Ai thread

[gregorygreghalstead 0]

I think the only think that's lacking in OFP's realism is AIs helping one another in squad-based attacks.

I remembered one mission where 3 squads were supposed to eliminate a huge area defended by the enemy and push them back.

Anw, must be my 'bad luck' coz my sqd got pinned dwn by mg and tank fire and the other 2 squads just left us hanging there to fight our way out when they could have helped us overcome it.

I mean please, where's all tht s**t abt no men being left behind or coop?

I believe squads SHOULD help one another when one is overwhelemed not leave them to be picked off one by one.

Can you imagine it? your squad being pinned down, outnumbered.. and Bravo Squad comes in and supports you allowing you to fight or retreat, or maybe Bravo flanks the enemy?

That and most of the things posted in this topic are wht i like to see...

Regards,

GregGregHals

ret. military liasion

(offtopic - is it me or does bis takes our ideas and implements it in VBS and NOT in an upcoming game....? played ofp goty, 4 years, arma 6 mothns, VBS1, 1 1/2 years, VBS2 2 months)

btw, in reply to a post, not all muslim soldier attacks are 'frantic' or follow no tactics.

I've presonally seen them coordinate and struck with feriocity causing us to retreat in a wargame during a FivePower Defence Exercise.

[Perfect Dark 0]

Sorry if this was said already but reading 21 sites is rather much...

Ok heres my idea: Perhaps u know the game "Full Spectrum Warrior", in which u command army fireteams through urban combat areas. The thing that i like about this game is the tactical movement and the behaviour of the ai. The enemy searches cover, fires at you (also surpressing fire) and even retreats if the enemy gets too close to their position. You are really forced to take cover yourself or youu get shot pretty fast but on the other side you can force the enemy too to take cover by fireing at them. This behaviour is the most important that an ai can have, because it enables a great number of realistic tactics like flanking manouvers, which are really useless in the current game, (ai just runs all over the place, like Rambo in his best times ). Well my opinion for Game2 is that the graphics should be let where they are now and instead the ai should be developed as much as possible.

[victor1234 4]

One thing I'd like to see in terms of AI is the ability to release and obtain command of units if your rank permits. Any soldier in your group can be released (using the radio commands menu) and if you are near any group where your rank is higher than that of the group's leader, you can take command of that group and put them into yours. This would permit massive possibilites later on (especially for the "cut-off from unit" type missions)

[Ryujin 0]

I'd like to see an extension of the current group system by adding groups of groups. So you can make a platoon, causing them to use groups under them to achieve objectives. you know those blue "group lines" in the editor? I want to be able to make two fireteams, connect them to a squad leader, then connect a couple squads to a platoon leader. Then if I double click in group mode or something on a soldier in this big group I should get a box show his group and all the groups above/below him. This should let me set a 'group type' for each group, changing how they behave.

Team: kinda like the current AI leaders, useful for a small unit that sticks close to the leader, can be used within a slightly bigger unit like a squad.

Squad: AI set to use teams under it to achieve objectives, unlike team AI its more likely to split and maneuver its forces.

Commander: Used for platoon leader and up. It manages teams and squads under it, but doesn't micro mange as much, it deals with the big picture part, assigning objectives to squads. Putting a commander over a bunch of platoon-level commanders makes a company for example.

As as a side note down here, I'd like to see AI use terrain cover like hills better, I'm thinking something like the hull down command from Steel Beasts, just used by infantry too.

[Uranium - 235 0]

Why are AIs in turrets so immensely stupid? When I have an AI gunning for my HMMWV, 99% of the time, even with the proper 'Engage at will' and 'Stay alert' orders, even when we're TAKING FIRE, they simply aim at the sky and do nothing.

Seriously, what the fuck.

[Commando84 0]

how do you get them to aim at the sky? I never seen them do that for me they turn around a little bit , i use engage at will, scan horizon, no other crap.

thing is that gunners are in a very sitting duck position.. so yeah they are slug heads and the aiming is sluggish in the turrets so thats maybe why they react so slow there.

Also if you see enemy a.i's right click 'em to spot them for your a.i so he can fire at them.

[daikan 1]

my suggestion: throw A.I. out of the window and make the game pure PVP and concentrate on getting all the other coding right...

imho. there's too much trouble involved with A.I. and it is NEVER EVER going to act like a human being.

[MehMan 0]

I think I'd be nice to have different paths for vehicles and infantry. Also different direction paths for roads, so the AI knows on which side of the road to stick to.

[Hawk666 0]

Quote[/b] ]

my suggestion: throw A.I. out of the window and make the game pure PVP and concentrate on getting all the other coding right...

I totally disagree...how do you want to create a realistic environment with a non-capable AI?

Have a look at other games and you'll realize that the AI is continuously improved and the should be done with the Arma-engine as well.

[funnyguy1 0]

1. AI that not only can use cover, but for which using cover and staying there is a priority.

2. AI that uses radio, and comunicates with other groups, sharing their knowledge and calling reinforcements everytime it's necessary.

3. As long as there's a radio link between the 2 particular groups, group A should know the direction and speed of friendly and enemy units seen by the group B and vice versa, if the link is broken, group A should assume possition, direction and speed of the enemy just like they now see the yellow square.

4. Waypoints should also have priority levels, so that group of units that is

a)observing

b)engaging

doesn't proceed to the next waypoint if the enemy

a) is stronger (AI tries to be invisible, calls for reinforcements)

d) is allive/isn't fleeing/isn't captured (AI fights the enemy, and informs other groups/calls for reinforcements)

4. If AI is fleeing, they should plan their way with the possitions of the nearest friendlies in mind, choosing the fastest and safest way to meet them.

5. Default engagement/spotting ranges should be a lot bigger

[baddo 0]

Uuuh... the suggestion to throw AI out of the window is weird!

[daikan 1]

Uuuh... the suggestion to throw AI out of the window is weird!

i admit my suggestion may seem a bit far-fetched for the ofp/arma game series. but look at all the problems and frustration AI is causing, not mentioning how tedious and time consuming it must be to get all the coding done. i'd rather prefer that dev time going into making everything else better and concentrate on PVP online gameplay which in the long run i find much more enjoyable than dealing with brainless bots that act like a bunch of retarded cockroaches...

being a software engineer with some background in 'intelligent' system design i'm rather sceptical that we will see any implementation of useful humanoid behaviour anytime within the next 5-10 years.

just my opinion.

[baddo 0]

Well... you are basically saying that the game should be multiplayer only.

There is a lot of problems in multiplayer too. According to my experiences, it is very hard to get a good multiplayer session going. I've learned that it requires a password-protected server at least, and that alone isn't enough.

For me a game having only multiplayer mode would not be worth of buying.

Yes there are problems in how AI works in ArmA. But there are a lot of improvements too, compared to the AI in OFP! I leave it for the reader to spot what I mean...

I have played many coop missions so that I was the goup leader and all others in the group were AI. The AI soldiers can be very effective, but as a leader you must be aware of the fact that they do mostly what you tell them to do. So it takes more time to play missions that way. But it can be very effective way to play! If you organize the units well, and have enough patience to assign them targets and give them order to fire on a right moment. You can be very effective that way, but for sure it takes more effort and time from you than just playing with humans. Because the AI soldiers mostly lack their own will. If you are their leader, they will then follow your orders, maybe even too strictly?

[Hawk666 0]

being a software engineer with some background in 'intelligent' system design i'm rather sceptical that we will see any implementation of useful humanoid behaviour anytime within the next 5-10 years.

just my opinion.

Sure, you're right, AI development is very tough, but there are improvements in AI research and in implementing them in projects.

With the introduction of multi-core CPUs there is now the possibility to give the AI algorithms more CPU time.

I think when BIS achieves it to make the AI more dynamic and enhance the corresponding script commands and introduce RPG elements...that would be a great step in the right direction.

Nobody expects wonders

[funnyguy1 0]

Suppressive fire suggestion [MGunners]

By:

a)increasing the burst value on bigger distances

b)decreasing the time between bursts on bigger distances

(originally ithe burst is longest at the minimal distance and the shortest at the max range)

I've tested it on ArmA, and the farther the target was, the more it was being supressed by MG gunners, wich with addition of great suppression scripts created by second and some tweaks of the spotting/engagement ranges simulated suppression pretty good.

Quote[/b] ]Those changes may work well to simulate suppression, but will cause the gunner to run out of ammo sooner.

1. AI could decide to use suppression only if there's a chance of hitting more than one target with the range of the expected disperssion.

2. Mgunner should not use suppressive fire if he used ~70% of ammo already. (that would prevent units from wasting all their ammo on suppressing fire)

3. You as a commander should have a separate command, like "suppress/stop suppressing that area", so you would still controll your mgunners' ammo.

4. Supressed units' priority shouldn't be their previous waypoints, but the fastest way of finding nearest cover, than flanking the enemy.

5. Default speed: sprint, but still firing back (sprint, fire/wait for others, sprint, fire...etc)

6. The more squad is being supressed, the more aggressively they should fire back, until the morale drops to the point where the squad leader decides to retreat or surrender. (casualties, ammo and eta of reinforcements should be considered)

7. Morale should begin to drop:

after second wounded, first KIA, then after squad leader KIA, 50% of ammo wasted, parallel to the time without reinforcements (after the radio link is broken)*, if the enemy is stronger etc.

8. Morale should rise:

parallel to the distance of reinforcements, when in advantage over the enemy etc.

9. Suppression shouldn't affect things like disperssion or aiming accuracy. The suppressed should fire more agressively and therefore less accurate, and with bigger disperssion.

10. Levels of morale should be noticable. The lower the morale is, the more "Fuck, we're not gonna make it" should appear etc. (you know what I mean).

* the suppressed group doesn't know where are the reinforcements

[SaBrE_UK 0]

I have recently played the Crysis demo and I was impressed by the animations the AI had when not in combat and standing still. They would wipe walls with cloths, sit down convincingly and do various other things. Perhaps when the AI is on "dismissed" they would do things like this, making them believable to the player and also signalling to him/her their mood.

[mr.g-c 6]

Ai should try to check if drivable/flyable/gunnerpositions are "open" and if so and if they are good for the current situation(in case of stationary guns) they should decide to use it by placing a squadmember in it.

In Arma1 something like this is part-inplemented, you have to go in as player and then when going out, the squad-leader mostly gives you and other squadmembers the order to get back in and to attack a target. So why not complete this feature for ARMA2?

It seems that its not very hard work to do so...

Best Regards, Christian

[WARFIGHTER989 0]

For myself one of the biggest things lacking in all combat simulations is an ai with more 'human' like qualities. The ai in OFP is very good taticaly, using gernades and flanking manouvers, but it is still lacking suppressive fire.

I'd love to see LMG used as they are intended, to lay down fire to get the enemy to keep their heads down as you move. Nothing frustrates me more than having the ai cooly pick you off because your fire is landing all around them, but not quite hitting them. I'd love to see a 'fear for life' in the ai. Not blindly running into a stream of bullets, but actaully keeping their head down and staying in cover.,

It maybe very hard to impliment and would have a drastic effect on gameplay. Some would argue that the game would loose a lot of the 'fun factor' because firefights would be more drawn out and not always have a desisive victory. At the same time it would really help with fire and move tatics. I'd love to have a support element under my command and able to tell them to hit an area with suppressive fire as I manouver my other men to a better position.

What does everyone thing and what other improvements or changes to the ai they would love to see?

COLINMAN

I wish the troops would scream curse or say random things when they were hurt. Like saying bleep, I'm hit.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I wish the troops would scream curse or say random things when they were hurt. Like saying bleep, I'm hit.

This is very easy to implement and I already have a working solution on my hd for my missions. They taunt, scream, call for medic, react on buddies deaths, react on grenades, etc.

This definately should be in Arma 2 and I already missed it with Arma 1. I simply couldn´t understand why they didn´t implement it by default as it´s , as I said already, a very easy thing to do.

One thing I really would like to see is proper voice acting in Arma 2. Arma 1 failed badly with the staccato sentences they used and using one language only for all factions is very cheap but also lame.

I hope they choose at least 2 different languages for the voicesets and make those sets available for scripting. As it is with Arma you can´t use the sounds from speakers.

What I really hate about Arma is that they all speak the same english language. If you sneak through a town and hear enemy commands around the corner in the same language as yours it simply sounds stupid and unrealistic.

Audio imo makes a big chunk of a good game. Arma simply fails here. I hope they have learned from that and add a bit more atmosphere and reality in this section. They also should get rid of the unnatural sentence composition Arma uses. It sounds odd.

[baddo 0]

I would want that voices were done in the native language of the characters.

For example I don't understand Russian (well a few simple words and phrases maybe but definitely not enough to have a conversation in Russian) but I would for sure like to hear it in games, especially in games showing Russian characters. Applies to all other languages too. Subtitles are used when language skill isn't enough.

Maybe people would learn new languages, at least something, if they listen to them, yes in computer games too. It's not a coincidence that in countries where TV shows and movies are dubbed, people have relatively more trouble speaking languages other than their mother's.

For me it's always a disappointment to notice in movies presenting non-English people, that everyone speaks English... it takes a huge amount of credibility away.

I would even want to listen to Czech if only BIS would give me a game (similar to OFP/ArmA) in which Czech is spoken.

[Balschoiw 0]

I guess Stalker just had it right. The guys simply spoke russian and whenever it was of interest for the player they tried to help him out in broken english. This made the whole surrounding credible.

As with Arma 2. I don´t see much of a problem here as stringtables already are in different languages so everyone can read important things as subtitle in his own language. This also goes for spoken commands or unit interaction while conducting regular duty. The voicesets should be in the original spoken language while the subtitles are in your language that you have selected either in your options or is set by default with the localized version you bought.

I guess I´m not the only one who chose a finnish player voice while playing FDF mod. It made it more realistic and it was actually fun to learn finnish a bit

[smellyjelly 0]

One minor problem I noticed is about the AI hearing your footsteps. It seems that even when there are other enemy soldiers walking around, once I take a few steps behind them they all know I'm not on there side so they turn around and kill me. I think that to improve this:

- When an enemy is all alone, then they should turn their head to look at everyones steps to see who they are.

- When there are several enemies in "safe" (some standing, some walking), then they should look to see when someone is running behind them. Perhaps there should be a small chance they will take interest in someone walking also, to make it less predictable.

- When "aware", the enemies should be constantly moving their head, and look to investigate most sounds. They should mostly care about steps when they know they're alone, but they should also randomly look more than when "safe".

- In "combat", they shouldn't care about people walking, however they should look around to search for enemies.

[NoRailgunner 0]

little improvements to smellyjelly's hearing footsteps

in careless and safe add some speech like: "Is there anything?" - "No don't hear anything."

in aware: "Is there anything?" - "Wait, lets take care and be on alert!" AI units (not vehicles) could zigzag and some scan horizons for a while

in combat: "I hear something!" - "Let's search and find what it is!" and AI units are on full alert and searching area.

I like to see that AI has a little more knowledge about their "profession" - pilots are better with helicopters and planes than machinegunners etc.

Another thing is with AI attaching satchels - there should be an AI voice-feedback "Ready to destroy" before order to detonate.

[Commando84 0]

I would like to see a new waypoint option in mission editor saying reverse! would be sweet to have soldiers and tanks, cars whatever reversing / backing off

would be a cool thing to use in some situations.

[mike@uk 0]

I'd like to see sound being used to help the Player to notice enemies, especially in forests where it's quite hard to visually spot enemies.

For example a Squad of Rookie AI's would make alot of noise walking on twigs, being generaly clumsy and chatting/complaining about things.

Normal AI would be more professional with no chatter and just the odd clumsy noise and the Squad Leader shouting out Orders.

Elite AI would be quiet (Hand Signals?) and generaly very professional/Stealthy.

Sorry if that's been said before but it's a big thread.