Do I suck at leading?

[celery 8]

This has troubled me from the OFP days and is one of the reasons why I prefer missions where you never get to lead. When I'm commanding a squad, my AI teammates are as useless as the pope's balls. They rarely engage enemies themselves, but the moment I leave my earthly dwelling, they put their act together and shoot commendably until there is no enemy left. Is there a trick to this or what? If I give "engage at will" at the start of the mission it makes no difference.

[MehMan 0]

Also, they seem to be incredibly blind and you have to report every soldier even if he is in plain sight of most of members.

[as-33 0]

You need to report enemies you see (long right-click, kind of awkward in ArmA compared to OFP), that makes a huge difference.

Edit: Yes, they are really blind. Even if I tell them to scan horizon they don't discover anything until it stands in front of their nose.

[celery 8]

You need to report enemies you see (long right-click, kind of awkward in ArmA compared to OFP), that makes a huge difference.

I have noticed that, but why do they become so spontaneous right after I die?

[MehMan 0]

Maybe the leaders have autoreport on?

Also, maybe it depends on that behaviour of the troops. But the only thing I've noticed different with changing of the behaviour is that they leapfrog and such.

[baddo 0]

Well I think it really pays off to practice commanding an AI team.

You must give them plenty of orders, or they won't be effective. What I do when I'm a leader of an AI team is that I always try to put them into a formation which I think is most effective in the specific situation. When moving a longer distance the formation is more spread-out. When engaging an enemy team directly in an open field I put the AI soldiers into line formation, as that gives in my opinion the maximum firepower. I usually use at least "danger" and often "stealth" modes for the AI as those make them more likely to stay alive. If the 'starting moment' of the battle is still in my control, I have the AI soldiers on "hold fire" most likely. I wait that the AI team mates get into good positions (in formation or I specifically give them a good spot). Then I give them targets, sometimes the same target for many of my soldiers (like 2 LAW soldiers target one enemy tank at the same time to ensure a kill, same goes when targeting infantry if you have enough men). Then I pick a target for myself too, and give the AI's the order to get shooting.

Doing all that takes time and that is the reason why I think many people won't bother commanding an AI team. But I find it great when I am able to command an AI team so that all of them are alive in the end of the mission. Often missions go so that I'm not getting much, or any, kills myself, as I have just been busy commanding my men to do the job for me. That doesn't bother me as it is a team at work and not an individual. You can guess from this that I prefer to play cooperative multiplayer missions instead of the other mission types.

You can use an AI team very effectively against an enemy AI team positioned stationary in an open field. You just choose line formation, order your men to hold fire, then walk closer, put them to prone position, crawl to maybe 300 meters from the enemy team, give all your team members a target, tell them to open fire, and you'll quite likely see that all of the enemy team gets wiped out without being able to respond (if you had enough men compared to the enemy team, so your team could target every individual enemy soldier). All this takes time and effort but you can keep your team alive doing so, and it helps when the missions advance further and maybe becomes more difficult towards the end.

As I said it's a slow way of working but it gives good results. Take your time to prepare your attacks, don't just rush ahead.

It would certainly be more convenient if the AI soldiers could 'sense' what I want them to do next but as long as that is not possible then I just have to give them explicit orders. The AI team leaders are much faster in giving orders than we are, that's why the AI team speeds up when you are not in the lead anymore.

[sander 14]

Hi,

The number of commands the AI is able to give other AI would be hard to match by a player, the input very much being limited by the speed of typing. Therefore any squadmates seem to improve significantly in behaviour once the killed player is replaced as squad commander by an AI.

The aggressiveness of the AI depends to some extent on their awareness of their surroundings and to some extent on the config settings of their weaponry (MG's for example defined to let AI engage at longer ranges than rifles). If you act as a spotter for AI machinegunners and snipers, they perform admirably and pick off targets at long range.

Regards,

Sander

[ck-claw 1]

Maybe then Celery just stick to pumping out them excellent maps

[Stewy 1]

For some reason (and I can't back it up with evidence) troops seem to perform better with scoped weaps.

My guys seem to be fine - I've lost count of the times that one of my 5-man team has picked off a guy that I didn't see (at both 20m and 200m) and was about to give me a 5.45mm, steel jacketed-lead welcoming card!

Sliding the AI scale to "expert" helps too!

Stew

[dmitri 0]

Play conservatively. The AI is better at ambushing than assaulting. Reveal as many targets as you can. Order them to hold fire, get them into defensive positions, once enough are calling "ready to fire", give the order. Or keep them in a defensive line and scout ahead on your own. When things get hairy, you can always pull back to the AI's position. A lot of fun running back to a hilltop with your AI providing cover fire.

Retreating spares AI lives, the AI are simply better at hanging back in a defensive formation, lying in wait.

Column Compact helps when moving through urban environs. CQB pathfinding is atrocious. My own missions that feature AI team mates usually take place in the countryside.

[l mandrake 9]

Yes, but you lead at sucking, or so I've heard! (sorry couldnt resist)

My AI's are usually awesome cos I keep it VERY simple: I basically just tell them to go prone and watch a particular direction. To be fair they usually waste anything that moves out front and are only killed when the enemy flank them.

[Second 0]

Understanding how AI squad should be lead is quite long road. Baddo's post is good one to read with thinking... I do things in almost same way (when not too lazy ) and it's effective... One thing i usually leave out are target commands. I trust to AI's skill in selecting it's target on it's own.

I also agree with Stewy. They have saved me from loading too many times to count... But only when actually leading (instructing ) them & not ramboing.

Yes sure AI leader can give lots of orders (if enough high skill-level), but it doesn't have brains that human do. And with experience human can issue 1 or even 2 orders in second... Knowing command-menu like own pockets and having experience and insight makes it possible to actually issue order to one AI and be already thinking about next AI's order.

Mandrake5 spoke wise words. This is my way too when facing enemy and not having plan for them. They don't waste time in moving and so they just shoot.

EDIT: Oh and Celery: Engage at will don't have much effect, before you issue a target to AI... Then things gets hairy (your AI dies when engaging )

[celery 8]

Yes, but you lead at sucking, or so I've heard!

Frantic.bay just can't shut up about private matters.

[mr reality 0]

Often missions go so that I'm not getting much, or any, kills myself, as I have just been busy commanding my men to do the job for me.

This is the main reason why i don't like leading a squad. If you have to make your weapon obsolete in combat situations, then that is not the purpose of a tactical simulation. Your squad may only consist of 4 men, including yourself and if your not using your weapon it leaves your squad at a disadvantage. At platoon commander level i could understand this, but at section/squad level its basically leaving your squad 1 man short. Were not here to babysit the AI, but alas being a squad leader in ArmA is exactly that.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

My AI's are usually awesome cos I keep it VERY simple: I basically just tell them to go prone and watch a particular direction. To be fair they usually waste anything that moves out front and are only killed when the enemy flank them.

So this is the new "Boer Kommando" mod is it?

[Guest Ti0n3r]

The only problem I've had in ArmA is the AI's inability to see further than 200 - 300 meters away. Never had that in OFP.

Other than that leading a squad is relaxing and easy for me. I usually don't even have to fire my weapon while leading unless we get too close on the enemy

But the problem above is a pain in the arse -.-

[baddo 0]

Well I should maybe correct the word 'often' into 'sometimes', to soften my statement a bit.

It really depends on the mission. In some missions using the AI soldiers at first and then on later stage being a lone wolf by yourself can be just the right tactic if the purpose is to keep the whole team alive to the end of the mission. But I won't leave my AI team mates out of the battle right in the beginning, as I see they can provide so much more firepower than a lone human player, when properly utilized.

For example think about clearing a town. You approach the town from a far distance and spot enemy groups around the town in open fields. Now you can use your AI team mates in prone position, line formation, targets assigned to all of them, to clear all of the enemy groups around the town from a relatively safe distance, by quickly retreating to a safe location after a hit and repeating the same careful procedure of approaching, targeting and shooting as many times as needed. In this phase we need maximum firepower directed against the whole enemy group to eliminate them before they are able to react and flank you. Maximum firepower is what your AI team mates can provide. If you try to do it all alone then you are likely to get killed. When you go into the town, then your AI team mates are not nearly as useful. Then it easily becomes too much of a hassle to control each individual AI team mate effectively. At that point it is likely that I begin to act almost as a lone wolf, leaving the AI soldiers as backup, watching main roads and so on. If you try to take all of the AI soldiers with you into tight spaces and keep them all alive then it's going to be difficult. If the AI team mates are following you in formation into a town where enemies are hiding behind unknown corners, it is very likely according to my experiences that most of your AI team mates will be dead soon after entering the town. As it would at this point be too much of a hassle to control all of them effectively, it is easier to just leave them as backup and providing fire support into main roads. If you want them to stay alive instead of dying when in formation with you, that is. If you don't care about them staying alive then you can as well let them run in formation with you.

You are right, we are babysitting the AI soldiers. But unfortunately that's how it is in computer games. A machine only does what it was programmed to do, and what you ask it to do. As I already said, it is slow to use the tactics I am using when commanding AI soldiers.

Actually, I've been to many multiplayer sessions where human players needed to be constantly babysitted, and still the teamwork was almost non-existant. So there's certainly a lot of problems with human beings too, not just with AI's.

[Second 0]

Ah i'm happy that i can atleast babysit AI... Ghost Recon has always been poor game in command-level: You can't trust AI-teammates even a bit. Order one teammate to cover you back and soon you notice that guy has moved to spot where it can't provide cover! So basically i can't trust them.

OFP/ArmA is another case:

In OFP and ArmA i can reach the level of command what i can expect in real life. I want that i can pinpoint exact location of man's firingposition and direction so that my squads killzone is as perfect as possible. And i can trust that they do that.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

OFP/ArmA is another case:

In OFP and ArmA i can reach the level of command what i can expect in real life.

Nonsense! Can you detail two men in your section to attack

and clear the landing and stairs in a building? Can the ArmA

AI retards actually assault a building at all? Do they exhibit

even elementary knowledge of fieldcraft? Sometimes I get so

aggravated by that "One...engage man!" poop-shit that I

shoot the little dumb-fucks myself when they jump up to

execute Corporal AI-Microcephalic's orders.

[quiet_man 8]

@Col. Faulkner

while you can't give them the specific order (even less the AI commander can), you can maneuver them into positions to do so by using the generic command interface.

for a PC game not using scripted missions it works pretty good!

QuietMan

[Sevan 0]

I remember in one mission where I was the squad leader, I got up on to an elevated position and started giving out orders. I did very little fighting myself, I must have fired my gun only a handful of times. I used binoculars to call out enemy, very helpful.

The AI may be not be able to spot at range, but you can.

[firemane 0]

This is the main reason why i don't like leading a squad. If you have to make your weapon obsolete in combat situations, then that is not the purpose of a tactical simulation.... at section/squad level its basically leaving your squad 1 man short.

A leader's weapon is not his rifle, but his men. This is a difficult point to understand, even after military training.

A squad leader's job is to maneuver and target his element, not to score kills with his weapon.

BTW, the tactics described by Baddo and others above are right on the money.

I find ARMA pretty close to what I found in the real military. There the best squad leader was the one that often came out of the fight with a full magazine because he spent all his time.. well.. leading.  

[Jack-UK 0]

Yeah i also find that my AI suck when im leading...

To get them to actually work i have to press ` to select all or whatever then manually click on the enemy AI for them to really engage well.. or do manual Target -> Soldier -> Fire...

The problem with the point + click method isu have to be really close to get the attack crosshair appear.. otherwise they just walk towards the OPFOR and die.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

The ArmA AI can only be used as sentry guns when you are in group with them.

[Second 0]

OFP/ArmA is another case:

In OFP and ArmA i can reach the level of command what i can expect in real life.

Nonsense! Can you detail two men in your section to attack

and clear the landing and stairs in a building? Can the ArmA

AI retards actually assault a building at all? Do they exhibit

even elementary knowledge of fieldcraft? Sometimes I get so

aggravated by that "One...engage man!" poop-shit that I

shoot the little dumb-fucks myself when they jump up to

execute Corporal AI-Microcephalic's orders.

I was refering to basic things like: "keep this position and look there and shoot if you see enemy". Even this is no-no in many games as AI is made so "wise" that it ignores this order and goes goofying to different position, looking to different location.

Then again you wrote few things that AI is not so shiny or easy to lead (instruct)... Which your right.

What inholds word "fieldcraft"? Is it using of terrain shapes and features so that one becomes harder to spot and be killed?

EDIT: Once again stupidly writen