Please fix the AI

[maxqubit 1]

One of the major things the fanbase was asking for for ArmA was better AI, and BIS has not delivered that.

Imo the 'fanbase' asked for the impossible (obvious from the fact that ALL games, without expection, even not 'Deep Thought' suffer from 'bad AI').

[Zendjir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Imo the 'fanbase' asked for the impossible (obvious from the fact that ALL games, without expection, even not 'Deep Thought' suffer from 'bad AI'.

We did not ask for self-thinking, learning and communicative beings. We asked for an AI that would know how to use cover, that was not suicidal, etc.. That building the 'perfect' AI would be impossible does not justify the fact that ArmA's AI looks eerily similar to OFP's AI.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Quote[/b] ]One of the major things the fanbase was asking for for ArmA was better AI, and BIS has not delivered that.

They defintly improved it, but because its not as visible as most other games noone seems to notice. (i mean, it really looks like they have no idea what is going on and they are just randomly walking somewhere, only when you study them closely you notice what they are doing.)

Quote[/b] ]Most ppl in this community doesn't like idea such as mentioned in this thread. They just have fun with current ArmA and it's AI, that's great.

I would love the AI to be behave more realistic (especially more careful with their life), but the current AI still does a decent job. I hope that BIS improves some things (like taking cover and act more careful (no more 'running into that alley, but walking to the corner of that allow and look around first (in combat mode))). It maybe be too much to ask for (i dont even have the slightest idea of where to begin to make something like that), but it is IMO the only improvement that the AI needs.

EDIT:

Quote[/b] ]ArmA's AI looks eerily similar to OFP's AI.

Thats exactly what i was talking about. The AI doesnt show what they are doing. (is it running the wrong way or is it retreating? Are they covering each other or do they have pathfinding problems? Are they looking for enemies or just stupidly staring the other way?). And the LOS bug only adds do this (why dont they react?), even though this is easily fixed it only makes the AI look worse.

Lets all just point out the good and bad things about the ArmA AI, and try to improve it (or show BIS what we want improved):

(Feel free to add to this)

Good Points:

+Squad behaviour (covering eachother when advancing, ...)

+Tactical decisions (retreating, flanking (could be improved, maybe with a special command like '3 flank soldier 2 o clock', ...)

+easily adaptable to any sitiuation (behaviours, guard/sentry/hold/dismissed/etc waypoints, easily editable)

Bad Points:

-suicidal (includes bad use of cover, running into streets without checking for enemies first, *add something*

-Bugs: LOS bug, sometimes strange pathfinding, sometimes extreme tunnel vision, *add*

-doesn't show what its doing (which makes COD's AI look better then then ArmA's AI, even though the only thing the CoD AI can do is fire back)

[ryankaplan 1]

i am short of time so i cant write a long reply.

Who gives a shit if the AI is made up of a billion lines of code and can operate a divisional scale mechanised infantry assault in text book style, When They still look like a bunch of idiots while doing it? They still look and move like robots, and they still do not take cover properly.

What i am asking for is not doable (i think) in the Arma engine, because it's simulation of animations is very limited, in that one animation must be finished before another can be played. It is a shame as many games since year 2001 has been delivering AI that at the very least certainly look authentic.

..."Hopefully for Game 2"...

[mr reality 0]

-Have you tried some good multiplayers coop-missions in veteran mode? How many times do you see them finished?

(I really love to see people moan about the current state of ai in Arma and yet I see most multiplayer missions ending by the entire team getting slaughtered)

(I know what you're thinking: 'you must really suck at it', actually i don't, i'm usually last man standing with plenty of kills)

-Have you considered what this would mean for general gameplay?

I'm not saying the ai couldn't be optimized, i'm just saying it's easy to complain about arma ai, but show me 1 game of same scale with this kind of flexible ai (considering ai takes into account ammo, health, retreats, regroups, use of vehicles etc).

I've quoted this post but there are quite a few which are similar and what i mean by that is that they refer to the opfor AI.

I'm happy with the opfor AI and how it flanks but what i'm not happy about is MY squads AI. This is where the problems lie. I only play singleplayer, so for all those multiplayer gamers who don't even touch on the singleplayer aspect of ArmA  then i advise you to give it a go to see how bad your AI squad mates react.

I've just had yet another disasterous attempt at the demo coop game as a sinleplayer. My squads AI is a freakin joke. I got so mad i had to turn the game off. I had squad members being shot from behind but not one turned around. My squad was being hit from 2 sides but i had no idea where the opfor were because not 1 of my team reported seeing anybody (this could be down to the fact that the opfor shooting is near perfect at all ranges and my squad is getting shot at long distances).

I don't know if the demo build is missing something, like maybe a commonsense script because being a squad leader in ArmA is absolute crap. I've noticed many times in flashpoint when the AI is leading a squad they give orders to individual soldiers very quickly, well there is noway i can give individual orders like that, and i'm thinking this is the problem because each soldier needs to be told what to do every step of the way. But like it was mentioned 1 page back in this thread the underlying problem with friendly AI is there inability to move out of danger. If my squad is in an intense firefight why should i stop fireing to tell someone to move. This is when i die most of the time.

No wonder BIS increased the squad size, with the freindly AI as it is you'll need every man. Also i now know why they implemented the change soldier upon death, it's because your gonna get killed a lot.

Why is there only 1 option to have a close formation (column close). Wouldn't it be better if the close formation was the 10th formation. So whichever formation your squad is in, if you then choose formation/close they would. I want a close/line formation for ambushes, because at present the current line formation is crap because the majority of times the last 3 members on the right or left don't engage because there behind cover.  Please sort this out.

1 last thing before my head explodes. After watching the film Blackhawk down for the tenth time i wondered if i could simulate that kind of battle in ArmA. Guess what, it took me less than a millisecond to come to the conclusion that there is noway in hell the friendly AI in ArmA could even get into there Hummvees without being totally wiped out.

I'm finding ArmA to be totally UNrealistic as a military sim because of the casualtys even on squad level.

I've watched alot of documentries on the history channel about Iraq and Vietnam and it got me thinking about the casualty level in ArmA. Soldier survivability is at its highest with the added protection and even basic first aid trained too ALL soldiers. So why do ArmA soldiers die all the time when there hit. In ArmA how does the enemy know when to stop fireing at a target. When does it know it has killed its target especially when the target is concealed the opfor just keeps fireing until your hit and killed(this could be put down to the opfor AIs ability to see through grass and behind trees).

To sum it up i'm thinking ArmA is first and foremost a multiplayer game, this way the freindly AI flaws will not be noticed too much. Chances of me buying ArmA 85%

[znashin 0]

Afew things.

Quote[/b] ]I'm happy with the opfor AI and how it flanks but what i'm not happy about is MY squads AI.

They use the same ai. When you try to do the mp coop mission with ~10 men vs ~40 men and 4 apcs your chances, on paper, are less than 1:4. The only other conditions are your skill as a player and your skill as a commander ...

Quote[/b] ]I had squad members being shot from behind but not one turned around.

This isn't good. Maybe your men were targeting, or trying to target, something in front of you and in cover. However, I suspect that this is evidence of the no-acquire bug people have been complaining about. I've certainly stumbled on alot of unreactive ai. Can't remember this happening in ofp.

Quote[/b] ]this could be down to the fact that the opfor shooting is near perfect at all ranges and my squad is getting shot at long distances

I've heard this bandied around alot and tbfh it's total horse manure. The ai's shooting skills leave alot to be desired. Bullet for bullet they miss more than they hit. I've played the coop demo alot and this is gospel. In fact I'd go as far as to say my survival rate when recieving enemy fire is 50%+. Going prone at medium distance (100-150m) against riflemen on flat ground more often than not results in 5-20 rounds going over my head. As for getting stuck at 25m against a rifleman while you are both stood up ... what do you expect? This is supposed to resemble realism. I've never shot a gun in my life but I'm pretty sure even I could hit a target at fifty feet with a rifle. At long range the ai can't even see you.

Quote[/b] ]I don't know if the demo build is missing something, like maybe a commonsense script because being a squad leader in ArmA is absolute crap. I've noticed many times in flashpoint when the AI is leading a squad they give orders to individual soldiers very quickly, well there is noway i can give individual orders like that, and i'm thinking this is the problem because each soldier needs to be told what to do every step of the way.

This leads me to believe you never commanded in ofp. It's very daunting at first but soon gets functional and, with alot of practice, even slick. Of course, it's never going to be rts slick.

Quote[/b] ]But like it was mentioned 1 page back in this thread the underlying problem with friendly AI is there inability to move out of danger.

Tell your point men to advance. If they hit trouble tell them to return to formation.

Quote[/b] ]Also i now know why they implemented the change soldier upon death, it's because your gonna get killed a lot.

Yes you are. Try to work out why this happening and stop repeating the mistakes. There's alot of players that can complete the coop demo single handed with one life in ~15mins.

Quote[/b] ]Why is there only 1 option to have a close formation (column close).

Agreed. There could be more formations. There could also be more bugs (FF and pathfinding) and too many formations. Your idea about having spacing options is a good one though.

Quote[/b] ]I'm finding ArmA to be totally UNrealistic as a military sim because of the casualtys even on squad level.

I've watched alot of documentries on the history channel about Iraq and Vietnam and it got me thinking about the casualty level in ArmA. Soldier survivability is at its highest with the added protection and even basic first aid trained too ALL soldiers. So why do ArmA soldiers die all the time when there hit.

No idea what your point is here, I'm afraid. I'll have a go at answering just for completeness though (correct me if I mis-understood your point). Arma soldiers dont die all the time when they are hit. I'd like them to die more. I'm sick of shooting people from the side, aimed at their torso, and it almost always wounding the arm. Some gun nut forensics expert is bound to contradict me on this but when you shoot someone in real life, even with a 9mm, they wont be in any condition to shoot back for at least 5 seconds, even if it hits kevlar. If it hits a bone you'll probably die from shock on the spot. If a 5.56 round hits you you are out of the fight for the foreseeable future. Rifle mags destroy brick walls ffs. This might not be a law of science but afaik it's the rule of the battlefield.

Quote[/b] ]To sum it up i'm thinking ArmA is first and foremost a multiplayer game,

Agreed, it is. Anything worth doing is worth doing with others

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Quote[/b] ]

No idea what your point is here, I'm afraid. I'll have a go at answering just for completeness though (correct me if I mis-understood your point). Arma soldiers dont die all the time when they are hit. I'd like them to die more. I'm sick of shooting people from the side, aimed at their torso, and it almost always wounding the arm. Some gun nut forensics expert is bound to contradict me on this but when you shoot someone in real life, even with a 9mm, they wont be in any condition to shoot back for at least 5 seconds, even if it hits kevlar. If it hits a bone you'll probably die from shock on the spot. If a 5.56 round hits you you are out of the fight for the foreseeable future. Rifle mags destroy brick walls ffs. This might not be a law of science but afaik it's the rule of the battlefield.

While I must agree with you on most of your points... If the bullet simply hits, penetrates and leaves soft tissue, the soldier might not even notice until the fighting is over (even though the shot hits certain vital organs).

[5cent_at_NY 0]

I think what Mr Reality pointed is about too many casualty have taken in ArmA's firefight just because of AI's suicidal "tactical decision". Not about how many bullets to kill. I totally agree that point. In ArmA's firefight, if you hear gunshot, that means somebody hit or get killed (except shootin at vehicles). most firefight ends in about 5min (even on urban area). I hope ppl keep mention it more.

i dunno about 5.56mm but, when 7.62mm bullet hit a man, he will get snaped by bullet's power. i have watched footage shows one soldier got shot and blown down (but his body armor saved his life, thank god!. You can find it on youtube.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I think what Mr Reality pointed is about too many casualty have taken in ArmA's firefight just because of AI's suicidal "tactical decision". Not about how many bullets to kill. I totally agree that point. In ArmA's firefight, if you hear gunshot, that means somebody hit or get killed (except shootin at vehicles). most firefight ends in about 5min (even on urban area). I hope ppl keep mention it more.

i dunno about 5.56mm but, when 7.62mm bullet hit a man, he will get snaped by bullet's power. i have watched footage shows one soldier got shot and blown down (but his body armor saved his life, thank god!. You can find it on youtube.

Exactly... It hit his body armor.

[wamingo 1]

Yeah agreed, when you hear shots you almost always know someone has been killed. It would be nice if ai could fire for effect every now and then.

Peaking by leaning around corners has given players quite an unfair advantage now I think, because the ai has a very hard time spotting you leaning and rarely gets the opportunity to fire back, even if they know that you're there - and even if they have already fired at you.

What is really missing imo is fire for effect. Protecting yourself against shielded targets can often only be done with fire for effect in real life. And it would light up the atmosphere of the game tremendously - not only getting more bullets flying and sounds cracking but also making the game feel a lot less clean-sweep like as someone called it, meaning missions where ai just wait around to get shot.

Played arma-demo and ofp, 99% coop, and I feel players have most fun if ai isn't passive. In ofp/armademo the ai is often completely passive. Not taking cover where players can I can understand, but finding ai standing in the middle of the street for 10 minutes despite bullets wizzles over them or at best moving 10 feet back and forth, is a bit sad. When ai starts running past your left/right flank and directly at you, that's when things starts to get interesting.

And worst of all perhaps, passive ai means there's is much less need for Teamplay, because when the ai doesn't move, everyone can just pick their own corner, no need to cover eachother at all. Might as well be playing singleplayer.

So yeah, I'm enjoying the demo a lot right now. To the point where I can regularly reek up 15-30 kills in the 8man coop (without stealing a brdm ), but I definately think ai could use improvements.

[Frans 0]

What I would like is if the AI could spot multiple targets at once.

For example: I'm driving around in my tank, and tell my gunner and commander to scan horizon. We come across a group of enemy soldiers. I can see at least a handful through that tiny driver-window. My gunner spots the first, and kills him. And starts scanning the horizon again. After the turret has turned a full circle, he spots another, and kills him. And so on. He should see them all at once. This is most notable when the enemy is close by, at a larger distance it does engage faster.

Another problem is that the gunner and commander both target the same enemy. I've never seen them engage two seperate targets at the same time.

[60days 0]

I've read the whole thread and agree with a lot of the recommendations being made (especially about recognising and using cover). I have a feeling that there are reasons for the current situation that won't allow these kind of changes however. (Also I'm bemused by the people who are arguing against any improvement in the game, especially since they seem to be the biggest fans.)

I'd like to add one of my own - that the AI recognise and react in some manner to the death of someone in the squad. This alone could fix some of the worst behaviour if implemented right (stacking up in stupid areas, travelling across open areas when under fire), and could be used to provide a rudimentary 'learning' of the layout of the battle.

Here are some suggestions off the top of my head:

The area the squad member is shot in is given some kind of significance. Ideally it would be some kind of 'danger' rating, so areas where a few people get shot would be avoided unless necessary to return fire or other mission-critical action. Obviously these would need to 'fade' quickly to avoid building up too much over a firefight. This could be a timer, but preferably it would be based on the shooter having moved a certain distance, or been killed, or newer deaths taking priority. This 'reset' could also apply to re-evaluating cover positions, to save processing. Moving through these zones would also trigger a burst of suppressive fire from squad-members in the direction the original killing shot came from.

A kill in close proximity should set off an immediate scramble for cover (with of course some return fire if certain conditions exist - shooter position spotted, shooter is close, no cover, only cover available is in a 'danger' zone). The squad could then hopefully reassemble with movement based on suppressive fire (lol, right). It should also result in the prioritising of the shooter as a target (if visible), or that direction for suppressive fire.

I'm aware the specific examples may not be possible, but even if thats true I'd ask you don't discount the basic idea - I think a lot of the problems with the perceived lack of self-preservation come from the apparent obliviousness to danger. (Danger being most clearly illustrated in AA by the guy-next-to-you getting shot in the head).

It's also worth noting a lesson Bungie learnt - the AI in Halo was only seen as good as the feedback to the player. When they added in more complex routines that didn't have shouts explaining what the characters were doing (e.g. "Run away!"), the testers ranked the AI worse. Now I realise BIS are aiming for a simulation more than a simple appearance of intelligence, but I think some kind of feedback would help both in immersiveness *and* tactics, as awareness of the AIs actions (retreat in disarray vs controlled falling back vs rushing another position) affects your decision-making and general overview of the battle. As for what this feedback could be, I honestly dont' know - audio, animation, formation/movement - there are a lot of options, but the lesson seems to be the clearer the better. One aspect of AA thats a problem here is that soldiers should be well-trained, so it would be hard to justify showing them running, screaming and flailing their hands wildly when retreating

I have a bunch more ideas about systems for use of cover, but that seems to be pretty well covered and I should be working

[dmakatra 1]

Played arma-demo and ofp, 99% coop, and I feel players have most fun if ai isn't passive. In ofp/armademo the ai is often completely passive. Not taking cover where players can I can understand, but finding ai standing in the middle of the street for 10 minutes despite bullets wizzles over them or at best moving 10 feet back and forth, is a bit sad. When ai starts running past your left/right flank and directly at you, that's when things starts to get interesting.

Sounds more like shitty mission design (what would a BIS-mission be without it? ) to me rather than AI problems.

[Yoma 0]

Being a programmer myself, the way i see it is:

-i'm happy to have arma now and maybe ai will get better with some patches.

-it's f****ing hard to make large scale events happen and have ai doing all the stuff you guys want em to do (by the way i'm sure some of those will get patched fixed, modded etc)

-rather then having AA released in 2010 with completely outdated engine, BIS going bancrupt BUT with perfect ai i'll have it the way it is now any time.

That said, yes it could be optimized, but be a bit realistic guys.

I'm pretty sure the BIS-folks did loads of overtime to get it to us this soon, some of you want to kill em or make their wives leave em i guess.

* I DON'T LIKE ARMA BECAUSE WOUNDED SOLDIERS DON'T CRY FOR THEIR MUMS AND NOONE WETS HIS PANTS WHEN SHOT AT. ALSO THE GULLS NEVER SHIT ON YOUR CAR*

[fideco 1]

4861 vews,

no word from BIS team, till now...

What can i think?

It is a core question...

Because i love Arma...

Cheers

[whisper 0]

4861 vews,

no word from BIS team, till now...

What can i think?

It is a core question...

Because i love Arma...

Cheers

And on another thread about performance, someone will say the same

Then on another thing about multiplayer lag, or dedicated linux server, or realism parameters, or flightmodel.... etc, etc...

And BI is a rather tiny team. So don't be that surprised. Btw, they don't owe you any answer in this thread

[fideco 1]

Why not?

1)It is a general issue, not only mine...

2) I am, we are customers...(i am VBS1 Registered User, too).

Do you really think they have no time to making an official statement about this matter, maybe with reference to next patch or next incoming version?

Cheers

[wamingo 1]

Played arma-demo and ofp, 99% coop, and I feel players have most fun if ai isn't passive. In ofp/armademo the ai is often completely passive. Not taking cover where players can I can understand, but finding ai standing in the middle of the street for 10 minutes despite bullets wizzles over them or at best moving 10 feet back and forth, is a bit sad. When ai starts running past your left/right flank and directly at you, that's when things starts to get interesting.

Sounds more like shitty mission design (what would a BIS-mission be without it? ) to me rather than AI problems.

Granted, you can get far with scripting - but we all know that a dynamic ai is what everyone's asking for. One that need not be scripted as heavily to become genuinly fun. Scripted has a way with becoming monotonous and predictable. One reason why most missions become dull way before they potentially should/could.

[whisper 0]

Why not?

1)It is a general issue, not only mine...

2) I am, we are customers...(i am VBS1 Registered User, too).

Do you really think they have no time to making an official statement about this matter, maybe with reference to next patch or next incoming version?

Cheers

I just think they don't have time to be on forum, period. I prefer BI working on patches than answering forums complaints 24/7.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Played arma-demo and ofp, 99% coop, and I feel players have most fun if ai isn't passive. In ofp/armademo the ai is often completely passive. Not taking cover where players can I can understand, but finding ai standing in the middle of the street for 10 minutes despite bullets wizzles over them or at best moving 10 feet back and forth, is a bit sad. When ai starts running past your left/right flank and directly at you, that's when things starts to get interesting.

Sounds more like shitty mission design (what would a BIS-mission be without it? ) to me rather than AI problems.

Granted, you can get far with scripting - but we all know that a dynamic ai is what everyone's asking for. One that need not be scripted as heavily to become genuinly fun. Scripted has a way with becoming monotonous and predictable. One reason why most missions become dull way before they potentially should/could.

Well, scripts like DAC (for OFP) can make everything more random.

Certain types of behaviour need to be triggered (by waypoints/triggers/scripts). For instance, the 'dismissed+"safe" behaviour gives really nice results for  randomly patrolling soldiers, without scripting anything, but the mission editor needs to activate this type of behaviour with a waypoint. (this could be done dynamically with scripts though, DAC already had something similiar)

[dmakatra 1]

Played arma-demo and ofp, 99% coop, and I feel players have most fun if ai isn't passive. In ofp/armademo the ai is often completely passive. Not taking cover where players can I can understand, but finding ai standing in the middle of the street for 10 minutes despite bullets wizzles over them or at best moving 10 feet back and forth, is a bit sad. When ai starts running past your left/right flank and directly at you, that's when things starts to get interesting.

Sounds more like shitty mission design (what would a BIS-mission be without it? ) to me rather than AI problems.

Granted, you can get far with scripting - but we all know that a dynamic ai is what everyone's asking for. One that need not be scripted as heavily to become genuinly fun. Scripted has a way with becoming monotonous and predictable. One reason why most missions become dull way before they potentially should/could.

I disagree. If you'd had dynamic AI the second you place them in the world the mission designer is going to have a hard time controling his own mission. However, the AI can be made dynamic (at least in the sense of moving to the opposite side of the town, should that side be attacked) fairly easy. It doesn't require any external scripting, just smart use of waypoints and triggers.

[maxqubit 1]

Played arma-demo and ofp, 99% coop, and I feel players have most fun if ai isn't passive. In ofp/armademo the ai is often completely passive. Not taking cover where players can I can understand, but finding ai standing in the middle of the street for 10 minutes despite bullets wizzles over them or at best moving 10 feet back and forth, is a bit sad. When ai starts running past your left/right flank and directly at you, that's when things starts to get interesting.

Sounds more like shitty mission design (what would a BIS-mission be without it? :mock:) to me rather than AI problems.

Granted, you can get far with scripting - but we all know that a dynamic ai is what everyone's asking for. One that need not be scripted as heavily to become genuinly fun. Scripted has a way with becoming monotonous and predictable. One reason why most missions become dull way before they potentially should/could.

I disagree. If you'd had dynamic AI the second you place them in the world the mission designer is going to have a hard time controling his own mission. However, the AI can be made dynamic (at least in the sense of moving to the opposite side of the town, should that side be attacked) fairly easy. It doesn't require any external scripting, just smart use of waypoints and triggers.

With Elite (and its limited editor) i tended to use nearly only GUARD waypoints in the end. Which IS kind of dynamic.

I 'designed' merely small/mid scale battles but they felt 'lively', and not monotone. As mission designer i knew there were e.g. 2 T72 in a nearby villages, but you never knew when they 'kicked in', and indeed, they NEVER 'kicked in' the same on replay:)

All functions of the full pc editor are very nice indeed, but if applied too strictly (like too many waypoints with too many syncs) it may be counterproductive ... perhaps not for others playing it first time but on replay.

Check out that GUARD waypoint, perhaps the pc community partly 'overlooked' this waypoint because of all the other good stuff.

[whisper 0]

I tried very basic scripting yesterday, to get the AI react when a squadmate get shot. Results are so-so, but it was veeery basic (too late at night, I had already spent a good deal testing grass on demo ).

But, you can make the AI find a cover object, and after that you can make them hide behind.

Issues are : cover size, and how to get it to find the proper place to go (atm I only scripted "move 2m behind the center of the cover object", which may leads to several issues, like the AI running in front of the cover to try a way to get "2m behind the center", which may be inside a house, for example)

general squad behaviors, with leaders giving orders overriding what you force AI to do

multiple shooters, which would lead to a huge number of scripts launched

[5cent_at_NY 0]

"...and it would be great if we can do that without scripts". as someone said, that's what most of ppl who "complaints" about AI are asking for. cuz using scripts to make AI looks smarter causes heavy lag, you know. That IS BIS's part. cuz blah blah... well, that's just imo.

[wamingo 1]

I disagree. If you'd had dynamic AI the second you place them in the world the mission designer is going to have a hard time controling his own mission. However, the AI can be made dynamic (at least in the sense of moving to the opposite side of the town, should that side be attacked) fairly easy. It doesn't require any external scripting, just smart use of waypoints and triggers.

How would it make it harder to control?

Safe ai follows mission design.

Endangered ai should not.

Irratic ai is good ai. Placing/moving ai's randomly/semi-intelligently to create sense of irratic is only half way there.

I will give in to the new ai behavioural scripting though, I honestly don't know what you can do with it yet.

But I do NOT agree, to what you imply, that achieving a decent and genuinly fun, ai should be a mission designer's problem.