Please fix the AI

[Col. Faulkner 0]

The idea of stationary men spotting and shooting

moving men is supportable in open country or complex

urban environments, and BIS may well have intended

it like this (but I don't know, of course). Sometimes,

when men are properly cammed up and lying doggo

you really can't see them until you are almost on top

of them - I mean you can be literally feet away from

them - I've even seen idiot squaddies trip over OPFOR

on exercises and once had a German fall into my own

"foxhole"!  

But when they are standing in the street like Wild West

gunslingers as in latinman's tests it's a bit ridiculous.

edit: I mean the fact that there is such a huge penalty

for movement is ridiculous, not the tests.

[Zombie_Mod 0]

ofpforum, that mission.sqm you gave me has only one waypoint, combat mode "SAFE".

Given that, in your video, the BLUFOR are walking towards the town in a WEDGE formation, and diving down in COMBAT MODE, yet they can't see the enemy yet, how are they doing this? By magic?

Have you been editing the mission.sqm?

I smell bull

[NeMeSiS 11]

I mentioned to you about company of heroes. That simulates battles on a large scale AND the AI is more than adequate, yet you are silent on that.

Its an RTS, its not comparable.

(and it would suck for a FPS, those squads always stick to eachother)

How do you mean an RTS? It's an RTS with FPS elements, you can take 3rd person view if required.

Besides the only difference between an RTS of this nature and an FPS is 3rd person control of an individual unit.

I could say a Company of Heroes type game could be done in ArmA using the Chain of Command engine??

So, given the blurred lines between the 2 genres, esp 2 games released around the same time, the AI of the enemy should be available for comparison, correct?

Both AI in FPS and RTS are programmed to attack the enemy. COH AI is doing it a damn sight better.

No, for instance: The maps are made completely different and the pathfinding for it is far from comparable, and in an RTS you control a big amount of soldiers, squads count as 1 unit+behave that way, while in an FPS every unit is 1 unit, and should behave like 1 unit (in ArmA/OFP it should behave as 1 unit as part of a squad, etc). I cant really explain it properly, but ive the feeling that you are trying to force me into saying something i dont want to

(please reread my post above, i updated it quite a bit )

EDIT: Please, try the mission before judging me, wedge formation is standard if you use dont change the setting, like i said before, i used a move ("combat") waypoint just to show the bounding overwatch, if i didnt do that they would have walked towards the town in "aware" (=standard), then changed it to "combat" once under fire (done automaticly, same as OFP).

EDIT: IM APOLOGIZE, you are right, let me repost the mission.sqm

[Maddmatt 1]

I mentioned to you about company of heroes. That simulates battles on a large scale AND the AI is more than adequate, yet you are silent on that.

Its an RTS, its not comparable.

(and it would suck for a FPS, those squads always stick to eachother)

How do you mean an RTS? It's an RTS with FPS elements, you can take 3rd person view if required.

Besides the only difference between an RTS of this nature and an FPS is 3rd person control of an individual unit.

I could say a Company of Heroes type game could be done in ArmA using the Chain of Command engine??

So, given the blurred lines between the 2 genres, esp 2 games released around the same time, the AI of the enemy should be available for comparison, correct?

Both AI in FPS and RTS are programmed to attack the enemy. COH AI is doing it a damn sight better.

Well I didn't comment on Company of Heroes because I just played the demo a little. I played some training missions, the Omaha Beach mission, and then a bit of the next one until it crashed. Then I uninstalled it . AI didn't impress me much. They either stay where they are or go straight for you. If you kick their ass they run away. Not too bad I guess - but still pretty straightforward. More advanced than R6V though.

[Zombie_Mod 0]

I mentioned to you about company of heroes. That simulates battles on a large scale AND the AI is more than adequate, yet you are silent on that.

Its an RTS, its not comparable.

(and it would suck for a FPS, those squads always stick to eachother)

How do you mean an RTS? It's an RTS with FPS elements, you can take 3rd person view if required.

Besides the only difference between an RTS of this nature and an FPS is 3rd person control of an individual unit.

I could say a Company of Heroes type game could be done in ArmA using the Chain of Command engine??

So, given the blurred lines between the 2 genres, esp 2 games released around the same time, the AI of the enemy should be available for comparison, correct?

Both AI in FPS and RTS are programmed to attack the enemy. COH AI is doing it a damn sight better.

No, for instance: The maps are made completely different and the pathfinding for it is far from comparable, and in an RTS you control a big amount of soldiers, squads count as 1 unit+behave that way, while in an FPS every unit is 1 unit, and should behave like 1 unit (in ArmA/OFP it should behave as 1 unit as part of a squad, etc). I cant really explain it properly, but ive the feeling that you are trying to force me into saying something i dont want to

(please reread my post above, i updated it quite a bit )

Of course the maps are made differently, the games were developed by different teams!

CoH is the first RTS game I've played where a group of soldiers counts as a single unit, and even then you can split the group up, by telling them to mount MGs etc.

I really don't see whats so different between the 2 genres, action-wise, apart from the aforementioned fact that you don't have granular control over individual squad members in COH.

Pathfinding from A to B in both games takes place on 3D terrain. Garrisoning houses in both games is done rather better by one engine (clue: not ArmA) and flanking, retreat, cover etc is done brilliantly by one engine (clue: not ArmA)

You trying to tell me, because one game is viewed top down, and one is viewed from 3rd person, that the rendering of graphics has to be different, that pathfinding has to be different, and that the action of unit A attacking B has to be different? Remember, CoH can be viewed in 3rd person too... it aint tile based game.

The only thing different between the 2 genres is the "camera" point. CoH has Ai that can traverse 3D terrain AND find cover, ArmA does not. Strykers on bridges, anyone?

Bollocks

[NeMeSiS 11]

Can it be viewed in 3rd person? I remeber being able to zoom in very far, but taking control of a unit in 3rd person is not something i can remember. Anyway, the AI is very good, but IIRC they dont take properly cover, their fleeing is weird (just running back to the base very fast?), etc etc.

EDIT: Unless you mean the top-down view as 3rd person, i dont know, you confused the hell out of me by saying that both my mission and video were fake

Ah, and my mission.sqm was correct after all, please play it before judging me, there are 3 waypoints, i rechecked it.), everything there was unscripted, all i did was activating the appropriete AI behaviour by using waypoints (which is what should be done by mission editors, in case of fully dynamic missions scripting is needed to use 100% of the AI potential)

[Zombie_Mod 0]

Can it be viewed in 3rd person? I remeber being able to zoom in very far, but taking control of a unit in 3rd person is not something i can remember. Anyway, the AI is very good, but IIRC they dont take properly cover, their fleeing is weird (just running back to the base very fast?), etc etc.

EDIT: Unless you mean the top-down view as 3rd person, i dont know, you confused the hell out of me by saying that both my mission and video were fake

Ah, and my mission.sqm was correct after all, please play it before judging me, there are 3 waypoints, i rechecked it.)

Hold the ALT key in CoH and you can view it any way you like. It's not 2D.

So there you go, both use 3D engines but one is doing things well

[Maddmatt 1]

No, for instance: The maps are made completely different and the pathfinding for it is far from comparable, and in an RTS you control a big amount of soldiers, squads count as 1 unit+behave that way, while in an FPS every unit is 1 unit, and should behave like 1 unit (in ArmA/OFP it should behave as 1 unit as part of a squad, etc). I cant really explain it properly, but ive the feeling that you are trying to force me into saying something i dont want to

(please reread my post above, i updated it quite a bit )

Of course the maps are made differently, the games were developed by different teams!

CoH is the first RTS game I've played where a group of soldiers counts as a single unit, and even then you can split the group up, by telling them to mount MGs etc.

I really don't see whats so different between the 2 genres, action-wise, apart from the aforementioned fact that you don't have granular control over individual squad members in COH.

Pathfinding from A to B in both games takes place on 3D terrain. Garrisoning houses in both games is done rather better by one engine (clue: not ArmA) and flanking, retreat, cover etc is done brilliantly by one engine (clue: not ArmA)

You trying to tell me, because one game is viewed top down, and one is viewed from 3rd person, that the rendering of graphics is different, that pathfinding is different, and that the action of unit A attacking B is different? Remember, CoH can be viewed in 3rd person too... it aint tile based game.

Bollocks

AI moving into buildings involves no pathfinding. Compare the insides of their buildings. COH has nothing. Line of sight has to be done in a different way, not simply by distance. Can you hide in a building in COH and have enemies walk past without seeing you? There are alot of things COH doesn't have to worry about, mostly because there is no player controlled character. Can you sneak up on enemies through bushes in COH?

If I'm wrong about anything in COH, keep in mind my limited experience in the game - no more than 1 or 2 hours in the demo.

[Zombie_Mod 0]

No, for instance: The maps are made completely different and the pathfinding for it is far from comparable, and in an RTS you control a big amount of soldiers, squads count as 1 unit+behave that way, while in an FPS every unit is 1 unit, and should behave like 1 unit (in ArmA/OFP it should behave as 1 unit as part of a squad, etc). I cant really explain it properly, but ive the feeling that you are trying to force me into saying something i dont want to

(please reread my post above, i updated it quite a bit )

Of course the maps are made differently, the games were developed by different teams!

CoH is the first RTS game I've played where a group of soldiers counts as a single unit, and even then you can split the group up, by telling them to mount MGs etc.

I really don't see whats so different between the 2 genres, action-wise, apart from the aforementioned fact that you don't have granular control over individual squad members in COH.

Pathfinding from A to B in both games takes place on 3D terrain. Garrisoning houses in both games is done rather better by one engine (clue: not ArmA) and flanking, retreat, cover etc is done brilliantly by one engine (clue: not ArmA)

You trying to tell me, because one game is viewed top down, and one is viewed from 3rd person, that the rendering of graphics is different, that pathfinding is different, and that the action of unit A attacking B is different? Remember, CoH can be viewed in 3rd person too... it aint tile based game.

Bollocks

AI moving into buildings involves no pathfinding. Compare the insides of their buildings. COH has nothing. Line of sight has to be done in a different way, not simply by distance. Can you hide in a building in COH and have enemies walk past without seeing you? There are alot of things COH doesn't have to worry about, mostly because there is no player controlled character. Can you sneak up on enemies through bushes in COH?

If I'm wrong about anything in COH, keep in mind my limited experience in the game - no more than 1 or 2 hours in the demo.

Can you sneak up on enemies in ArmA? Check the WIKI, the enemy has got Xray vision in the bug list

Also OFPForum I noticed you changed the mission you posted, changing a waypoint from SAFE to GUARD....

[NeMeSiS 11]

Can it be viewed in 3rd person? I remeber being able to zoom in very far, but taking control of a unit in 3rd person is not something i can remember. Anyway, the AI is very good, but IIRC they dont take properly cover, their fleeing is weird (just running back to the base very fast?), etc etc.

EDIT: Unless you mean the top-down view as 3rd person, i dont know, you confused the hell out of me by saying that both my mission and video were fake

Ah, and my mission.sqm was correct after all, please play it before judging me, there are 3 waypoints, i rechecked it.)

Hold the ALT key in CoH and you can view it any way you like. It's not 2D.

So there you go, both use 3D engines but one is doing things well  

I know its not 2d, but its not an 3rd person shooter either, but ok, if you want i compare them:

ArmA:

+makes tactical decisions (retreating, flanking, covering eachother while moving (only in combat mode))

+squad behaviour

-bad pathfinding (better then OFP, but still afraid of objects)

-almost never takes cover/takes too long before they are in cover (thus: sometimes buggy AI)

COH:

+makes some tactical decisions (retreating, taking cover)

+good pathfinding

+good optimized AI (no bugs, allowes alot of units without a big performance hit)

-no real squad behaviour (a squad is more like 1 bug unit with can fire multiple guns at the same time)

Now, did you try my examplemission already? Im not a liar, really, at least try it before misreading my .sqm again.

EDIT: I changed a waypoint from safe to guard? What? Ive no idea what that means, there is no 'Safe' waypoint, just a behaviour, but there is no 'guard' behaviour? There is no Guard("safe") waypoint either, remember there are 2 enemy squads). Also note this at the end of that post:

Quote[/b] ]Edited by ofpforum on Jan. 06 2007,18:41

Either i can timetravel (which would be awesome), or you were impressed by the ArmA AI so you call me a liar.

[Zombie_Mod 0]

Sorry ofpforum but I got my waypoints mixed up. I apologise.

But I still don't think ArmA does any flanking or tactical movement. Whats the point in arguing forever? All I'm asking is that you put a squad in the editor and then have it fight another squad. No towns, no rocks etc etc. I bet they sit still, or just plain run. Nothing smart, for sure.

[fabrizio_t 58]

Hmmm guys ... i think this COH / AA comparison is not that fair. I have both and they're both good, but different.

CoH is far more polished as a game, but AA is far more complex to me.

Now, coming back on topic: i do have seen enemy flanking boh in OFP and AA, provided that distance si not close and/or some cover (buildings is available). On short distances or in absence of cover i have never seen any flanking, and that makes sense to me ...

[NeMeSiS 11]

But I still don't think ArmA does any flanking or tactical movement. Whats the point in arguing forever? All I'm asking is that you put a squad in the editor and then have it fight another squad. No towns, no rocks etc etc. I bet they sit still, or just plain run. Nothing smart, for sure.

Well now we found out where our different opinions come from:

I use a small mission to test everything, you just put them in front of eachother. Ofcourse they lay down and shoot at eachother, you never get to see something like this (1st vid), because the AI was never ordered to do move towards the enemy. They do excaclty what you wanted them to do: Nothing, after all, did you give them a waypoint? An objective? Goal? Anything? No, even if they want to, they cant, you may see someone standing up, but hes dead before he does 2 steps, quite logical without cover

They do quite alot automaticly as long as you give them a goal (in this case a waypoint), you dont have to script flanking, covering eachother, etc, they do this automaticly, provided you give them a waypoint (as shown in my example, 1 simple "move" waypoint is enough to let them do all this stuff).

And thats what makes this games AI better then vegas/graw/HL2 (IMO), they can do all this stuff, fully dynamcly, again and again, while in those games the only thing the AI does is taking cover and returning fire once in a while, wanna bet what happens when we put 6 guys with the vegas AI in front of eachother without cover? My guess is that they just shoot at eachother (but even with cover they do the same thing, just behind cover, while in ArmA, there is so much more the AI can do, except for taking cover ))

[Col. Faulkner 0]

in ArmA, there is so much more the AI can do, except for taking cover ))

They  can "dynamicly flank" as much as they like but if

they don't use cover or fire and movement even slightly

realistically then it's all just Rambo FPS nonsense. Even

14 year old army cadets and 16 year old junior soldiers are

taught this in elementary fieldcraft:

"Infantry Training

Volume 1-Skill At Arms (Individual Training)

Pamphlet No. 2

Fieldcraft and Fire Control

[...]

3. Every soldier must be able to

a. ...find the enemy without being seen himself.

b. Always make the best use of ground and cover."

Oh well, welcome to the ArmA turkey shoot.

[CsonkaPityu 0]

Before i start into my ArmA AI defending rant i would like to point out that i know the AI has problems, i know the AI sometimes don't see eachother when they clearly should. I am myself dissatisfied with it and would like it improved, but please don't bring up scripted corridor shooters and RTS games when comparing.

Bring up real life instead, historical precedents or anything other then Saving Private Ryan and it's video game adaptations.

Before i go on about ArmA's AI, everyone who hasn't seen this yet should take a look here.

An urban training video titled "concealment does not equal cover". It demonstrates how bullets, wall fragments and grenade fragments simply go through thick walls. Ok, after watching that i'm hope we can all agree that there is very little "cover" on the modern battlefield, not walls, not barrels, not cars and especially not turned over tables (lol). So let us forget CoD, R6 and co. No game got it right yet.

The AI in ArmA should not duck behind walls (i totally agree though that they shouldn't expose themselves as much as they currently do either), if that's suicide IRL it should be suicide in the game. ArmA already has bullet penetration values on some objects, so it should be moddable on others. AI could hide behind walls if the enemy doesn't know they're there but they should move around if the enemy is aware of their presence (maybe on the lower skill settings it would be plausible that they hide and get themselves killed). Just look at the way the chechens fought in Grozny, they didn't stay stationary, they moved around ("moved around" in a larger scale) and they caused serious damage to the russian conscripts who were scared and hunkered themselves down, only spesnaz and VDV caused trouble to the chechens (and ofcourse the massive artillery bombardments) and these troops manouvered a lot too.

What should be improved in ArmA's AI is the aggression, they should fire around like maniacs, making swiss cheese of everything around the percieved location of the enemy. Or pull back and let the big boys handle the fun. The US soldiers in Iraq, when they encounter hostiles entrenched in an urban setting they call in the airforce/or an abrams/bradley and have the building blown up, they don't go and "flank" or use "tactical movement" on an established and waiting enemy, they aren't stupid.

Ok now lets look at the touted R6 Vegas then: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZPI2xuV3Zvk

At the 1 minute mark how he ducks behind the marble or whatever, well IRL he'd be shredded to pieces (based on the above video - although marble wasn't used i'd assume that sooner or later the bullets would eat away at it). But even if round penetration is accurate because of the small calibre used and the material fired at, that AI still isn't being too smart hiding in the same spot right infront of the guy he should be trying something, no grenades either, ArmA's AI if they know you are there, start chucking grenades at you atleast.

What i saw there was a video game version of Die Hard, fun, i liked that movie, but i wouldn't consider that it a training video.

And who brought up COH and why? That game is totally unrealistic, it's an RTS for crying out loud.

Quote[/b] ]Both AI in FPS and RTS are programmed to attack the enemy. COH AI is doing it a damn sight better.

There is no fog of war in arma. The COH AI has a much smaller scanning field and much less to worry about then arma's ai.

Only things BIS needs to improve imho is the spotting performance and the aggression, AI needs to see much better, shoot much more (aim much worse!, use covering/suppressive fire and then they'll be fine (although this covering/suppressive fire business might be harder to code then one would imagine - i mean somethings that are obvious descisions for a human are complex algorithms that involve many considerations like distance, angle, the attention one is being payed to and other things). I just want the AI to start shooting at me when i'm a mile away and i'll be happy. This coupled with accurate roundpenetration values would make the game exciting (for me, but i'm crazy). I miss OFP's Super AI setting where everyone started shooting like nuts.

[NeMeSiS 11]

3. Every soldier must be able to

a. ...find the enemy without being seen himself.

b. Always make the best use of ground and cover."

Oh well, welcome to the ArmA turkey shoot.  

I partly agree, they should use cover in a better way, however, i dont want them to hide behind it, its too easy to flush them out with a grenade (the AI does this against players, quite effective if you stay too long in 1 position), however, they should walk behind objects in their path, instead of using the fastest way.

And well, as long as you aren out in the open but in a city/town/forest the flanking works fine

EDIT: Seems like CsonkaPityu said what i said but he explained it better, please read the last post of the previous page

[whisper 0]

There's indeed something strange with AI spotting distances, the difference between spotting a moving target and a static one is big.

VERY especially in towns, same test in desert shows less drastic values:

Test mission derived from TheLatinMan's one.

[NeMeSiS 11]

There's indeed something strange with AI spotting distances, the difference between spotting a moving target and a static one is big.

VERY especially in towns, same test in desert shows less drastic values:

Test mission derived from TheLatinMan's one.

Well, ive tried to look at the config for the camouflage/audible settings, and they seem to be nonexistant on most soldiers, there is no camouflage setting on soldierWB or CAManBase so it seems to use the Class cfgvehicles camo setting, which is camouflage = 2;

For a small comparison: The camoflage on a default soldier in OFP is 0.7(IIRC), and the sniper in ArmA also has a camo setting of 0.7.

2 seems to be way to high, i might change it later to a lower setting to see if that solves it...

EDIT: They may have changed the standard compared to OFP, but dunno..

[Homer Simpson 0]

This appears to be more a default behaviour problem rather than AI line of sight.

I tried a couple of the tests posted and it appears the default behaviour in the editor is only fire when under threat.

putting this setbehaviour "Combat" in either opfor or blufor's init fixes the tests and makes them engage almost instantly with varying outcomes. Opfor dead Bluefor dead or both dead

obviously which ever one has the combat mode on will have the advantage as the one without only reacts as soon as the opposition starts to point a weapon his way. If both are in Combat mode from the start it's 50/50 chance if land is level or genrally 20/80 in LOS4 test as blufor has a slight advantage of a bump in the road giving him an ever so slight piece of cover when prone.

Except the running test (los8) as the Blufor just doesn't stand a chance as the Opfor is ready and waiting (although poor lirttle blufor did win once out of 10 tries I ran), making him move in carefully "Stealth" he win's 9 out of 10 times.

[TheReddog 0]

What annoys me is the "AI instantly knows your position" moments. Like on the sniper side mission, I shoot the officer from a bushy position 600m away and instantly the AI is shooting right at my left eyebrow...

[fabrizio_t 58]

Quote[/b] ]This appears to be more a default behaviour problem rather than AI line of sight.

Hmmm ... i can't agree on that.

I modified "los8" test and initialized the AI of both BLUFOR and OPFOR with these settings (the most "aggressive" i know):

this setCombatMode "red"; -or- this setCombatMode "yellow";

this setBehaviour "combat";

The results are comparable to previous case: moving unit always spots steady unit later and is normally wiped out. So it's not default behaviour to me, since the "bug" is at least replicable with "combat" behaviour and i bet also others.

Quote[/b] ]putting this setbehaviour "Combat" in either opfor or blufor's init fixes the tests and makes them engage almost instantly with varying outcomes. Opfor dead Bluefor dead or both dead

Hmm ... i was able to reproduce that only in "los4".

The reason this happens is that going prone the 2 units reduce their relative distance of a few centimeters.

I've put on purpose these 2 units on the edge of the distance at which the LOS bug shows up (in the case it's around 47,5 meters). Reducing this distance a few will trigger the "normal" behaviour and the units will engage and behave correctly in relation with the behaviour has been set.

Try raising their initial distance of about 50 centimeters and you'll see that initializing their "behaviour" does not make any difference and they still won't engage.

I can provide these modified test cases if anyone is interested to test them further.

[Second 0]

Sounds that in urban area AI uses almost same redused LOS-range than OFP did with it's woods (aprox. 50 meter is default spottingrange in there). Is this for reducing processorconsuming in urban area fights? I don't see anyother reasons for it... And it's bit stupid! Now i understand few things about demo, and why i finaly managed to finish it's coop (it wasn't because of my superiour skills, but for bad AI's spottingability)

[simulacra 0]

What? some ppl actually WANT the AI to rather lie in a open street rather than taking albeit weak cover behind corners?

Well, count me out of that gang, I want immersion, am I the only one?

[NeMeSiS 11]

What? some ppl actually WANT the AI to rather lie in a open street rather than taking albeit weak cover behind corners?

Well, count me out of that gang, I want immersion, am I the only one?

Ive no idea why you are saying this so ill just pretend if you didnt say that..

Quote[/b] ]Sounds that in urban area AI uses almost same redused LOS-range than OFP did with it's woods (aprox. 50 meter is default spottingrange in there).

This crossed my mind, but then.. AFAIK there is no way to detect urban area's without triggers, unless this can be incorporated into the .wrp in ArmA, but that doesnt really make sence..

[Zombie_Mod 0]

Before i start into my ArmA AI defending rant i would like to point out that i know the AI has problems, i know the AI sometimes don't see eachother when they clearly should. I am myself dissatisfied with it and would like it improved, but please don't bring up scripted corridor shooters and RTS games when comparing.

Bring up real life instead, historical precedents or anything other then Saving Private Ryan and it's video game adaptations.

Before i go on about ArmA's AI, everyone who hasn't seen this yet should take a look here.

An urban training video titled "concealment does not equal cover". It demonstrates how bullets, wall fragments and grenade fragments simply go through thick walls. Ok, after watching that i'm hope we can all agree that there is very little "cover" on the modern battlefield, not walls, not barrels, not cars and especially not turned over tables (lol). So let us forget CoD, R6 and co. No game got it right yet.

The AI in ArmA should not duck behind walls (i totally agree though that they shouldn't expose themselves as much as they currently do either), if that's suicide IRL it should be suicide in the game. ArmA already has bullet penetration values on some objects, so it should be moddable on others. AI could hide behind walls if the enemy doesn't know they're there but they should move around if the enemy is aware of their presence (maybe on the lower skill settings it would be plausible that they hide and get themselves killed). Just look at the way the chechens fought in Grozny, they didn't stay stationary, they moved around ("moved around" in a larger scale) and they caused serious damage to the russian conscripts who were scared and hunkered themselves down, only spesnaz and VDV caused trouble to the chechens (and ofcourse the massive artillery bombardments) and these troops manouvered a lot too.

What should be improved in ArmA's AI is the aggression, they should fire around like maniacs, making swiss cheese of everything around the percieved location of the enemy. Or pull back and let the big boys handle the fun. The US soldiers in Iraq, when they encounter hostiles entrenched in an urban setting they call in the airforce/or an abrams/bradley and have the building blown up, they don't go and "flank" or use "tactical movement" on an established and waiting enemy, they aren't stupid.

Ok now lets look at the touted R6 Vegas then: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZPI2xuV3Zvk

At the 1 minute mark how he ducks behind the marble or whatever, well IRL he'd be shredded to pieces (based on the above video - although marble wasn't used i'd assume that sooner or later the bullets would eat away at it). But even if round penetration is accurate because of the small calibre used and the material fired at, that AI still isn't being too smart hiding in the same spot right infront of the guy he should be trying something, no grenades either, ArmA's AI if they know you are there, start chucking grenades at you atleast.

What i saw there was a video game version of Die Hard, fun, i liked that movie, but i wouldn't consider that it a training video.

And who brought up COH and why? That game is totally unrealistic, it's an RTS for crying out loud.

Quote[/b] ]Both AI in FPS and RTS are programmed to attack the enemy. COH AI is doing it a damn sight better.

There is no fog of war in arma. The COH AI has a much smaller scanning field and much less to worry about then arma's ai.

Only things BIS needs to improve imho is the spotting performance and the aggression, AI needs to see much better, shoot much more (aim much worse!, use covering/suppressive fire and then they'll be fine (although this covering/suppressive fire business might be harder to code then one would imagine - i mean somethings that are obvious descisions for a human are complex algorithms that involve many considerations like distance, angle, the attention one is being payed to and other things). I just want the AI to start shooting at me when i'm a mile away and i'll be happy. This coupled with accurate roundpenetration values would make the game exciting (for me, but i'm crazy). I miss OFP's Super AI setting where everyone started shooting like nuts.

So let me get this right, based on a training video you found on the net, you are defending ArmA's troops not taking cover and acting like idiots?

I know if I was under fire I'd run behind something - anything - to shield me from the bullets, "penetration values" or not.

Anyway back to R6 vegas, your troops go where they are commanded to go, same as in OFP. They sit in one place, what do you want them to do, run out and get blown to bits???

And it was me who brought up Company of Heroes. Obviously I am the only one who sees the parallels between CoH and ArmA - are you saying that both game engines are radically different? As I stated before they both use pathfinding, they both use 3d movement, they both use attack/ defend logic, and THEY BOTH HAVE 3RD PERSON VIEW. CoH may be "unrealistic" but it's a game, as is ArmA. Are you saying ArmA is realistic then???

Oh yes finally the fog of war in CoH is based on what your troops can and cannot see. Fair enough to me. Unlike ArmA, the troops do not have psychic powers and don't know where the enemy are