.

 

One simple tactic is diversion. In some of my specOPS missions I launch a low flying drone over the enemy compound. The OPFOR look and shoot at the drone while I let the SpecOPS attack. With the drone diversion they can take on a defended position that would be impossible to destroy otherwise.

Well I would have to disagree with you that the positions are vulnerable, because it seems to me nothing short of a direct hit will kill a unit crouched in surrounding sandbags.

I've even used the "fire mission" waypoint against a unit in a small fortification with a platoon of howitzers and through out the fire mission it survived the whole barrage

[joostsidy 685]

7 hours ago, ZU23 said:

Well I would have to disagree with you that the positions are vulnerable, because it seems to me nothing short of a direct hit will kill a unit crouched in surrounding sandbags.

I've even used the "fire mission" waypoint against a unit in a small fortification with a platoon of howitzers and through out the fire mission it survived the whole barrage

Is the sandbag fort one of the prebuild BI ones? There are some faults in the game in that some buildings are indestructable protecting its occupants too much.

 

Maybe try this

 

 

[lysan 17]

On 6/8/2017 at 7:57 AM, haleks said:

That's something that bothers me whevener I try to set up battles with AIs : their inability to watch for their lives.

Unless you lead them yourself, it turns into a killing fest as soon as they engage... That makes large scale missions a bit frustrating to play alone, sadly.

I'm  making a campaign right now, where one of the mission are like that. I really had to boost the AI courage and flee mechanics to make them run for it.(attacking force)

Otherwise it would take forever, even they were in huge numbers compared to the other side (defending force).

 

One thing I noticed was that you need to give the attacking force objectives. That way, they know where to attack and don't stand around like zombies.

If you got too many AI in one scenario it also impacts the FPS because the arma 3 engine is really not using modern computer power/resources efficiently.

[kothen 57]

Do AI mods still work? I've been hearing people have been having issues with Vcom and ASR.