Arma Vs Ofp

[.kju 3244]

> Units not moving forward due to much of any distant activity, causing them to lay down, get up, lay down, get up behavior.

Right. Requires AI.FSM modification. Could be done in theory.

> Units are always favoring the prone position, rather than crouching, and/or moving about searching - its been a real immersion killer for me.

Right. Requires AI.FSM modification. Could be done in theory.

> Pathing seems to be much worse in Arma,

For example?

> I still have random issues with tanks flying off during a battle to some unkown place, to return 5 mins later when the fight is over.

Engine problem with small stones.

The model could easily be modified though.

> As far as I know, safe mode is still broken. Cannot rely on units patrolling because of this huge bug. Any units in safe mode that come under fire get stuck in combat mode, and never return to safe mode.

No idea.

> I tried out the converted Kolgujev island, just to see what it felt like to have a more conducive island for ai pathing. I then recreated an old battle I had setup on Kol - and the feeling of having brought Ofp in Arma all the sudden died for me..

What do you mean???

Playing the CWC campaign in OAC the ArmA AI does utilize

organized squad behavior and uses vegetation nicely as cover.

Like I said, to me it seems Sara is too complex for the AI at times.

> I watched the enemy units coming running out of their base while under light fire, and they all looked like hunchbacks, like there is a 50 pound brick on their heads. Then, no wonder, a min or so went by they had all stopped advancing, and were all laying on the ground, occasionally getting up, to get back down again, spin around in circles, rinse and repeat. They never even got to the main battle position, because I ended the mission after 5 mins of watching this..

Right. Ugly stuff.

> The ofp variant I had? The units would come flooding out of the enemy base to engage, some would get down and lay flat, and do the similar routine of getting up and down, but *not* all of them, a bunch of them would still advance under fire, they were able to get across the field and follow their paths to the friendly positions for some nice close quarters combat. And the animations were never an eye sore to me either.

Could be. What about a video comparison?

> I dont agree, sorry. If Arma was just Ofp with better graphics, and some additional better Ai, sounds great. But what I see is a mix of some ofp ai, and the rest is alot of buggy stuff, non conducive to immersive gameplay for many scenarios that used to do great in ofp, and now they do not.

Right. People have understood this long ago. Where is the

disagreement?

> The more simplistic approach that Ofp ai gave, which allowed random actions for ai was better than trying to it seems replicate Rl, because what is happening, is the Ai is no longer working to provide a great atmosphere of grand battles now, they are just trying to save their own *arses*, while being expert marksmen, and doing little beyond that Imo.

Well ArmA AI is buggy, not tweaked at all and not improved.

Again we have understood this long ago.

Again do you use trueGameplay AI, DAC2 and/or GroupLink2?

No? Why are you still complaining instead of improving your experience?

[froggyluv 2136]

Like I said, to me it seems Sara is too complex for the AI at times.

This is really the crux of the problem for me. Cities and bridges that AI just don't understand thereby rendering their pathfinding useless was really the only killer for me. The bridge problem was somewhat fixed, but the amount of city structures ie. fences,low walls, and those terraces just proved too much for ARMA's pathfinding. Since keeping your squad's formation intact is crucial for tactical playing, I'm really crossing my fingers that this will be remedied with ARMAII's 'micro AI'. I'm sure this is no easy feat, as I know of no other 'open world' game which features capable NPC pathfinding in an intricate 3d world in such numbers (NPC's).

[twisted 128]

Like I said, to me it seems Sara is too complex for the AI at times.

This is really the crux of the problem for me. Cities and bridges that AI just don't understand thereby rendering their pathfinding useless was really the only killer for me. The bridge problem was somewhat fixed, but the amount of city structures ie. fences,low walls, and those terraces just proved too much for ARMA's pathfinding. Since keeping your squad's formation intact is crucial for tactical playing, I'm really crossing my fingers that this will be remedied with ARMAII's 'micro AI'. I'm sure this is no easy feat, as I know of no other 'open world' game which features capable NPC pathfinding in an intricate 3d world in such numbers (NPC's).

one thing is that AI do not seem to know that they are in a town or in a field. each should promote a different routine rather than the same reactions.

i have seen some interesting AI things happen - especially with the AI enhancing mods like SLX, FFN, DAC, etc.

hope arma2 gets it better.

[Guest]

> Units not moving forward due to much of any distant activity, causing them to lay down, get up, lay down, get up behavior.

Right. Requires AI.FSM modification. Could be done in theory.

> Units are always favoring the prone position, rather than crouching, and/or moving about searching - its been a real immersion killer for me.

Right. Requires AI.FSM modification. Could be done in theory.

> Pathing seems to be much worse in Arma,

For example?

> I still have random issues with tanks flying off during a battle to some unkown place, to return 5 mins later when the fight is over.

Engine problem with small stones.

The model could easily be modified though.

> As far as I know, safe mode is still broken. Cannot rely on units patrolling because of this huge bug. Any units in safe mode that come under fire get stuck in combat mode, and never return to safe mode.

No idea.

> I tried out the converted Kolgujev island, just to see what it felt like to have a more conducive island for ai pathing. I then recreated an old battle I had setup on Kol - and the feeling of having brought Ofp in Arma all the sudden died for me..

What do you mean???

Playing the CWC campaign in OAC the ArmA AI does utilize

organized squad behavior and uses vegetation nicely as cover.

Like I said, to me it seems Sara is too complex for the AI at times.

> I watched the enemy units coming running out of their base while under light fire, and they all looked like hunchbacks, like there is a 50 pound brick on their heads. Then, no wonder, a min or so went by they had all stopped advancing, and were all laying on the ground, occasionally getting up, to get back down again, spin around in circles, rinse and repeat. They never even got to the main battle position, because I ended the mission after 5 mins of watching this..

Right. Ugly stuff.

> The ofp variant I had? The units would come flooding out of the enemy base to engage, some would get down and lay flat, and do the similar routine of getting up and down, but *not* all of them, a bunch of them would still advance under fire, they were able to get across the field and follow their paths to the friendly positions for some nice close quarters combat. And the animations were never an eye sore to me either.

Could be. What about a video comparison?

> I dont agree, sorry. If Arma was just Ofp with better graphics, and some additional better Ai, sounds great. But what I see is a mix of some ofp ai, and the rest is alot of buggy stuff, non conducive to immersive gameplay for many scenarios that used to do great in ofp, and now they do not.

Right. People have understood this long ago. Where is the

disagreement?

> The more simplistic approach that Ofp ai gave, which allowed random actions for ai was better than trying to it seems replicate Rl, because what is happening, is the Ai is no longer working to provide a great atmosphere of grand battles now, they are just trying to save their own *arses*, while being expert marksmen, and doing little beyond that Imo.

Well ArmA AI is buggy, not tweaked at all and not improved.

Again we have understood this long ago.

Again do you use trueGameplay AI, DAC2 and/or GroupLink2?

No? Why are you still complaining instead of improving your experience?

I apologize because I do not have the time to go into great detail about the post I made, as it seems is desired.

I posted this muchly in response to what CameronMcDonald had said, and said that I was wrong to blame Arma's ai for major flaws.

Whatever. The only thing keeping me from moving back to Ofp, is the fact that Id be moving to a dead community, and a dead game, that is the only thing.

I looked at a number of the mods suggested, I only saw enhancements that made Ai more deadly, nothing that seemed to move their behaviour back to Ofp, nor make adjustments to let the Ai behave more friendly towards immersive engagements, basically, to me Imo.

I understand the community has been trying to fix the issues themselves, but I am a mission maker, and do I have time to work on a mass scale mission, plus download and test out multitudes of ai modification mods that seem to not do what I desire of them anyhow, plus try animation mods, plus try sound mods.. I have gotten a few mods under my belt I like, but cmon, we dont all have the time to get into the details like this.

I shouldnt even have posted, as I can see now. But it did bug me that the remaining post against the topic was left untouched, saying that my attack on Arma Ai is unfair, when all I see during battle testing is Ai issues.. Apart from ugly animations, and everything else.

Anyhow, sorry I posted

[Guest]

o ya

and lastly, because its not a big deal

> As far as I know, safe mode is still broken. Cannot rely on units patrolling because of this huge bug. Any units in safe mode that come under fire get stuck in combat mode, and never return to safe mode.

No idea.

Its just a small bug that renders patrols moving about "without" their weapons raised (like patrols should look) useless after anything happening that causes them to go into combat mode..

Of course patrols do look much cooler stalking their route for hours in aware mode with weapons raised anyhow..

SAFE MODE BROKEN

In ofp, of course units would resume 'safe' mode once an engagement or threat was over, but, apparently, again, its just another small bug in Arma

And I did put an example of pathing, the tanks taking off to never land for no reason when they have a clear path to target.

[Yoma 0]

OFP pro's

-chopper handling (allthough that got a lot better in later patches of arma)

-car handling

-more controllable ai

-ofp cars tiers could be shot and you could actually see a deflated tier (instead of a burned out wheel with tier)

OFP con's

-ai pathing (bridges anyone)

-shooting had a less gamey feel (not the sights but the actual effect of shots, i kinda liked the smaller pufs when round hits the ground, made adjusting shot a lot easier.

-dated graphics engine

-no lean!

-no swimming!

Arma pro's

-larger and more detailed terrains

-better support for more units placed on map

-we can finally lean at corners

-very nice models of vehicles

-allround nicer visuals

-better ai tactics (more flanking behaviour)

-streaming engine

-planes fly alot more realistic then in ofp

-tanks/choppers/boats with multiple turrets

-better lighting

-we can swim (a bit)

-very nice ricochets!

Arma con's

-car handling

-less control over squad units

-waits at ammoboxes untill you can take ammo, having to find the magical spot where you actually can take ammo

-texture swapping on destroy

-streaming engine

-action icons

-HDR bugs white-out or black out

-environment too complex for ai path finding

In short i love both games, and i do consider Arma to be a "next in evolution" of the engine.

I just hope the devs now start focussing on gameplay,bugs and details.

The terrain now is big enough (for me), there's no need to make it bigger, just make it better. Stuff like grass is very nice for screenshots but when you play online you find most people turn it off as soon as they have the option (as it only prevents you from taking a well aimed proned shot anyway).

Allso we all need to realise that a game of this scale will most likely never be PERFECT.

[vilas 477]

OFP con's

-dated graphics engine

do you realize that Arma is 5 year after OFP ?

you cannot compare graphics of game from 2001 to game from 2007

compare it to RTCW, AVP2, Project IGI

[Yoma 0]

OFP con's

-dated graphics engine

do you realize that Arma is 5 year after OFP ?

you cannot compare graphics of game from 2001 to game from 2007

compare it to RTCW, AVP2, Project IGI

Of course, but we are 2008 now, so i think one can say OFP's graphics are dated by now... There is no need to compare it to other games of it's age. It won that comparison in my mind ages ago.

One more thing, i realise some people are not happy with Arma, but i would like to know what their alternative is?

I kind of compare it to win2K users whining about XP. It's different, but not that much, and in the end it turned out to be better anyway.

The way i see it is that there simply is no valid alternative for OFP/Arma, not one developer came close to battlesim Ofp style. Now Codemasters are hireing some people to try, but to this date that try looks more like another Battlefield clone then a war sim like Arma.

[Second 0]

One more thing, i realise some people are not happy with Arma, but i would like to know what their alternative is?

Alternative is OFP.

I've personally played during this year more OFP than ArmA. With ArmA maybe about 10-20 hours, with OFP atleast twice as much (easily triple or more)... And i'd say quality of time was atleast 1.5 times higher with OFP. Yes, both have been heavily modded.

It's nuts as ArmA is superiour to OFP in most technical detail. But that is plain and simple truth when it comes to me: OFP - is - better - game.

OFP's HUGE pros

-Terrain detail at high or very high

-Better feeling and control over character, it's just more fluid

Maybe it's these two which counts so much. Ultimately i don't know, and i've been rubbing my head with this quite much.

[Guest]

I think there is one fundamental issue being missed here.

Arma is trying to replicate real life in Ai behavior.

Ofp made a good compromise between both Rl and 'video game' style.

Personally, if I want the Ai to behave like they are real players, well hell, I'll play a Mp game.

Trying to make the ai that ultra realistic does the following :

Ai no longer attempts to make battles more game 'immersive' , meaning that they will not randomly get up and advance, they wont randomly search around during a fight, they are just gonna do what will save their butts the most in a fight and get them to win.. which equals.. go prone lol.. and they freaking go prone and sit there so much its just stupid, but hey, it works, they dont get killed so much, and even better, they blend right in with the terrain around them and can perfectly distinguish a player from a bush at 300 meters, so they are happy..

The problem is, trying to get the ai to do all this ultra realstic crap removes what Ofp offered, which was :

During a big engagement, some units would get up, and advance, they would go so far, then either crouch down and search for a target, or go prone, and sit for a little while, then maybe move again. Some units would stay put. Now, put this all together, with say a good sized battle where simply 2 friendly squads go against 2 enemy squads.. Heck man, the ai can turn a boring head to head firefight into a crazy mass attack war that involves everything from distant dangers to close quarters combat, to dealing with units inbetween it all moving up on their opponents in the open. Put all that together, it makes for really sweet battles, and you barely even have to try as the mission maker to get them to happen, even better, add in some diverse terrain, with some dips and bumps edges and objects around to hide behind, it gets even better...

But no..

Arma says that is NOT realistic, it doesent care how much fun those wars were..

Sorry, if I want realistic I will either play MP, or I will buy a real gun and wage my own war in Iraq or something..

I want fun, that leaves me feeling full at the end a a Sp mission play or two, I play Sp because the Ai is fun to war against, its easier than playing against players, and funner sometimes too, well, in ofp it was anyhow..

Really, this is a big part of what ive seen Arma is trying to do with the AI, I think it is a huge mistake, a big step backwards, and it takes away from gameplay fun and immersion, not adds.

[privateguba 0]

OFP con's

-ai pathing (bridges anyone)

I`ve read that from other posters here, comparing Arma`s bridge troubles to OFP. But I never had problems with AI and bridges in OFP even on dozens of different user made islands. One of the ways of getting to know a new island was to ride as passenger on a car and order the AI to drive around, then use commander view for sightseeing. Dozens of missions that I remember passing trough bridges as well. The only trouble I remember was on Nogova bridge when sometimes a BMP would fall trough into the water, but I think that was fixed with later patches.

Just remembered, I think the original Tonal veeery long bridge was problematic as well.

Anyone else here that never had bridge troubles on OFP?

-no lean!

I wish BIS had been 'inspired' by the animation packs (especialy Sanctuary's) that were made for OFP. I reckon for me they're much less complicated to lean, roll, etc than Arma`s movement/control system.

[wamingo 1]

One more thing, i realise some people are not happy with Arma, but i would like to know what their alternative is?

I kind of compare it to win2K users whining about XP. It's different, but not that much, and in the end it turned out to be better anyway.

And yet everyone switches right back to the win2k theme... can't you just stick to car analogies like Everyone else?

[Yoma 0]

One more thing, i realise some people are not happy with Arma, but i would like to know what their alternative is?

I kind of compare it to win2K users whining about XP. It's different, but not that much, and in the end it turned out to be better anyway.

And yet everyone switches right back to the win2k theme... can't you just stick to car analogies like Everyone else?

There is a fundamental difference between a theme and an entire operating system as such. (heh running vista64 on windows classic theme here)

Maybe Arma isn't what some people THOUGHT it to be, maybe it's just a inbetween game. (those of you that played v1.0 will surely know what i mean)

I'm pretty curious about Arma2.

Besides that i have absolutely no problem with people loving OFP (i still love it myself). But consider that if BIS cannot move on, that will be the ENDPOINT. Where as moving on to next versions will allow them to make it all better (and keep existing).

Money makes the world go round, if you stop the money (by discouraging others to at least peak at Arma/Arma2), you end the cycle.

This ends you up with shooting yourself in the foot.

It's like pirating games, the result of that is less and less decent pc games and getting stuck with boring console locked titles.

Anyway everyone's entitled to do/play whatever they want.

Have fun and consider the fact that we can play these games a luxury. Let's all enjoy it while it lasts.

[jakerod 254]

I think there is one fundamental issue being missed here.

Arma is trying to replicate real life in Ai behavior.

Ofp made a good compromise between both Rl and 'video game' style.

Personally, if I want the Ai to behave like they are real players, well hell, I'll play a Mp game.

Trying to make the ai that ultra realistic does the following :

Ai no longer attempts to make battles more game 'immersive' , meaning that they will not randomly get up and advance, they wont randomly search around during a fight, they are just gonna do what will save their butts the most in a fight and get them to win.. which equals.. go prone lol.. and they freaking go prone and sit there so much its just stupid, but hey, it works, they dont get killed so much, and even better, they blend right in with the terrain around them and can perfectly distinguish a player from a bush at 300 meters, so they are happy..

The problem is, trying to get the ai to do all this ultra realstic crap removes what Ofp offered, which was :

During a big engagement, some units would get up, and advance, they would go so far, then either crouch down and search for a target, or go prone, and sit for a little while, then maybe move again. Some units would stay put. Now, put this all together, with say a good sized battle where simply 2 friendly squads go against 2 enemy squads.. Heck man, the ai can turn a boring head to head firefight into a crazy mass attack war that involves everything from distant dangers to close quarters combat, to dealing with units inbetween it all moving up on their opponents in the open. Put all that together, it makes for really sweet battles, and you barely even have to try as the mission maker to get them to happen, even better, add in some diverse terrain, with some dips and bumps edges and objects around to hide behind, it gets even better...

But no..

Arma says that is NOT realistic, it doesent care how much fun those wars were..

Sorry, if I want realistic I will either play MP, or I will buy a real gun and wage my own war in Iraq or something..

I want fun, that leaves me feeling full at the end a a Sp mission play or two, I play Sp because the Ai is fun to war against, its easier than playing against players, and funner sometimes too, well, in ofp it was anyhow..

Really, this is a big part of what ive seen Arma is trying to do with the AI, I think it is a huge mistake, a big step backwards, and it takes away from gameplay fun and immersion, not adds.

I don't have that problem. I don't use Mods either. I've been making a lot of missions lately and for the most part the AI is doing exactly what it should. I've been having a lot of fun with it. I had more problems with AI in ofp than I do in ArmA.

Also I don't think you have less control over AI in ArmA I think you have more. Example: You can tell them to kneel now... which I don't believe you could do in OFP if I remember correctly. More formation options. Only thing I have trouble with some times are the action menus and I don't use those very much so. One more thing too actually; occasionally they get stuck places when I tell them to move there but that is my own fault for risking it.

If you are talking about AI opening fire when they're told to hold fire then it doesn't matter. They will only open fire when told to hold fire if someone has already seen them. Sometimes it doesn't seem like someone has but they have. Sometimes the AI that is detected reacts quicker than the one that detected.

[sparks50 0]

Im surprised longer viewdistances hasn't been mentioned. or Join In Progress, or 3D ironsights

[Guest]

I think there is one fundamental issue being missed here.

Arma is trying to replicate real life in Ai behavior.

Ofp made a good compromise between both Rl and 'video game' style.

Personally, if I want the Ai to behave like they are real players, well hell, I'll play a Mp game.

Trying to make the ai that ultra realistic does the following :

Ai no longer attempts to make battles more game 'immersive' , meaning that they will not randomly get up and advance, they wont randomly search around during a fight, they are just gonna do what will save their butts the most in a fight and get them to win.. which equals.. go prone lol.. and they freaking go prone and sit there so much its just stupid, but hey, it works, they dont get killed so much, and even better, they blend right in with the terrain around them and can perfectly distinguish a player from a bush at 300 meters, so they are happy..

The problem is, trying to get the ai to do all this ultra realstic crap removes what Ofp offered, which was :

During a big engagement, some units would get up, and advance, they would go so far, then either crouch down and search for a target, or go prone, and sit for a little while, then maybe move again. Some units would stay put. Now, put this all together, with say a good sized battle where simply 2 friendly squads go against 2 enemy squads.. Heck man, the ai can turn a boring head to head firefight into a crazy mass attack war that involves everything from distant dangers to close quarters combat, to dealing with units inbetween it all moving up on their opponents in the open. Put all that together, it makes for really sweet battles, and you barely even have to try as the mission maker to get them to happen, even better, add in some diverse terrain, with some dips and bumps edges and objects around to hide behind, it gets even better...

But no..

Arma says that is NOT realistic, it doesent care how much fun those wars were..

Sorry, if I want realistic I will either play MP, or I will buy a real gun and wage my own war in Iraq or something..

I want fun, that leaves me feeling full at the end a a Sp mission play or two, I play Sp because the Ai is fun to war against, its easier than playing against players, and funner sometimes too, well, in ofp it was anyhow..

Really, this is a big part of what ive seen Arma is trying to do with the AI, I think it is a huge mistake, a big step backwards, and it takes away from gameplay fun and immersion, not adds.

I don't have that problem. I don't use Mods either. I've been making a lot of missions lately and for the most part the AI is doing exactly what it should. I've been having a lot of fun with it. I had more problems with AI in ofp than I do in ArmA.

Also I don't think you have less control over AI in ArmA I think you have more. Example: You can tell them to kneel now... which I don't believe you could do in OFP if I remember correctly. More formation options. Only thing I have trouble with some times are the action menus and I don't use those very much so. One more thing too actually; occasionally they get stuck places when I tell them to move there but that is my own fault for risking it.

If you are talking about AI opening fire when they're told to hold fire then it doesn't matter. They will only open fire when told to hold fire if someone has already seen them. Sometimes it doesn't seem like someone has but they have. Sometimes the AI that is detected reacts quicker than the one that detected.

I hear you m8

But I am only explaining issues with ai controlled groups. And I will confess, the very, very first time I booted up Arma, I didnt even bother to run a mission, I opened the editor, and made a 2 group ai war real quick, set it up near Eponia (because I love the North)..

I was real anxious to see what the Ai is like, etc, in Arma..

So I put in a group of 6 friendly units standing at the eastern edge of Eponia, and put the player unit there next to them. Then put in a group of 12 enemy units in the woods east of Eponia, and gave them a waypoint plan to advance into the town..

What happened, at first just kinda made me think, huh, this is different.. As I saw the friendly group do absolutely nothing but go prone, and sit there, as far as movement goes. And I saw that the enemy was favoring the prone position as well, they were barely making headway, seemed as long as the bullets where flying, prone is the key choice..

So I re-tried the scenario time and time again, and found that there is some new ai behavior here, the units are wanting to just get down and stay there when trouble is near, instead of the Ofp way, where they would do various random movements, from prone to kneeling to advancing..

I had posted about this, and even talked to CSL about it.. we figured and agreed a mod would come out and fix this, I havent seen such a mod yet.

I had actually gotten so annoyed at the fact everyone wants to "eat dirt" every time a bullet flys by in the area, that I found a name for the disease - 'ground rat syndrome'..

I am suprised to see people that have been modding and mission making for years in this thread saying this has not been an issue for them, because every person I have contact with that makes missions in this game have little to say about the new Ai reactions to combat..

I guess each to their own, I havent and still dont like it. The only mods I see that modify the Ai behavior only makes them more deadly at longer ranges, that certainly would do nothing for getting a percentage of these guys out of the dirt and moving.

[froggyluv 2136]

I guess each to their own, I havent and still dont like it. The only mods I see that modify the Ai behavior only makes them more deadly at longer ranges, that certainly would do nothing for getting a percentage of these guys out of the dirt and moving.

Try TonyRanger's FFN mod. It substantially improves both the aggressiveness and tactics of the AI.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

I had actually gotten so annoyed at the fact everyone wants to "eat dirt" every time a bullet flys by in the area, that I found a name for the disease - 'ground rat syndrome'..

Strange; one of the things that pisses me off the most

about this game is that the AI stand up and run about

far too much in a "firefight". It's like being on an ETR -

"watch and shoot" - only much less exciting.

[jakerod 254]

@Special Ed (Didn't want to do another Quote and take up half a page)

You have to try messing about with different speeds, behaviors, and skill levels. When you have certain combinations of them they will suck. But on others they will do good and I would say this is the case most of the time for me. Im a big fan of giving them a Line formation, Limited Speed and Aware mode and watching them just walk in a line with guns at the ready towards a target. Matter of fact I did that one time with a bunch of RAC SF guys and told them to hold fire and it had an amazing result. They got to within meters of the enemy (they were walking away from us) before they opened fire.

Summary: You have to mess around with them a bit. Although I have had times where I have just thrown down squads, and given them a guard waypoint and it has worked on amazingly.

I would say the only things OFP has over ArmA are its atmosphere (I love the Cold War Theme), tanks not flipping as much, car driving and the fluid movements but I do find ArmA's bareable. For a game as complex as ArmA only having those 4 things be worse than the original is damn good. Take a look at some other games. Ex. DF2 vs DFBHD... I at least thought DF2 was better. DFBHD was fun but I liked the terrains of DF2 a lot better.

[Guest]

Could be right, I keep them on aware with normal speed. Maybe its just noticing this more in Arma than in Ofp for some reason.

I dont know why it seems like I dont get as nice of engagements as I did in Ofp, maybe it was some settings in FFUR?

One thing is for sure, glad at least Arma has real collision, that was one of the worst things about Ofp.

To be honest I was just happy with Ofp as it was with modded content, I think I never wanted to goto a new platform, but saw the whole community shifting, for a modder, there isnt much choice if you want your work to see use when its done.

Id agree there is a ton about Arma that is better than Ofp, it just seems like so often Im trying to do something that was a snap in Ofp during mission making, and now its ten times harder, or even impossible.

Man I just hope two things happen when Arma2 comes out :

It doesent require anything more than what Arma1 requires (because I would have to buy a new rig, which wont happen)

And it has Sahrani ported over, or modders get Sahrani put in Arma2 fast, because its too late for me - too many months porting over and working on Sahrani to change now. That would be a third island port due to a third new 'replacement' game released by BIS during my mission project, haha, it aint gonna happen.

Sorry to be so dang loud in this topic, time to shut up and just enjoy what I have - like a number of you guys said, yep, at least its "something", alot more fun than trying to mod Oblivion..

[Second 0]

@Special Ed (Didn't want to do another Quote and take up half a page)

You have to try messing about with different speeds, behaviors, and skill levels. When you have certain combinations of them they will suck. But on others they will do good and I would say this is the case most of the time for me. Im a big fan of giving them a Line formation, Limited Speed and Aware mode and watching them just walk in a line with guns at the ready towards a target. Matter of fact I did that one time with a bunch of RAC SF guys and told them to hold fire and it had an amazing result. They got to within meters of the enemy (they were walking away from us) before they opened fire.

Summary: You have to mess around with them a bit. Although I have had times where I have just thrown down squads, and given them a guard waypoint and it has worked on amazingly.

I would say the only things OFP has over ArmA are its atmosphere (I love the Cold War Theme), tanks not flipping as much, car driving and the fluid movements but I do find ArmA's bareable. For a game as complex as ArmA only having those 4 things be worse than the original is damn good. Take a look at some other games. Ex. DF2 vs DFBHD... I at least thought DF2 was better. DFBHD was fun but I liked the terrains of DF2 a lot better.

No effect as far as i can tell. Their combat behaviour .FSM overwrites almost anything. And that is one of the problem. Their hiding methods are broken, they speed is defined by .FSM, their overall behaviour is defined by .FSM. Overall they are slaves of that .FSM, and i'd say it's not optimal solution mostly because ti breaks their will to seek cover and remain cover. Which is still one of best parts of OFP's AI (and as far as i can tell broken in ArmA, if 1.14 didn't finally change it). I triggered them to seek cover after certain casuality rate in almost every mission, after that they would move only when they don't see enemy. SLX used that to create (somekind) platoon's internal bounding overwatch behaviour.

I dont' understad enough .FSM language to say how the combat .FSM actually works when it comes to small details. The logic how it works is clear to me (you rush i cover, and so on). But i can't tell for example what all affect to speed of manuver (enemy, amount of cover etc), there might be small things which are affected by waypoint-speed, combatmode and so on.

Your RAC SF guys probably didn't see the enemy or something else very-very uncommon happened (sure it's possible)... I've never seen anything like that to happen and i've messed with AI quite a deal, to understand how it works and then to be able to mod it. If they are not in stealth or careless and they see enemy they go to combat behaviour and starts their bounding overwatch thingie. If they are at stealth they start to mostly crawl (which makes it uber-combat behaviour!.

[jakerod 254]

@Second

Nope they definitly saw them. I could hear them talking about the guys. I've seen it tons of times. As long as the enemy doesn't spot you the AI will not open fire if given a hold fire command. The RACs guys didnt open fire until the patrol turned around and saw them. All I did was give them a waypoint that said Aware, Limited, Hold Fire.

You just have to mess around with things until you find the right combination. I don't normally have any problems with AI. Sure sometimes they do stupid things but most of the time they are smart.

[N'kEnNy 0]

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Opf vs ARMA</span>

I find myself in agreement with many of the first posts. What did Arma really offer that Opf didn't already do?

To be brutally honest the graphical improvements, and the few bug-fixes made for ARMA are of little consequence.  ARMA is a game released many years after OpF; graphics and such are simply expected.

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Great Expectations</span>

For me the greatest fault I found in Operation Flashpoint was the AI control interface.  I greatly enjoyed playing a simple infantry commander in OpF; I luxuriated in the robust feel of a large scale infantry simulator. I loved the feel of playing the weakest and softest target on a vicious battlefield.  There was one major flaw however. That was the infantry command system.

Seriously using F1 through F12++ to command your squad and then navigating through a bizarre and sometimes byzantine command layout was the single biggest weakness of Operation Flashpoint.  It was one it carried over to ARMA.

When I first purchased ARMA I simply could not believe that this was still present. Especially considering how USER INTERFACE is 'free'  its something that doesn't require any CPU it only requires some forethought and intelligent design.

Certainly your soldiers are everything but  canny (I believe the bottom line fault is found  with having too many scripts on top of eachother)  But the interface to command your team of muppets are just amazingly cumbersome.  ESPECIALLY in a game thats supposed to be released on a console platform.  K.I.S.S for crying out loud!

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>A Dream World</span>

Personally I feel no need to micromanage every moment of my squads life; I shouldn't.   Its an infantry simulator for crying out loud. I would expect my soldiers to know the basic business of Soldiering.

Quote[/b] ]<ul><span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>SOLDIERs Job</span>

[*]Obey the Rules of engagement (Assault, Patrol, Safe, Recon, or Infiltrate) and Formation.

[*]In Danger seek and utilize cover.

[*]Locate, Identify, and Target potential enemies.

[*]Engage only if R.O.E permits it.

[*]Follow direct commands

[*]Apply any specialty skills or equipment (Grenades, Medic training, Anti-Tank/air weaponry, etc)

[*]Check personal Status (Ammunition, Health, and Location in comparison to squad)

In that order!

Quote[/b] ]<ul><span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>SQUAD LEADER role</span>

As an squad leader I expect mine and my AI colleagues to have their decision making tasks be reduced to a few simple options.  Options that directly affect the outcome of the attempted mission.  I SPECIFICALLY do not feel the need to navigate a cumbersome command interface to micromanage every small soldier action (in order to assure even basic efficiency)

[*]Assign current R.O.E (Assault, Patrol, Safe, Recon, or Infiltrate)

[*]Assign squad Flags (Hold fire, Suppress, Conserve)

[*]Assign Current Formations and overall movement direction.

[*]In Danger define Basic Tactics (Flank, Assault, Dig-in/seek cover, or Retreat)

[*]In combat assign Priority targets

[*]Soldier specific orders (battlefield pickups, specific healing, forced movement, specific targeting and etc.)

[*]All of the above Soldier Actions.

Again in that very order.

This should be achieved through a VERY simple interface with as few buttons as possible. (3 + arrow keys(4))   As a soldier I want to think about soldiering; as a Squad leader  I want a simple and smooth interface to command my team.

Quote[/b] ]<ul><span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Battlefield AI</span>

Now assuming the AI is capable of movement, targeting and engaging the enemy.  What more is there?

[*]Recognize High and Low ground  (prefer high ground on offense, low ground when sneaking)

[*]Recognize Foliage/bushes and potential cover (Saturate if enemy, exploit if near)

[*]Recognize Roads (use when safe, avoid when in combat or sneaking)

[*]Recognize Forest Areas (Maximum firepower, close order movement)

[*]Recognize Towns/city zones. (Maximum Firepower, Close order movement)

[*]Recognize Hard targets  (such as tanks and aircraft, and whether or not you have weapons to crack it!

Now obviously this example is simplistic; but isn't that the very key? KEEP THE COMMAND INTERFACE/INTERACTIONS SIMPLE and above all DEPENDABLE.  The players themselves are bound to bring the random seed with them.

[N'kEnNy 0]

<span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'>The Post Above</span>

In the post above I use a few arbitrary terms; this is my definition of them.

<ul><span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>RULES OF ENGAGEMENT</span>

All of these assume that the team follows waypoints.

[*]Assault - Fire and Movement; close order when in city/town zones. Aggressive formations (wedge, Line, etc) and behavior.

[*]Patrol - Weapons in hand, skirmish/relaxed formations. If Enemy engaged goto Assault; revert to Patrol when done.

[*]Safe - As Patrol; except weapon slung. Revert to Patrol when done. Line Formations.

[*]Recon - Hold Fire, fire only when spotted AND close by.  If enemy engaged Retreat until out of Line of Sight. Revert to Recon. Line or skirmish formation.

[*]Infiltrate - Hold-fire. Engage nearby enemies freely with suppressed weapons; only use regular weapons if spotted (or directly commanded to).  If spotted goto Assault; revert to Infiltrate when done.

[*]Ambush - Hold Fire.  Squad leader assigns targets. When majority of squad is ready; Open fire; goto Assault if in danger; revert to Ambush when done.

<ul><span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Squad Flags</span>

The Squad Leader assigns a 'flag' (on or off) behavior pattern to his entire squad or individual troops.

These are intended mostly for players or pre-scripted AI. Also assumed to be applied when appropriate ROE is selected.  

[*]Hold fire - Open fire under no circumstance; except if enemy is within 10-20 meters and has spotted you.

[*]Suppress - Exclusively use Grenades, Grenade Launchers, burst fire, or full auto as fitting.  (MAXIMUM FIREPOWER)

[*]Conserve - As name indicates; attempt to conserve ammunition. Slow and sure rate of fire; do not attempt suppressive fire. (except on squad leader override)

Other Potentials are  "Silenced weapons only",  "only when close"

<ul><span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Basic Tactics</span>

The basic tactics represent a select series of semi-prescripted actions that your troops can undertake.  They are assumed to prioritize as appropriate to the "Soldiers Job" hierarchy.

In case of AI squad leaders, it will use its basic terrain knowledge combined with mission/priority to determine which general maneuver is the best course of action.

[*]Flank-  Inside  urban or Forest zones  "peel" either left or right.  On open ground  use basic leapfrog tactics (again left or right).

[*]Assault-  Either Leapfrog forward (as with flank)   or order troop to "advance" as a single unit. Engage targets as appropriate.

[*]Dig-in/Seek cover- Orders the troop to hit the dirt; crawl towards nearest piece of cover and engage targets as appropriate.

[*]Retreat- Leapfrog Backwards until out of enemy line of sight (or order canceled ) ; expend ammunition freely.

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>KEYBOARD SHORTCUTS</span>

For players these commands would by default be easily accessible through the key-arrows.

<--  --> - LEFT OR RIGHT ARROW

[*]Press Left or Right arrow to order squad to PEEL left or right.

[*]Double Tap Left or Right arrow  to order squad to Leapfrog left or Right.

^ - UP ARROW

[*]Press and Hold Forward arrow to order squad to Advance (standing)

[*]Double Tap forward arrow to order squad to leapfrog forward.

v - DOWN ARROW

[*]Press Backward arrow to order squad to Seek Cover.

[*]Double Tap Backward arrow to order squad to leapfrog backwards.

[code-red 0]

OFP vs ARMA ?

For me as a player of both games i realy start to prefer ARMA.

Arma is not perfect, but only few games are.

Ofp was for me the only one in its kind at the time so Ofp was king at the time.

I think it was much easier for the ai to navigate trough Ofp because there was hardly anything on the isle compared to arma.

But my ai still got stuck there, just not as much as in arma.

But after all these updates Armas seems to do a pretty good job with its ai now.

Specialy combined with all the mods availible.

For me arma is king now and i dont feel it has realy more features/bug than ofp, just some different and same ones.

I do think it is important to make sure obvious bugs are taken out of the game before release.

An Ofp or Arma veteran can accept ai messing up bridge crossing, but a new player generation wont be as much forgiving.

I think this game consept got lots of potential but needs to be complete at realease date at first.

And needs to market its strong points better to apeal to a larger public.

There need to be more servers for and a better vaariation of maps played.

I only play warfare, but my friends would love to see more CTF.

My 2 cents