COD like combat in Arma 2

[NeMeSiS 11]

Besides, it's hard to take cover behind anything else than a building (which are rare in the countryside, ArmA isn't an urban combat simulator afterall) because the sharpshooting AI can spot and shoot you through anything that doesn't stop a bullet.

Just because they shoot trough doesnt mean they see trough, do we have to go over that again?

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Great post Dallas. But I think 99% of the people here are aware of this being ArmA and not CoD.

[liljb15 0]

Anyone suggesting that the combat should be the same in ARMA2 as it is in COD is obviously way to young to have the experience to understand how games have been made in the past and what ofp-arma-vbs1-vbs2 means next to the rest of whats out there.

Don't insult me acting like I've never played ofp. I've had ofp since the first week it came out and a year later I got VBS1 cheap from a friend. And I still have both of those games sitting on my shelf. I know how games were made in the past, I'm not some damn 11 year old who's first console was an xbox so don't try to treat me like one.

[Dallas 9]

You really shouldn't allow yourself to get caught in the open, without any cover in sight. There's plenty of cover countryside. Lots of pieces of rock scattered around, plus you'll often lose line of sight, when an AI decides to kneel or go prone in curvey terrain.

#1 only engage larger enemy groupings from solid cover.

#2 only use soft cover for consealment.

#3 only engage enemies uncovered when you're equal or outnumber them in firepower

But most important of all, maintain initiative. Avoid contact, untill the situation plays in your favour.

Great post Dallas. But I think 99% of the people here are aware of this being ArmA and not CoD.

That's your assumtion.  

[liljb15 0]

I think those that complane about AI sharpshooters are doing exactly what they accuse the AI of doing. Failing to utilize cover. liljb15 you must dischard your COD habits when playing ArmA. There's not any automatic healing from just pausing your advancement and you don't advance your enemy headon, while they spawn in triggered swarms taking cover at their prearranged positions. You cannot stand much more than a shoot or two and you will need to get yourself in cover when you're engaged by more than one enemy.

You have to play ArmA, like OFP. This COD style where you intentionally take a couple on MG rounds in the cheat, just to locate the hidden MG nest, doesn't apply to ArmA. If you used your sights you'd observe how AIs often kneel or go prone before they engage whatever they just spotted. This should give your a good second or two to find cover and it should certainly give you a hit about using similar aiming stances too.

If you don't take cover from starters, you wont survive long enough in a firefight, to observe how good the AIs really are.

This is ArmAAAA!!!! (not COD)

I know I would be the first to say to some hardcore COD fan to just go home and never even look at this game.Because I take cover I lean out the wall and I shoot. I've played OFP and I would be the first to say that I like the OFP AI better than this games. because in OFP they weren't sharpshooters. I keep saying don't treat me like I'm some stupid noob who doesn't know what he's talking about I do everything that you said.

[liljb15 0]

You really shouldn't allow yourself to get caught in the open, without any cover in sight. There's plenty of cover countryside. Lots of pieces of rock scattered around, plus you'll often lose line of sight, when an AI decides to kneel or go prone in curvey terrain.

#1 only engage larger enemy groupings from solid cover.

#2 only use soft cover for consealment.

#3 only engage enemies uncovered when you're equal or outnumber them in firepower

But most important of all, maintain initiative. Avoid contact, untill the situation plays in your favour.

Great post Dallas. But I think 99% of the people here are aware of this being ArmA and not CoD.

That's your assumtion.

Sorry for the triple post but do you think the man who is complaining about the AI never taking cover wouldn't take cover himself.

[lecholas 2]

This topic comes over and over again. And I'm every time astonished how some people from the community can't accept the fact that OFP/ARMA AI knows very little about the fighting.

liljb15 said that he would like to see one of the aspects of COD in ARMA - AI taking cover, useing suppressing fire. What many people do now? Criticize totally different aspects of COD (like possibility to take a lot of hits before dieing). What does it have to do with liljb15's thought? The fact is that ARMA AI:

- doesn't use suppressing fire

- has very big problems with taking cover

- sometimes tries to flank the enemy but due to the two above points ussually fails to succeed.

AI in ARMA could use a huge improvements. One of the reckognized problems are the animations. They are very slow, they do not help the AI controlled soldiers take cover as they should do this - really quickly. Another problem is pathfinding. AI even if ordered to go to a specified cover can stop one or two meters from the designated point. When it comes to taking cover it makes a huge difference.

What do we have in the result? The battles which last for seconds and result in whole squads dead. What would we expect from a real life combat? Firefights which can last for hours without a single casuality...

And the (in)famous 'scripting'. Accusing some games that they are 'scripted' really makes me laugh. If you don't like scripting don't play any missions in ARMA. Just put some squads in the editor and watch what happens. If the units are far enough (it means more than 500 meters) nothing will happen. You say that it will happen if you add them some waypoints? But this will be scripting. Every mission in ARMA IS scripted. Predefining conditions of the mission, adding waypoints etc. is 'scripting'. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. But neither do I think scripting is general a bad thing. Scripting can be made in a good and in a bad way. Can be made quite general (then the more specific actions of the AI would be taken according to the general AI - which is 'scripted' too) and quite specified. COD-like taking cover could be utilised in a realistic game without medkits, hords of enemys etc.

And I really loved the comment about the overestimating the suppressing fire...

[NoRailgunner 0]

liljb15 why don't you order you AI team "danger" "hold fire" detect enemys with your binoc and when in range order the team "open fire" and if you like "fire at will"?? Watch it.

You may open editor as well and place some groups/waypoints... get some infos about "AI combat".

[liljb15 0]

@lecholas

Thank you that's all I wanted to hear. I'm glad somebody agrees with me.I am NOT saying make the game like COD I'm just saying have the AI take cover and down suppression, so I used COD as an example.

[Second 0]

Another problem is pathfinding. AI even if ordered to go to a specified cover can stop one or two meters from the designated point. When it comes to taking cover it makes a huge difference.

No right. If AI has orders to take cover (not move but hide/take cover), he will move very-very accurately to that covering spot (behind object)...

Basic routine of taking cover is fine, but it's major fault is that it doesn't include buildings at all. AI will move behind bush, even when there's solid brick house nearer than that bush. And other thing is that they don't understand how to use that cover as firing position: they either can shoot from prone postion or then not.

Good'ol'mate "engage-at-will"+this disableai "target" combination from OFP isn't the same in ArmA anymore... It's busted (AI's hiding attempt is messed with constant order to move). This was close to best taking cover routine i've seen in wilderness.

But you have lots of good points in your post, which i agree. I still keep ArmA's AI in higher value than any other FPS's (which doesn't speak much).

[liljb15 0]

And other thing is that they don't understand how to use that cover as firing position: they either can shoot from prone postion or then not.

that's all I'm saying, people are saying "Arma AI is fine", or "you just suck at the game stop playing it like Cod". When all I saying is make the AI be able to use cover as a firing position and make them be able to use suppressive fire. But apparently the two things I'm asking is blasphemy in the BIS world.

[Second 0]

Well... I've been thinking this too. I have no tested info, but (just) theory about this:

Suppressive fire isn't that simple thing for gamebalance. In current ArmA it most likely just gets suppressing guy dead, because of way AI's "senses" works, as shooting alot is good way to give away individual's location. This is simple principle of how AI spotting works in combat.

If there is no morale/suppression modelled which would demoralize of target(s) of suppression, then suppressing fire is no good option in most cases.

So:

"Suppressor" gives away his position + target of suppressing isn't demoralized from suppression = "suppressor" dies.

Other issue might be lack of bulletproof cover. There's not as much cover as in real terrain, which would be bad for targets of suppression.

There might be somekind suppressing fire feature modelled to ArmA... But it doesnt' consern infantry (atleast most of them), but some vehicles. Altough i don't have proof to back this up, just feeling in the guts. But i've seen (in one of my own mission with no scripted suppression) T-72's suppressing M1A1 with machinegunfire, when M1A1s were hiding behind hill. Bullets flew few meters above M1A1s... Yeah it's not much: could be just version 1.05 bug, as i haven't seen it recently.

[Commander-598 0]

You're missing the point. We're trying to tell you that these other FPS's that you seem to hold in such high regard aren't all that special in the AI department either, in fact often less.

STALKER - I've seen the AI do clever things some times...but none of it involved human NPCs. To this date I have yet to see a single human NPC in STALKER retreat. I have however seen groups repeatedly walk right into the sights of a better equipped and entrenched enemy and die without doing any damage.

FEAR - I have seen FEAR AI do seemingly clever things as well, such as leaping rails and climbing ladders without the apparent use of scripts. They will retreat and attempt to flank... Yeah, FEAR's good. Of course, FEAR's AI is optimized for close quarters and linear level design doesn't really give them a chance to REALLY prove it...I'd love to see how they perform on a large map with several fully modeled buildings and an enemy sniper.

CoD - I'd almost say it doesn't have AI. As stated it's pretty much: Spawn -> Goto Cover -> Pop Out Semi-Randomly and Shoot at Enemy/Throw Grenade -> Die.

Brothers in Arms - Never played, but heard it was supposed to have suppresive fire implemented in a preview prior to it's release.

I should point out that any "suppresive fire" you may have seen in the above, minus BiA, was probably made up in your head as "suppresive fire" is not part of their AI programming. I should also point out that HL1(99?) had retreating and grenade throwing AI, so those features should be a standard today but it somehow isn't even close in some cases.

Quote[/b] ]And the (in)famous 'scripting'. Accusing some games that they are 'scripted' really makes me laugh. If you don't like scripting don't play any missions in ARMA. Just put some squads in the editor and watch what happens. If the units are far enough (it means more than 500 meters) nothing will happen. You say that it will happen if you add them some waypoints? But this will be scripting.

If you place two squads 500m apart, and they see each other they will start shooting, some will break off and attempt to flank, they will probably be shot in the attempt if you didn't put them near cover... And while waypoints may count as scripting, it's a helluva lot less than that of other games. If you tell it go "over there" and it gets attacked en route it will fight back, hit the deck, find some trees, tell a wounded soldier to get to the squad's medic, etc without you telling it to this in the editor, and as previously mentioned it will call support by itself if it needs it.(In fact, there should be an option for artillery and air support from the support menu, it's well within the game's capabilities)

[Dallas 9]

AIs are not super sharp shooters in ArmA. If you present yourself as a target, they will report it, drop down, take aim and kill you. That sounds reasonable to me.

I'd like the AIs to be able to kneel behind cover, utilize buildings and corners. But I really don't recognize the piss poor AI you descripe. I think it's a pretty good advesary, who can be improved, but it's defenently a whole lot better than you credit it for.

[NeMeSiS 11]

If you place two squads 500m apart, and they see each other they will start shooting, some will break off and attempt to flank, they will probably be shot in the attempt if you didn't put them near cover... And while waypoints may count as scripting, it's a helluva lot less than that of other games. If you tell it go "over there" and it gets attacked en route it will fight back, hit the deck, find some trees, tell a wounded soldier to get to the squad's medic, etc without you telling it to this in the editor, and as previously mentioned it will call support by itself if it needs it.(In fact, there should be an option for artillery and air support from the support menu, it's well within the game's capabilities)

I wouldnt call waypoints 'scripting', its more 'activating the appropriate AI behaviour', much like a colonel/general who decide which troops do what, the waypoints tell the AI if they have to attack/defend/act as reserves/chill out/whatever.

The big difference between games like CoD and ArmA is that in CoD the AI has to be told exactly where to go and what to do. In ArmA you just give them the appropriate waypoint and you can place them anywhere you want and theyll figure it out themselves.

[liljb15 0]

I'm not trying to get into a debate about which games are better, I'm just saying that I would like it if the AI in arma2 to use cover when firing and since I see it in COD alot I used that game as an example. Can all of you people defending Arma's AI honestly tell me that you DONT want to see AI using cover as firing positions. Do you not want to see fire and maneuver tactics. Or is what I'm saying just too impossible for Arma2.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I'm not trying to get into a debate about which games are better, I'm just saying that I would like it if the AI in arma2 to use cover when firing and since I see it in COD alot I used that game as an example. Can all of you people defending Arma's AI honestly tell me that you DONT want to see AI using cover as firing positions. Do you not want to see fire and maneuver tactics. Or is what I'm saying just too impossible for Arma2.

It probably would be as spectacular in CoD (even if its implemented) with all its jumping over the obstacles while wildly turning and constantly jumping up and down from behind cover.

Try placing a guy behind some sandbags and give him a script like

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">_dude = this select 0

_dude disableAI "move"

#loop

_dude setunitpos "Middle"

~3+random 15

_dude setunitpos "up"

~1+random 3

? alive _dude: goto "loop"

exit

And then ask yourself, is something like that really going to work in a game like this? Yeah, it doesnt, this isnt CoD.

(I left the searching for cover out of the script as its just for show anyway, and i dont know if sandbags are seen as cover by the AI)

[4 IN 1 0]

its like watching jeremy clarkson says "how hard can it be"

[snakefang 0]

I would enjoy a more realistic solider combat. Please point to a solider that cant run and reload. Please point to a solider that moves slow as f@%, and in a jerkish motion. Please show me a solider that cant jog/run with his weapon and still be reasonably accurite at ranges between 80m-10m. Please show me a solider that cantt o adjust his sights on his weapon.

Please show me a solider that can carry a M24 sniper rifle and a AT-4, but cant carry an M4A1 and an MP5. Please show me a solider that takes 4 seconds to throw a freaking grenade.

Games like COD may not be "simulators" if you even care to call ArmA a sim, but they got a heck of a lot better controls, that respond quicker, and more realisticly then ArmAs. Heck, you want a simulation? Look at freakin Americas Army! It was MADE to do NOTHING but simulate WAR. For gods sakes it was MADE BY THE US MILITARY, not some random company.

[Beagle 684]

For gods sakes it was MADE BY THE US MILITARY, not some random company.

Interresting, but why do they use a derivative of ArmA als their combat simulator software and not Americas Army...?

And I doubt it was made by the US Military It's just a recruitment advertisment software FOR the Military made by some random company.

[liljb15 0]

For gods sakes it was MADE BY THE US MILITARY, not some random company.

Interrestinf, but why do they use a derivative of ArmA als their combat simulator software and not Americas Army...?

And I doubt it was made by the US Military It's just a recruitment advertisment software FOR the Military made by some random company.

Actually Americas army WAS made by the men that make simulators for the army all the time. Sure AA was definitely commercialized over time but it was still made by the army.

[Jackal326 1158]

[...]and I've played every BIS game[...]

What? All two of them?! Impossible!

I'll concede that ArmA doesn't have the best AI ever, but due to its huge scale, I would be very difficult to code "perfect" AI. Games such as COD, MOH and F.E.A.R. only have "better" more dynamic AI because they're small-scale linear games where GuyX is always behind CornerY moving along RouteZ. ArmA's much greater-scale would prevent most of the "cover detection" you see in other games, because they could potentially have somewhere in the region of 500 objects within 20m of them that they could use as cover.

[Beagle 684]

Actually Americas army WAS made by the men that make simulators for the army all the time. Sure AA was definitely commercialized over time but it was still made by the army.

So why don't they use it... but VBS, a optimised OFP derivative ?

And why is AA based on the Unreal game engine ...?

I smell conpiracy....the number is 23

Get it....VBS like ArmA is a all around Jack of all trades situation simulation....Jack of all trades is never superior in just one single aspect...!

The A.I. in ArmA has to be able ti react to more than just the Player schooting at it...that makes it somewhat more realistic since it simply reacts ti much more factors...and it is configurable....it's just your choice to fight against super sniper bots or regulars that dont know what going on around them. You just have to try out and play around with the config variables.

Just because the missions and campaigns are badly done, doesn't make the A.I. bad.

The ArmA A.I. is the most flexible I've seen in games until now.

You often won't realise until following an A.I. leader in a self edited missin with some surprises.

[opteryx 1562]

Americas Army isn't made BY the army, it's made FOR the army by a common games developer (I forgot the name) as a propaganda tool like Special Forces 2.

VBS is cognitive training tool, not a propaganda tool.

[sanctuary 19]

[...]and I've played every BIS game[...]

What? All two of them?! Impossible!

You are forgetting one