Improved AI?

[Second 0]

Ok. One specific area that wasn't pleasing me in OFP was AI leaders way of issuing engage command to it's squadmates. OK it is aggressive and active... but sending one or two men against whole group? that means only suicide. Making defence missions that was troubling as groupleaders didn't keep their men in positions but killed them in engage orders

I'm would like to hear does AI behave differently in OFP:E or VBS1. I understand engage order if armor needs to be destroyed, sniper, machinegunner or individual soldier (ie. scout or blackop). But forexample in defence, is there possible (in VBS1) to issue AI so that it is in defence positions, and so its main job is to keep area-of-responsibilty, and destroy or drive away enemies from it's area-of-responsibilty. Not sending its men one-by-one behind that hill where is enemy squad lurking.

Or can it be possible that in AA, missioneditor can give to groupleader a "personality" how it may behave in situations (does VBS1 have this kind of tool). Being agressive and active is not a bad thing, but if it's constant pattern then it's no-good. What i think as hard defender is the one which doesn't move but is keeping low and searching for targets (that's what defenders normaly should do).

Tip for missioneditor create two squads (default west and default east), but them to forrest and issue other (attacker) to move towards the other (defender). watch the fight as civilian and count remaing defenders (or attackers). Now ungroup all group members from defenders and watch the firefight again. count defenders now... there should be dead only few men. maybe now you understand what i mean with suicide-engage-orders.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Short note; The AI is a lot better in Elite, just in general. I don't have the time to give out all the details

[benreeper 0]

Funny, that's what I used to call this order.

I alway had to disable AI to fix this. You really noticed it when you compared what you would do as a GL to what the AI does. Maybe the folks the played it on the XBox or play VBS1 can answer this?

--Ben

[Friedchiken 0]

Second, I understand completely what you are talking about. I've always wanted better AI self preservation, especially when it comes to defense. While it is more effective to un-group AI for defense, I wish that there was some way to pass information without suicide engagement orders.

I read in one Australian hands-on-preview for VBS1 that AI squad leaders effectively split the squad in half, 1 half covers and the other enganges. This seems better than 1-2 soldiers engaging lonesomely.

But I really don't know if defensive behaviour is improved.

Hopefully the Armed Assault campaign will have proper defending behavoir, and even script support for advanced defensive strategies.

[VISTREL 0]

Id like to see AI running away from battlefield and crying if faced against huge opposition.

[Friedchiken 0]

Id like to see AI running away from battlefield and crying if faced against huge opposition.

Well, uh, all I ask for the AI is the understand when they are outnumbered, and simply hunker down in hiding instead for going full charge at the nearest tank.

Current AI:

[NeMeSiS 11]

Well, uh, all I ask for the AI is the understand when they are outnumbered, and simply hunker down in hiding instead for going full charge at the nearest tank.

They already flee when theyve suffered an x number of casualties

EDIT: But that wasnt what you are saying, forget it

[Friedchiken 0]

Well, in a way, I liked the current fleeing behavior of demoralized AI but...

When it comes to defenders, I bet you and I agree that getting shot in the back is a horrible horrible fate.

I prefer my besieged sandbags thank-you-very-much!

[Balschoiw 0]

The easiest way for editors would be to have the skill bar connected to the courage meter. Less skill = less courage

Superskilled fight to the bitter end while low skilled ones would run off eventually or rendered useless during firefights.

Just a thought.

Edit:

For the rest: averagejoe allowfleeing 0

[Average Joe 0]

I dont run...I FIGHT!

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I dont run...I FIGHT!

Haha, sorry dude !

Didn´t think of you especially

[Journeyman 0]

Id like to see AI running away from battlefield and crying if faced against huge opposition.

Putting hands in the air or waving a white hankie to surrender would be more realistic if the odds are stacked against you! We then have a POW scenario in the game!  

joebloggs allowsurrender 1    

[martinovic 0]

I don't know about you guys but what i would really like to see is surrendering. The AI should give up when faced with too much, i mean just look at the Iraq war... You have to deal with POWs, they are an essential - even if sometimes annoying - part of the battlefield.

People don't run away if there is no cover to run under, they give up. (especially when faced with more humane armies)

I also think combat in ofp is just too deadly, there should be something like incapacitation, when someone gets a wound too big to keep going with. Medics should be saving people from bleeding to death and then bring them to safety, etc.

[dreday 1]

The easiest way for editors would be to have the skill bar connected to the courage meter. Less skill = less courage

Superskilled fight to the bitter end while low skilled ones would run off eventually or rendered useless during firefights.

Just a thought.

Edit:

For the rest: averagejoe allowfleeing 0

Better yet, it would be nice to have two separate bars: one for skill and one for courage/morale. Wargames have been deploying this kind of system for as long as I can remember (damn, I am getting old!.

Peace,

DreDay

[Second 0]

I also think combat in ofp is just too deadly, there should be something like incapacitation, when someone gets a wound too big to keep going with. Medics should be saving people from bleeding to death and then bring them to safety, etc.

We'll There is... that is the mode when you collapse to ground, and camera shows who shot you (you are dead). Atleast that what i think of. shot two times to hands or legs ain't going to kill you soon (if big veins are not damaged). Look at situation and think, what would be your changes (you are left to ground moaning and your buddys scattered away by nearing tank platoon and infatry).

That is out of scope of OFP (still quite fasinating). your incapacitated and no more fit to fight for a long time. And yet from my point-of-view it ain't medics who bring them to safety. Some team member drag you out from firefight, your team members patch (or atleast try) your severe wounds up. I'm not trained medic so not exactly sure what all things they can do in field.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I also think combat in ofp is just too deadly, there should be something like incapacitation, when someone gets a wound too big to keep going with. Medics should be saving people from bleeding to death and then bring them to safety, etc.

We'll There is... that is the mode when you collapse to ground, and camera shows who shot you (you are dead). Atleast that what i think of. shot two times to hands or legs ain't going to kill you soon (if big veins are not damaged). Look at situation and think, what would be your changes (you are left to ground moaning and your buddys scattered away by nearing tank platoon and infatry).

That is out of scope of OFP (still quite fasinating). your incapacitated and no more fit to fight for a long time. And yet from my point-of-view it ain't medics who bring them to safety. Some team member drag you out from firefight, your team members patch (or atleast try) your severe wounds up. I'm not trained medic so not exactly sure what all things they can do in field.

well, talking about the damage system

If you are shot in the arm or hand you will most likely not be able to raise your weapon anymore.

[Friedchiken 0]

I also agree that surrendering should be an option for AI, but not as default behavior. That way, Coalition soldiers would never surrender (because they know that they would simply be tortured, paraded around, and beheaded), and local forces could choose to surrender (as the Coalition has much superior morality, going so far to give incacipated OPFOR medical treatment).

Then again, it would be weird to have the CS kiddies run around and shoot POWs, yet it would be frustrating to penalize the behavior as serious players could accidently blow up a POW with a grenade, artilery fire, or just fill both an aggressive resistance and standing POW with lead in the heat of the moment.

Remember The Regiment game? I heard you could take prisoners, but at the same time the game encouraged speed executions (to teach the terrorists a lesson, and time limit) so sometimes when you did the "double taps" you accidentally executed a POW and lost points to you rank.

Well, user missions will probably simulate taking prisoners with triggers.

[Second 0]

ECP-mod has POWs if they are last men of their group (or something like that... that POW-feature and it's logics in ECP are quite fuzzy to me). -btw. Marek Spanel said that this feature should be in game 2 (ofp2)-. They might (after some beating) give you some details of enemy forces and where POWs have seen them. ECP-mod has this same feature... Now hold your horses! The thing is that they are only "aware" from begining of mission (not covering the time they have been posted with their platoon/company). So ending result is pretty useless (and ending up so that POW has been beaten to death)

But with support of engine, ie. simulating long memory for individuals (positions/tasks/morale/supply), giving AI leaders ways to use this info, blah-blah-blah... Well we could say that: "hey! we have a MOST-REALISTIC-DYNAMIC-SP-CAMPAIGN EVER!" and that would be my dream-come-true (of course only if it could model batallion/brigade level)...and topic goes back to back to AI (wink-wink)

[ryankaplan 1]

i and a few other regular ofp players started playing ghost recon 1 lately. in the eyes of a programmer, the ai is shit. in my eyes, they are amazing. they look amazingly authentic, they are fast and deadly, they indirectly throw handgrenades at you (not target you with the throw weapon as in ofp), they lay surrpressive fire, they scream, they move properly and not like the mongs in ofp.

When you go into a building with a rifle, you actually expect 30% casulties...so you come up with tactics like...'lets chuck an at4 rocket inside before we go in...'

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I also agree that surrendering should be an option for AI, but not as default behavior. That way, Coalition soldiers would never surrender (because they know that they would simply be tortured, paraded around, and beheaded), and local forces could choose to surrender (as the Coalition has much superior morality, going so far to give incacipated OPFOR medical treatment).

Then again, it would be weird to have the CS kiddies run around and shoot POWs, yet it would be frustrating to penalize the behavior as serious players could accidently blow up a POW with a grenade, artilery fire, or just fill both an aggressive resistance and standing POW with lead in the heat of the moment.

Remember The Regiment game? I heard you could take prisoners, but at the same time the game encouraged speed executions (to teach the terrorists a lesson, and time limit) so sometimes when you did the "double taps" you accidentally executed a POW and lost points to you rank.

Well, user missions will probably simulate taking prisoners with triggers.

Both sides would have a hard time surrenderring. Coalition forces uses torture too, no?

I think that's pretty normal. I would use torture myself if I believed It could save civilians or some of my men from death.

[Journeyman 0]

Yeah! The old GR still kicks ass like no other in terms of perceived enemy AI. The difference is that in GR they act mostly as individuals rather than a trained squad! This makes for a lot of fun as one by one they approach an ambush like bees to a honey pot ignoring the pile of dead comrades in front of them!

I think if their human like behaviour was combined with more squad input and cooperation they would be totally deadly!    

What I don't like about the old GR AI is their ability to shoot you dead in an instant before they even manage to raise their weapon and aim at you though!    In GRAW the enemy AI seem to be a bit slower and less deadly accurate in an instant, although I haven’t tried all the different settings yet!

I'm looking forward to the AI in ArmA being much more scaleable but hopefully with some more human like characteristics as in GR with some of those built in sound scripts like "AMERICANSEE!" or "GRENADA!"  Hearing the enemy shouting and acting like any shit scared human being in the face of deadly force just makes the whole playing experience that much more fun!  

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

GR1 A.I. is shite on toast. Only after you patch the game up to Island Thunder does it BEGIN to be worthy of mentioning on the same page with OFP.

For one, it isn't until you patch up the game PAST Desert Siege and up to Island Thunder that the game starts to send TEAMS at you. Before that, it's all single soldiers.

Additionally, the enemy A.I. shoots you, you're unable to fire while you're reeling and grunting from the impact, the enemy A.I. waits until the EXACT moment that you are recovered and once again able to return fire to pop you again, rinse-repeat until you're dead. It has been very rare in GR1 that I have successfully returned fire so as to prevent my death once I've been hit by the first shot. It's like the enemy A.I. waits until the exact CPU cycle that the game finishes playing your "Urgh, I'm shot!" animation.

Yes, the CQB A.I. in GR1 is superior to OFP, but that's because GR1 is basically built on the Rogue Spear engine, which is basically the Rainbow Six engine. (Much of its so-called genius lies in that you can actually shoot through the corners of some(all?) walls, which the A.I. puts to better use than the human players.)

You can even use the same tactics in GR1 that you use in Rainbow Six. Just treat the map like a "giant" (they like to think so) room, sticking to the walls and "slicing the pie" around mountains and hills.

Wow, they talk! The DF series has had talking A.I. for ages.

Wow, they use suppressive fire! The DF series has had suppressive fire for ages.

Sorry, but I can only give GR credit for being fun multiplayer, whether adversarial or coop. If I do that, though, then I have to call OFP multiplayer the ULTIMATE, which is exactly what it might be (unless you count World War II Online, maybe).

The best thing Ghost Recon has going for it is the UbiSoft FragDolls. Playing GR with them makes the game a true pleasure. Personally, I prefer the UK Dolls over the American ones. (They now also come in French flavor, by the way.)

[Journeyman 0]

I didn't say it was perfect! I didn't say it was the best! But it is a lot of fun, and yes I only play with the latest (DS,IT) upgrades, originally it was not so good granted!

The AI is what you make it! Analise things too much and it is all crap!

Anyway, sorry to hear that you did not like GR!  

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

Well, the way some people analyze OFP A.I. so much that they claim to be able to predict what it is going to do, I broke down the GR1 A.I. behavior pattern in only an hour or two.

[Friedchiken 0]

Espectro: I guess I agree about the POW scenario. Shame that non-Coalition forces like to decapitate non-combatants, though of course there are some nasty exceptions to normal trends.

I guess what I mean about simulating POW situations in a game is that players should be able to treat POWs in the way top level generals want them to be treated. As in, don't give into temptation, round up the POWs, and hand them off to "specialists" that are more "qualified" to process the prisoners. Instead of causing a media mess on the infantry level, players simply let other officiers do the dirty work off-mission. Just bag-em and send them off to HQ (and then maybe Gitmo), no real need to give players a choice to torture prisoners personally.

Nextly, I just want to say that I liked the Ghost Recon AI when it was patched up to Island Thunder. I think it's impossible to use that programming approach for OFP's wide areas, but GR AI was fun to play against. But in the end of the day, I'd rather play OFP, due to open-ended gameplay and non-sniper AI. Plus it's not that often I encounter CQB situations with Flashpoint's gamplay. Or rather, I just encircle the area and do the specific clearing myself after most the defenders are taken care of.

Funny how newbies accuse OFP OPFOR of being killer marksmen when in practice OFP veterans shoot much faster and farther than the AI.