Ai thread

[Baff1 0]

- just follow the road and stick to the right.

Noes!

Stick to the left!

[maddogx 13]

Noes!

Stick to the left!

Good point. Make it configurable for every map! :)

[Chris2525 10]

Not sure whether it's been mentioned, but a "supressive fire" function for direct fire weapons would be useful - i mean one that's similar to the new Artillery system where AI units will fire at a directed spot on the landscape whether there's spotted enemy there or not.

---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ----------

....also, WRT the AI/Supression issue, not sure if anyone mentioned it, but i think a good example could be taken from Brothers in Arms (minus the fancy supression guages).

What i'd ultimately like to see is an enemy who can be supressed by fire passing or landing within 1-5 metres (depending on his skill setting), but who pops up and shoots during the lulls in fire, forcing you to keep supression up while conducting your approach. This would make for a realistic fire & movement scenario.

However, question of what does it take to actually supress a person is a tough one. It's next to impossible to quantify volume and proximity for the purpose of determining how much/how close does it take to supress someone.

Recently retired from the CDN army, I consult for an operaitonal research team who uses computer based simulations to gather data and make recommendations on weapons and equipment, and the supression question is the most impossible one to answer. Nobody (that i can find) has ever conducted a conclusive study to quantify supression because it's impossible to gather that data. You can't test on soldiers on the range, because at the end of the day, they know theyre not going to be shot, and you can't go on patrol in Kandahar and drag a team of scientists along to measure your behaviour under fire.

I will say this though, from personal experience, you don't need a round to pass within 2 feet of your head in order to get you down LOL.

/Rant

[SteveJA 12]

The suggestion of supressive fire has been widely discussed, but this is the best way to implimented it ive seen.

SO basicly

What he /\ said. :D

[icebreakr 3159]

Here's a shot from yesterday's MP event. One view is from AI point and second is how we were seeing the village up ahead. Flanking failed, Lee Enfield with that AI skillz can be damn deadly :o

AI view:

Players view:

[dreday 1]

Recently retired from the CDN army, I consult for an operaitonal research team who uses computer based simulations to gather data and make recommendations on weapons and equipment, and the supression question is the most impossible one to answer. Nobody (that i can find) has ever conducted a conclusive study to quantify supression because it's impossible to gather that data. You can't test on soldiers on the range, because at the end of the day, they know theyre not going to be shot, and you can't go on patrol in Kandahar and drag a team of scientists along to measure your behaviour under fire.

Good points! In addition the suppression system would have to be directly tied to the individual soldier's morale value, which would (ideally) dynamically change based such factors as proximity to the leader, unit casualties, fatigue, etc.. That way you can have fanatical units that can charge to the last man while the others would hit the dirt as soon as soon as the bullets start wheezing by.

[Chris2525 10]

Exaclty. The soldier's experience, skill and morale would all be variables when trying to define a supression model. I.E. the battle hardened veteran is going to be a lot harder to supress than some conscript who's being shot at for the first time in his life.

I suppose the built in "skill" levels in Arma2 could be a good start for dictating where in that spectrum an indiviual would fit.

I.E. if nothing else, it ought to be harder to supress a unit who's skill is set to max than one who's is set to min. Both should drop when shot at, but the higher skilled units should pop up sooner, and more frequently, and shoot more accurately when they do, than the lower skilled units.

And as an aside, the units shouldnt have to be "suppressed" in order to get them down. Most armies' donctrine calls for soldiers to get down and seek cover almost immidiately after coming under any sort of effective fire. And that's what people do (instinctively) anyway. That should be reflected in the game. There should be a very noticable reaction from a group when rounds come anywhere close to them - i.e. double tap in the general direction of where the fire came from, then scatter for cover. I find the robotic behaviour of AI units who have fire landing around them (often no reaction at all until a round comes very close to, or hits a unit) to be very unrealistic.

[NeoHazard 10]

perhaps a new slider should be implemented for the AI, or two seperate ones? Combat Experience Slider and Marksmanship Slider. That way the entire skill level doesnt have a bearing on how good of a shot the AI is versus how well they react to being shot at. The combat experience slider could also be dynamic in so that as an AI unit lives through a singular combat experience it gets more accomodated to its situation and starts to take more chances or react differently somehow.

[dreday 1]

Individual units already have a morale rating in ArmA, just like they have a skill rating. It's just that there is no slider for this value in the editor, so most people are not aware of it. However it can be set through a scripting command.

[Pvt.mcdonald 10]

It frustrates me when i walk into a building and rarely will the AI follow.Also whenever I tell the AI to follow me (for a convoy) and everyone is form column then it is impossible to just go top speed and drive normally without having to wait hours for the AI to catch up.

[Chris2525 10]

[NSP]

As i was out drinking with a buddy of mine (20 year veteran of the infantry, fellow afghasnistan vet...), we had a discussion about supression, carriage of ammo, and marksmaship within the conventional infantry context, and we figured out (having had to pull up the calculator on my phone), that in a conventional, offensive secenario, .005% of rounds fired by an infantry section (barring the rounds fired by the 2 LMGs in the section, as the discussion was about a DRCD study we're working on WRT rifles specifically) are actually fired with lethal intent. The rest are all supressive. Virtually every round fired by an infanrty soldier in any one attack is supressive (and i corroborate this with real world, combat experience). I wish the gaming world would come to grips with this.....

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Nice to see someone agree :). Unfortunately the AI doesn't respond too well to suppressive fires, they will engage practically everything (and get killed). With the means we have to deliver accurate fires, that's probably the only way. So the only method I can see is to greatly reduce our accuracy, at least "while in the heat of the moment". There should be a lot more factors affecting weapons shake, and a massively increased stance based sway is needed as well. You don't want the sniper who is located far from the fight to be affected, unless bullets starts flying over his head.

"Over" being the key word. For suppressive effects to kick in now, you need bullet impacts near you. If bullet snaps (and firednear in general) would also affect "being suppressed" (or different kind of weapons shake), I think this aspect of the game would be greatly enhanced.

If we get to shoot less accurately due to such effects, we'll have to counter the AI's abilities to deliver accurate shots in return as well. When everything looks good for us, the AI's abilities would have to be addressed in a similar fashion.

New recoil system has helped with prolonging the firefight, but it's still not near enough.

[callihn 10]

I've been noticing a few irritating issues with AI.

For starters it would be nice if they didn't fly so horribly, the choppers always tilting front to back, the C130 tiping side to side.

It would also be nice if they would actually follow they waypoints, in the choppers I noticed that they stall and screw around at times for no apparent reason and in the C130 they can go around the waypoints center by several hundred meters at times or ignore them all together sometimes, all of this with the same code being used even.

Then there is the issue of their combat skills or lack there of, when I set an AI to skill level one I'd like them to be more responsive, as it is I can drive up in front of them, dismount and kill them with them even realizing I'm there and if you come from the sides you can get close enough to cut their throats most of the time.

Also when you tell them to get in a vehicle, I tend to mean right now, not after you have ran around it and kicked all the tires and yes I know we are being shot at and there are fifty of them and two of us now get in so we can go.

In short, get them some glasses, teach them to fly like they have some sense and stop wasting movement, have them follow waypoints when set to careless, to the letter, without fail, without delay and regardless of anything else going on in the game, this is needed sometimes, that is why we have careless and have them follow orders like a good soldier, without question and without delay.

Is that really too much to ask?

[NSP]

As i was out drinking with a buddy of mine (20 year veteran of the infantry, fellow afghasnistan vet...), we had a discussion about supression, carriage of ammo, and marksmaship within the conventional infantry context, and we figured out (having had to pull up the calculator on my phone), that in a conventional, offensive secenario, .005% of rounds fired by an infantry section (barring the rounds fired by the 2 LMGs in the section, as the discussion was about a DRCD study we're working on WRT rifles specifically) are actually fired with lethal intent. The rest are all supressive. Virtually every round fired by an infanrty soldier in any one attack is supressive (and i corroborate this with real world, combat experience). I wish the gaming world would come to grips with this.....

Yea, people get scared when they are getting shot at, no doubt and the age old problem is this, if you can put your sites on the enemy then they can return the favor and in an ambush one can assume that the next shot may not miss, because although you only have some ideal of where they are at, if your so lucky, they know exactly where your at.

It's also fairly common practice when over run to use suppressive fire while retreating to appear to be a bigger threat than you really are.

Wondering, are they teaching C.A.R. now to the Infantry?

Edited September 9, 2010 by callihn

[NeoHazard 10]

Has anyone noticed that the AI seem to prefer the prone position? Especially those opposite to you? I've seen AI in close quarter combat that go straight to prone even though you're only 10 meters away where it would be the dumbest choice to do so. I rarely ever see OPFOR in a crouch. I actually can't think of the last time I've seen OPFOR moving around or aiming in a crouch position.

[RangerX3X 0]

Please remove the flashlights from the weapon loadout on all US Army AT soldiers - 1) It completely destroys the immersion of night missions & 2) It makes them an instant target.

Also, AI AT soldiers will not engage the Takistani militia armor unit, the BTR-40 with the MG - they simply get mowed down and never fire their AT weapons at it.

Edited September 11, 2010 by RangerX3X
XXXXX

[JOGR 0]

AI / Micro AI is already awesome. It adapts well and handles most situations ranging from large scale battles to a few units clearing out urban areas.

What would be a nice improvement is AI using buildings more effectively. Ambushing from cover should be hard coded and work with unscripted missions.

Also, AI commanders in warfare should be able to buy AIR units for both transportation and assault. It worked well with Oden warfare, Swedish forces.

[froggyluv 2136]

AI / Micro AI is already awesome. It adapts well and handles most situations ranging from large scale battles to a few units clearing out urban areas

Quite true although at very close range battles you'll see more AI indecision or strange decision making.

What would be a nice improvement is AI using buildings more effectively. Ambushing from cover should be hard coded and work with unscripted missions

This would be the Holy Grail of all improvements imho. The whole interior building part of the engine would need quite a revamp tho. For instance, the AI needs to be made aware that they are actually in a structure (AI geometry?) rather than a building position and be given new animations and behaviors accordingly.

Call me crazy but I see sales doubling with such a marked improvement.

[wipman 1]

Hi, i think that the AI's accuracy should be affected by their movement, if i've been running or jogging for a while (less than 20secs) my accuracy haves a serious hit, but the AI's accuracy still the same, and i think that this shouldn't be that way. Let's C ya

[callihn 10]

AI para jumps!

[cossack8559 10]

Not sure if its a bug since 1.54... but a.i statics such as MG nests, M2 Machine gun, the kord etc... only engage targets from 100m away... they never engage beyond that distance even when under fire! :S

I placed a couple down one at a time with an enemy a.i squad attacking it and the squad would always kill the gunners as it would only ever return fire if i placed the squad within 100m.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

AI para jumps!

There is already. Action "EJECT" forEach for old style jumping. And didn't you play through the campaign to see that MFF can be done for AI? The tools are already in.

[callihn 10]

There is already. Action "EJECT" forEach for old style jumping. And didn't you play through the campaign to see that MFF can be done for AI? The tools are already in.

No when I para jump I want my AI group to go up to the damn pole and para jump too or at least para jump with me and I have yet to see a MP mission with that feature, it may or may not be possible with scripting, like I said I haven't seen it and if I spend all my time scripting things that IMHO BIS should script then I have little or no time for playing.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Poles are for dancing, not parajumping - use a plane :p If you want your AI to go to the jump location, just order them. Or doMove/commandMove vis script. When close enough, automatic jump or assignAsCargo followed by orderGetIn (I think), or moveInCargo if in a hurry. Monitor yourself for when you exit, and automatically bail the AI. I don't see the benefit of an automatic system, since then most of us want's the opposite. We always do. Ref myself and the round chute - when we finally was given the steerable chute :D

[Pyronick 21]

Hi, i think that the AI's accuracy should be affected by their movement, if i've been running or jogging for a while (less than 20secs) my accuracy haves a serious hit, but the AI's accuracy still the same, and i think that this shouldn't be that way. Let's C ya

This.

Also, I know it's over-ambitious but something similar to Euphoria would complement Micro AI to near perfection.

At the moment the combination of environmental interaction (collision detection) and AI doesn't work properly.

If collision detection (or the entire physics engine) could be improved I think the AI will greatly benefit from it.

[elmas 10]

(This was posted before, but) the AI prefering nearly all the time the prone position is a bit problematic, since its not rare for them to go prone when they have something in front of them like a wall, or another object, or some times going prone in the presence of armored vehicles that they are not equiped to deal with instead of fleeing.

Has anyone noticed that the AI seem to prefer the prone position? Especially those opposite to you? I've seen AI in close quarter combat that go straight to prone even though you're only 10 meters away where it would be the dumbest choice to do so. I rarely ever see OPFOR in a crouch. I actually can't think of the last time I've seen OPFOR moving around or aiming in a crouch position.