Volume of fire and game dynamics

[Jinef 2]

You may have seen my other post, Unit Cohesion and Game Dynamics. If so I am sure you get what I am aiming at here.

In real life, a stupid amount of ammunition is chucked towards the enemy. I believe in Vietnam the stats worked out at 50,000 rounds of ammo fired for each enemy killed by small arms. It's also well known that the Artillery is the king of the battlefield, killing most of the enemy while small arms account for only a small portion.

So in ArmA firefights, I feel slightly dissapointed when everyone can achieve kill/ammo ratios of about 1/3-4 including AI. We know suppression isn't modelled and I am sure that is a large part of what consumes ammo on the battlefield too, but surely real life combatants also shoot more bullets in order to kill too?

We can make a few config changes to the AI and make the weapons unrealistically inaccurate to create the *effect* of suppression, but it seems fundamentally lacking something.

Is it down to fear and psychology, where humans just want to make as much noise as possible in order to posture and scare the enemy away? Or is it down to adrenalin and the fast paced nature of combat that makes people empty magazines in each other's direction instead of simply aiming and killing.

Your ideas?

[Inkompetent 0]

Well, ArmA doesn't model glancing hits on people very well and so on. A large part of the hitbox should be clothes, gear and just lightly glancing shots, bruising the soldier, reducing the number of kills significantly.

Then it's the fact that the AI sucks at using cover. Thankfully this will be improved in ArmA 2, but as it is now, when they lie prone in the open, I don't think it'd take much more rounds IRL to hit them than it does in ArmA.

I also think weapon sway is a bit too small. At least when aiming down the iron sights.

It's only due to not having an easy time seeing where my rounds land I can't shoot people at 500m with the M16 without using a while mag.

IRL the soldiers would have to manually make sure that their aim is straight, which isn't that easily done with an ironsight. In ArmA we got that done for us automatically, so we know our round go where we aim. A real soldier has to try to get his rounds go straight. That's the hard part at shooting at distances, since I don't think they have more trouble than us gamers at making out how high to aim to compensate for bullet drop.

Of course, we don't have any wind either. Long range shots IRL in windy/rainy conditions are much harder because of irregular scattering of the ammunition.

I've never fired anything but a shotgun, so I wouldn't know by first hand experience.

As for the suppression. I think one should look at CoD4 and games like that. Lots of dust when bullets hits and dirt from grenades.

The player has to be more immersed. Feel more like he is the one under fire.

ArmA is so clean that we don't see much effects at all.

Blackouts from explosion or pain.

Getting red-eyed when hurt and tense and strains oneself.

The view shaking/throwing around when near explosions or when taking hits.

Maybe a strong, panting sound after getting hit by a round or a strong shockwave as you just got the air knocked out of your lungs.

The view shaking and yourself getting temporarily slowed if you sprint into a wall (collision detection for upper body?).

The effects in CoD4 that slows your movements and reduces the mouse-speed GREATLY if hit by a stun grenade or flashbanged is also really nice, since you are pretty much temporarily disabled.

Heck, the mechanics of a flashbang is partly to disorient with the loud bang since it gets you off balance. I'd guess the same applies to blast waves from near explosions?

Simply we need more effects, feedback and player limitations when "hit by shit".

Since that'd work both ways (and hopefully well against AI) people wouldn't mind hauling a few extra rounds or grenades downrange to reduce the amount they get back.

"The wall of lead we push before us is our best protection"

[mr burns 132]

Is it down to fear and psychology, where humans just want to make as much noise as possible in order to posture and scare the enemy away?

Or is it down to adrenalin and the fast paced nature of combat that makes people empty magazines in each other's direction instead of simply aiming and killing.

Both is true somehow. Each person takes serious stress in a different way, and i think good leadership takes a role too.

Experienced soldiers should be able to bear with adrenaline or being shot at in a way that they dont act stupid. Greenhorns however may be prone to making mistakes if they forget what they´ve learned in training.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

...

We know suppression isn't modelled

...

Your ideas?

And this takes a lot of "action" out of this game.

With action I do not mean we need another quake-shooter-game.

I would really like to see the AI using more ammo, based on the skill of the single unit. If he is a well trained soldier he does not need so many bullets to take the enemy down.

If he is a dump freedom fighter without real training, just his AK-47 and the hate for the enemy, he should use many more rounds and using fullauto more often.

Mashinegunner also could use some longer bursts to hold the enemy down.

---

In OFP we played alot of CTI with enemies using JAM_HD weapons. Firefights were VERY intense and lasting very long.

Gave you the right feeling of what a battle "sounds".

Only bad thing about this is, that you can't do very much with a HD weapon if you ran out of ammo and have to take one.

But I'm sure the (small) ArmA community will bring us all this with addons in the future.

Let's hope the best.

MfG Lee

[mike@uk 0]

I'd say it's a mix of things.

Firstly there's the ranges at which default ArmA firefights take place, when playing with the AI mods that increase engagement ranges with the AI I notice it takes alot longer to take out an enemy, partly because they're a smaller target so it's harder to aim at them, but mainly because when I fire at long ranges it's much harder for me to see where my bullets have landed, whereas with default ArmA you fire a shot, notice the dirt coming from where your bullet hits, compensate your aim, fire again, target down. With the longer ranges you fire a shot, miss, fire a few shots to the right to see what happens, then the left etc, until you kill the enemy. It could only take 4 - 5 shots or it might take a whole magazine.

The other point might be to do with what Soldiers are trained to do.

Bullets and bombs are cheaper and less important than Soldiers, so I'm guessing they train Soldiers to put as much fire on the enemy as they can, get them pinned, then call in the biggest firepower availabe to blow them up while trying to stay out of harms way, especialy with the Major Powers that can bring all sort of Airpower and Fire support to bear.

Edit: I made a small clip using the TrueMod RangeAI Beta and some larger AI bullet dispersion changes:

Clip

It's not that high quality but you get the general idea. As you can see there are alot of rounds being fired off, and you can't realy tell how far off your aim is so it's mainly guesswork.

Wouldn't exactly say the AI is pinned though, what with the random standing up,

[Daniel 0]

Interesting point about seeing where your bullets land.

[Second 0]

There's another thread about it. There are pretty good reasons stated by The Captain i believe. Tweakig configs ain't enough as whole game system starts to limb. You see enemy that see you, you can shoot it with 3 bullets but it needs 300! That's not good.

There's so much factors in reality which ArmA won't and can't take into account. Let's start from lack mircodetails (cover) in terrain or lacks of Ai to use all that cover as it should be etc...

I made suppression script, but fundamentally it's flawed for those same reasons (in some cases it works in some cases i'm not happy ). So basically ArmA can't make function in ways that Real World does in this case... And if it has been forced to do that (shoot much, hit rarely) game goes unbalanced and even stupid. Bit like with HD-mags, they are great in some situations but bad in others.

[Tobruk 0]

As stated, the big issue is lack of cover. IRL a battlefield will offer all sorts of places where you can hole up with decent FOF without exposing your noggon to direct fire. Specifically thinking about damages structures etc.

[InqWiper 0]

I think in ArmA you are used to seeing and killing the enemy in a way that you arent in real life. In ArmA you see the enemy and wait for a good oppertunity to take them out. You even try to sneak closer to them if you can. If you see an enemy IRL 200 meters away on a rooftop I belive you will not try to go around a few building and sneak up within 5 meters and put a burst in his back. I think it is more likely that you just start firing at him from where you are (and not hit him straight in the chest with the first shot immidiatly killing him). IRL its more exciting to fire at an enemy than to kill an enemy in ArmA. Its a bigger deal. In ArmA it feels useless just shooting at an enemy if you dont kill him. If you shoot at an enemy in ArmA and miss and he gets away you get frustrated. I belive if you shoot at an enemy IRL and he runs away its more like: "Holy fuck that was awesome, did you see how fast that guy took off? OMG we must have made him shit his pants! Thats right mohammed! And dont come back haha!" And then there is all the other reasons that have been mentioned. Accuracy IMO being one of the major reasons for short firefights.

[Jinef 2]

Good points Inqwiper. I am more interested in the PvP element and how we can make the players feel much more immersed and get more adrenalin.

I remember I used to play the game SWAT 3 with the volume cranked to the max. I would be telling suspects to stand still, put their hands on head, drop the weapon and as the situation escalated the policeman in the game would start to shout. The climax was reached when the virtual guy raised the weapon and you fired your MP5, because it was so loud it made me jump and cringe. I expect my neighbours were not happy at me in those days. The point of this little story is that the situation created tension and adrenalin in a way that Arma doesn't. Too much action and you become desensitised.

[chops 111]

Even when somebody is hit by one of those 50,000 bullets, more often than not they don't die.

You often hear of firefights from various parts of our troubled world, where the fighting lasted 3 hours and you hear of maybe four dead and 10 wounded.

Also it makes more military sense to permanently incapacitate enemy infantry than it does to kill them. Treating a wounded soldier consumes more resources and manpower, than burying a dead one. Eg landmines have enough explosive to dismember, not to kill.

In game you'd need perhaps a three tier system of wounding, e.g. injuries requiring;

-treatment by combat medic and immediate medevac for critically wounded soldiers.

-treatment by combat medic and return to the fight.

-some kind of self-treatment for minor injuries?

Solus's great SLX mod for OFP had some fantastic features regarding this.

As for Arma, presently the AI can't even drive through a town properly

It would add so much to the immersion, if the firefights were as described above by Inqwiper.

If only we had suppression (AI and player), surrendering, view-blocking smoke grenades (there is a mod), advanced wounding, AI finding and taking/using cover, AI advancing/retreating, it'd bring in fire/assault teams, logistics etc etc. Ideally the player would need to use his/her noodle a bit more than just point and click death to the commies/imperialists. There are very few tactics involved in the average SP map in Arma.

If only.

[Benoist 0]

I think in ArmA you are used to seeing and killing the enemy in a way that you arent in real life. In ArmA you see the enemy and wait for a good oppertunity to take them out. You even try to sneak closer to them if you can. If you see an enemy IRL 200 meters away on a rooftop I belive you will not try to go around a few building and sneak up within 5 meters and put a burst in his back. I think it is more likely that you just start firing at him from where you are (and not hit him straight in the chest with the first shot immidiatly killing him). IRL its more exciting to fire at an enemy than to kill an enemy in ArmA. Its a bigger deal. In ArmA it feels useless just shooting at an enemy if you dont kill him. If you shoot at an enemy in ArmA and miss and he gets away you get frustrated. I belive if you shoot at an enemy IRL and he runs away its more like: "Holy fuck that was awesome, did you see how fast that guy took off? OMG we must have made him shit his pants! Thats right mohammed! And dont come back haha!" And then there is all the other reasons that have been mentioned. Accuracy IMO being one of the major reasons for short firefights.

I think the opposite.

In RL i would try to kill him or inabilit him because if i shoot him at 200m and he ran away i would think first "There were more enemy troops? Do the have artillery sopport? Air, vehicles?", and if i shot at him and mis i wolud say: "Damn, he know where am i, i gota run!"

[USSRsniper 0]

I think in ArmA you are used to seeing and killing the enemy in a way that you arent in real life. In ArmA you see the enemy and wait for a good oppertunity to take them out. You even try to sneak closer to them if you can. If you see an enemy IRL 200 meters away on a rooftop I belive you will not try to go around a few building and sneak up within 5 meters and put a burst in his back. I think it is more likely that you just start firing at him from where you are (and not hit him straight in the chest with the first shot immidiatly killing him). IRL its more exciting to fire at an enemy than to kill an enemy in ArmA. Its a bigger deal. In ArmA it feels useless just shooting at an enemy if you dont kill him. If you shoot at an enemy in ArmA and miss and he gets away you get frustrated. I belive if you shoot at an enemy IRL and he runs away its more like: "Holy fuck that was awesome, did you see how fast that guy took off? OMG we must have made him shit his pants! Thats right mohammed! And dont come back haha!" And then there is all the other reasons that have been mentioned. Accuracy IMO being one of the major reasons for short firefights.

When i paly ArmA i never try to flank, i jsut fire at enemy :P and try to spend as much ammo as possible. because having engamement ending in after one burst is not fun  

in real lfie you don't fire right away either, in real life combat is unpredictable. Enemy migh call reinforcement and in next hour you will be running away    because in RL you have keep in mind that enemy might have as much firepower as you do.... Only difference why in real life not alot of people die from small arms fire its because everyone wants to be alive after battle, but in arma nobody cares... Even AI doesn't care...

[Sevan 0]

This thread raises some good points. It all boils down to these areas that need to be worked out:

-some kind of suppression system

-some kind of cover system for the AI

-more developed wound modeling

-a more developed aim system

[Second 0]

Here's what The_Captain had to say in infantry pathfinding topic. Went maybe bit offtopik there, but it suits well in here (in my opinion). This post i will quote was conserning bad outcomes in bounding overwatch. Big aspect of it is to make enemy to lose their effetivity of fire which makes movement possible and less risky. So it has to do with suppression and in suppression ArmA turns out to be bad:

Quote[/b] ]In arma, infantry can be destroyed easily by point fire, so the best strategy for a squad in contact is simply to stay in position and return fire until the volume of incoming fire has dropped, either by forcing the enemy to retreat (unlikely) or killing a significant number of them. Movement in the face of able enemies means 1) your soldiers are not firing back and 2) they are exposed to enemies who cannot effectively be suppressed. Your volume of fire drops, and your soldiers often won't get a positional advantage by moving (usually, if the enemy can shoot them, they can shoot back just fine). Not a good idea to move when you can simply shoot back.

Bounding would be of more use for soldiers in contact in arma if 1) soldiers could take cover from enemy fire, 2) soldiers behind cover could be easily suppressed by incoming fire, but not easily killed, and 3) your soldiers could gain a positional advantage on enemy soldiers via movement/flanking/bounding, after which they could easily kill the enemies. Without the need to move to gain a positional advantage, it's a better strategy to simply return fire until movement is possible.

Bounding/Movement/Flanking *is* of use when a squad is out of contact, however. On many occasions, playing coop squad command missions, I have pinned an enemy squad with fire (enemies drop to ground, return fire, only focus in my direction) with my own squad while a friendly squad (human led) flanked and killed the AI squad (before mine was annihilated). (In one instance, our two squads of eight soldiers each killed around 30 troops in one engagement while only losing four from my original squad...) Tactics like these only really work if the flanking squad has not been committed to combat, and all squads are commanded by humans, with group respawn if possible.

AI squads can't really execute squad level tactical maneuvers in the face of enemy fire without being summarily gunned down. I have the most success keeping my own AI soldiers in one combat formation, where I only need to worry about the formation, stance, and potential threats for one group of soldiers at a time. I have bad luck splitting my squad into subgroups.

I also seem to have luck keeping AI moving (out of contact) in formation with stealth/stand up commands. When contact is initiated and I want to break contact, I often tell the squad to "stay back" (move 50m to the formation rear) while I and a few other AI focus fire on the enemies. Sometimes I die in the process, but usually the squad breaks contact and moves out of harm's way instead of staying put and dying. This really only works if the squad has some fire superiority at the start of the engagement...

I agree, i couldn't have said better.

[Benoist 0]

-a more developed aim system

My idea for this is that you have to been aiming some time to have correctly placed both ironsights. I mean, in a rapid look you dont focus right and you can't aim right but if you have time or you need a well placed shot you can be waiting for (i don't know) 30'' for a correct look through the ironsights.

I don't know if i'm being very clear, it's 7:10 and in minutes i have to take my final exams, so i'm in a hurry.

[Second 0]

That would be just irritating. I was about to write long post about shooting in real life and how army teaches it. But naah, here's the short version of it:

3 seconds is royal time get accurate shot it's about bringing sights up (buttock raised to shoulder), aiming and shooting. 2 seconds and yet man hits pretty easily man's torso sized target at 150 meters.

If bodyposition is broken down it takes longer time, but bodyposition is broken down only when running etc, so if character has stopped moving (or doing other thing like talking to radio) his body is in position which enables reasonible accurate and fast shooting (muscle's memory can be far more stronger than mind).

To me (and many others) this would be worst kind gamebreaker. Not natrual way. High bullet count for one dead has more to do with facts that:

-there's plenty of cover

-enemy rarely presents itself clearly (not in front of bush but behind it) and instead tries to survive to see another day

-Suppression and such effects

-drills and tactic. Forexample in Vietnam US used alot of firepower to overcome and demoralize enemy. You don't need to see enemy (as you usually won't) to start firing.

-maybe human nature not willing to kill another humanbeing etc.

-and many other reasons not crossing to my mind.

Soldiers do know how to shoot and they can do it fastly and accurately their targets... Are they able or willing to do that is another thing.

[Sevan 0]

no, I agree Second.

You can't have one feature implemented but leave out others. Because they all work together. 150m is one thing but it's fairly easy to make 300m to 500m shot in ArmA with ironsights, there has to be some way to refelt the challange of real life shooting at distance. Increased weapon sway? lower stamina threshold? or even some kind of multi-parted weapon sway, decreasing as the sights remain stationary? Is it possible to model a sway either in the rear or front sight and not the whole rifle, the way ArmA does it?

the other thing is that ArmA AI fight to the last man. If there was some kind of causualty percentage threshold for groups, say 30% alive. I think it would be realistic for them to retreat and disprese.

[USSRsniper 0]

no, I agree Second.

You can't have one feature implemented but leave out others. Because they all work together. 150m is one thing but it's fairly easy to make 300m to 500m shot in ArmA with ironsights, there has to be some way to refelt the challange of real life shooting at distance. Increased weapon sway? lower stamina threshold? or even some kind of multi-parted weapon sway, decreasing as the sights remain stationary? Is it possible to model a sway either in the rear or front sight and not the whole rifle, the way ArmA does it?

the other thing is that ArmA AI fight to the last man. If there was some kind of causualty percentage threshold for groups, say 30% alive. I think it would be realistic for them to retreat and disprese.

Why even talk about fixind stuff? AS i see right now BIS relesed unfinidhed game ArmA, and now the players left to fix everything with mods....   What about players fighting to the last man, this would be kind o cheating when AI runs away when 30% is alive, but players fight until 0 players alive... ArmA is unrealistic in someways, for example in real life single man can't kill whole paltoon, like you can do in arma with current AI...

[NoRailgunner 0]

Quote[/b] ]ArmA is unrealistic in someways, for example in real life single man can't kill whole paltoon, like you can do in arma with current AI...

But if you put to much realism into games the kids won't buy it - the most are shooter-fans, CQB-nerds, sniper-whole-platoon-wannabes etc. Isn't it easier to run'n'gun with 2-3 assault rifles and one AT or AA weapon? Of course the setting and story should be movie-like

@topic

Could be nice if AI will be better on action and reaction things, not only to flank positions but also make on their own new groups (fireteams) and regroup to defend/attack in large battles and knowsabout strategic places/advantages.

[wamingo 1]

Games will always take the fear of death out of the equation, despite that it can be much higher in arma than in other games. So it'll always be rambo style to a large degree.

In other words, people don't care enough to use cover much if there is little of it, and certainly not enough to take detours to find any.

Many games use scripts to improve this kind of thing but since arma is so open that's not often a good solution. People want the freedom that arma provides.

The save feature has probably ruined the excitement of the SP for a lot of players... Why use cover when you can reload.

In an open type of game the way to make people use cover is to make them fear for their lives. And to do that is to make sure they lose something when they die - while still not annoying them so much that they just plain quit.

This is hard to do in arma.

MMO's give rewards so people are less likely to quit even while the going gets tough. The Evolution map is an example of how that works but still not to the same effect.

When the fight begins on the other side of the island, what will keep people playing if they're dying frequently?

Basicly this ultra realism that you wish for is not really possible and possibly never will be, at least not until you compromise with something.

[bigshot 64]

good point wamingo...i agree. Theres too little cover available (unless youre in a town) and not enough emotional fear to force you to seek it out. Video games will never be able to recreate that fear no matter how good the effects get...therefore in a game like this you need to offer alot more areas of cover before they will be used...and thats one of my biggest peeves with Arma..it has almost no cover outside of the towns...trees and grass dont work as cover in this game, theyre useless for that.

IRL a large area with no cover that stands between armies would not be used as the gateway for an offensive approach...instead they'd try to shell, rocket and bomb the crap out of the enemy from a distance BEFORE attempting to cross the open field on foot.

The closest thing you can get to an adrenaline rush playing war games is if you find a local arena that offers Paint Ball sessions...rent some equipment and play a few rounds and after that experience youll never think of a military video game as potentially realistic ever again...theres no fear of death in paintball but there is fear of physical pain, and having to face your enemy up close:-)...if youve never tried this before i highly recommend it for first timers, it can be a bit intimidating when arrive and see all the clan guys dressed out in their fatigues waiting to "kill" you in person :-))

In video games sadly the only "rush" comes primarily from the expectation of either winning or losing the round...the only fear is in losing...not getting hurt or dead. Thats why frag fest games are the most popular online....because they know how to take that win/lose "rush" factor and accelerate it way beyond what slower paced games like Arma can offer. Yes, theyre farther from reality in terms of gameplay...but they tend to take advantage of the emotions video games are best at invoking and they run with it.

They can make games like Arma LOOK more realistic and even play more realistic, but the real world emotions/adrenaline involved will never be what i think alot of you are really seeking, no matter how good it looks or plays onscreen.

[Sevan 0]

Quote[/b] ]But if you put to much realism into games the kids won't buy it - the most are shooter-fans, CQB-nerds, sniper-whole-platoon-wannabes etc. Isn't it easier to run'n'gun with 2-3 assault rifles and one AT or AA weapon? Of course the setting and story should be movie-like

that's really not important here. If you're buying ArmA/OPF to have a typical FPS experiance, then you're buying the wrong game. I think BIS understands that?? My comment was also more aimed at what the community can do and not completly towards BIS.

fear of death for the player is neccessary, but I think 'fear-of-death' for the AI is even more important.

[bigshot 64]

it doesnt necessarily have to be fear of DEATH. Fear of mere physical PAIN would be more than enough for most.

Lets make believe for a moment, that Arma came included with an electro/mechanical contraption that you wear as a head piece (a weird helmet of sorts)....and now imagine that everytime you get shot, killed or wounded this contraption on your head had a tiny robotic arm that came down and PLUCKED a single hair from either your nostril or upper lip (choice is up to you, hehe)...thats right...EVERYTIME you take damage, not only when killed.

Now imagine that ALL FPS games made you wear this contraption...which of the games would you choose to play then?...a frag-fest shootemup or a much slower more methodically paced game of caution like Arma? (or name your tune here)...and would your tactics change any?

Food for thought, hehe.

[Sevan 0]

that's a funny scenario:p , but I think is off topic.