How's ARMA2 AI shaping up?

[Baff1 0]

I'd like to see them with a suppression and morale system modelled.

So taking fire encourages them to seek cover from that direction.

The more fire they take the less they hop from one cover to another like all the typical FPS games.

I'd also like to see their morale fail completely, like if they start taking fire from more than one direction, flanked so to speak, or when they get a lot of casualties.

Forcing them to retreat.

[celery 8]

I'd like to see them with a suppression and morale system modelled.

So taking fire encourages them to seek cover from that direction.

The more fire they take the less they hop from one cover to another like all the typical FPS games.

I'd also like to see their morale fail completely, like if they start taking fire from more than one direction, flanked so to speak, or when they get a lot of casualties.

Forcing them to retreat.

A morale system would require different personalities and other factors (such as skill and equipment situation) to prevent the same result after the same treatment every time. Brothers in Arms was boring because of the abstract and absolute gameplay mechanics.

[EricM 0]

Centimeter accurate AI means to me that the AI perceives the surrounding world with a much better precision, ie for pathfinding or cover for instance.

The actual decision making process itself is guided by a FSM model (a decision tree) just as in Arma. The more elaborate the FSM, the more lifelike the reaction, but if the input information isn't precise enough, then the logical output decision could seem wrong to the observer, no matter how elaborate the FSM.

With better accuracy in the inputs, the AI might finally decide to "retreat and take cover" behind that "thing" instead of "lying down" because it thinks there's nowhere else to hide (ie : AI cannot see the "thing" as a large enough shelter or at all).

If the FSM models are more elaborate in Arma 2 and the data feed is more precise, hence there's no reason for the AI not to make the right decisions and be potentially kick ass.

The risk is almost the opposite : that the FSM model being so complex and the amount of data so important, that the whole game slows down to its knees or the AI take too much time to process and react.

We shall see where the cursor lies...

[Balschoiw 0]

I can't see what "centimetre accurate AI" means anyway.

Should also be helpfull while editing precise waypoint routes for AI units, a thing that was hardly possible with Arma because of the terrain grid.

[4 IN 1 0]

so the answer is still "we dont know"

[topeira 10]

SECOND, the AI in vietcong and crysis is a scripted one, almost like COD, which is not a real AI. its just a bunch of cover nods that the AI navigate between.

in crysis u HAD to place cover nodes so the AI would know where to hide. the AI on itself doesnt know what cover is and what an obstacle is if u dont tell it. that is not a top tier AI. jsut like in any linear shooter like FEAR, GOW, BIA:HH or MOH:A (yes, moh:a had a very limited AI that used cover nodes and spawn points. it was a lot of fun but was very scripted. very).

STALKER had a slow gameplay but isnt it more realistic and more what ppl here in arma2 forums expect? the AI moved slow but had the uncanning ability to flank, take cover and find cover. while i dont know the under-the-hood details of its AI and level design i think that no cover nodes where placed in STALKER's maps just like there are no cover nodes in GTAIV. these 2 examples are of AIs that use cover cuz they know how to recognize it on their own. FC2 doesnt have cover nodes cuz no one takes cover. they just circle around the player, but they have other good things going for them.

the problem with ARMA (with FFN or without) is that they dont know how to recognize cover. good, they know how to go around a building but the dont know where they can stand in order to be obscured by an object and the sure dont know how to recognize the edge of cover so they can lean or step out\in and shoot.

ppl who think the AI in arma know how to find cover probably dont know what they saw. it was just their imagination making them think things that didnt happen.

mind u, i am very new to arma (about 3 weeks of playing it) but i know what i see and what i dont see, and i dont see the AI taking cover. they just walk around crouched. if they are hidden than lucky them. put AIs in a forest and u'll see them running like chickens and lying in the open all the time.

to make a good AI requires a very very talented programmers and i dont think BIS has them otherwise we would have seen some sparks of good AIs in arma.

i am counting on OFP2: DR to have a decent AI (the press previews where saying it was good) but we'll have to wait and see if that's true.

[PhilippRauch 0]

Thanks topeira for those points, i just guessed it was something like that, since real AI just doesnt looks/behave like it does in most games.

The risk is almost the opposite : that the FSM model being so complex and the amount of data so important, that the whole game slows down to its knees or the AI take too much time to process and react.

Maybe thats the reason for dedicating a whole core to the AI now ...

But anyway the game has so much more inside for me than just the AI, i survived OFP, i survived ArmA, so i will for sure survive ArmaII ... no matter what AIcrapDo.

[Placebo 28]

I'll delete your post to save you the embarrassment of being reminded that your trolling was so inaccurate.

"Oh well you haven't seen the final version with the proper AI in it"

Why release a press-review version without it? "Here, review my game, but I've deliberately kept one of the major selling points out of it".

The press have a preview version, not a review version.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/preview

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/review

And next time I suggest if you're going to bash or make other non-constructive attacks, don't, 1 you'll make yourself look foolish, 2 you'll receive a PR.

[Second 0]

the problem with ARMA (with FFN or without) is that they dont know how to recognize cover. good, they know how to go around a building but the dont know where they can stand in order to be obscured by an object and the sure dont know how to recognize the edge of cover so they can lean or step out\in and shoot.

ppl who think the AI in arma know how to find cover probably dont know what they saw. it was just their imagination making them think things that didnt happen.

mind u, i am very new to arma (about 3 weeks of playing it) but i know what i see and what i dont see, and i dont see the AI taking cover. they just walk around crouched. if they are hidden than lucky them. put AIs in a forest and u'll see them running like chickens and lying in the open all the time.

They actually do take cover. However they need some encouragement to do so from mission designer. They will go behind objects, that is all they can do with it. They don't lean from behind it, or understand that they need to stand up to be able to shoot at enemy. But they are safe from enemy fire if cover is solid and atleast they are hidden from eyes. So it's pretty basic. So code is there, available to scripters also. I've written few 'take cover'-scirpts, so i should know that is in there.

About Node-system.

I don't see how nodes makes them not-AI or limited in anyway? I don't think that they wouldn't know what cover is in Vietcong. Editor's waypoint menu doesn't seem to be able to give them that idea, it's just inserted there and AI seems to sort out rest of it, like which object/feature offers it cover in vicinity of that waypoint. However my tests with it are quite limited and i might be wrong.

Crysis might be other case haven't looked at it's editor.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Second

[MQ-9 Reaper 10]

In this screenshot : http://www.jeuxvideo.com/screenshots/images/00019/00019580_148.htm (number 149, if there is a problem)

the briefing states that the enemy are untrained and undisciplined ChDKZ blunts.

Just a wild guess from my part, maybe the enemy AI can be configured : using tactics or not, sharing infos or not, using centimeter precision or approximate precision to find cover, etc...

Well, we will see soon;)

[Deadfast 43]

Just a wild guess from my part, maybe the enemy AI can be configured : using tactics or not, sharing infos or not, using centimeter precision or approximate precision to find cover, etc...

Hm, maybe the skill slider affects how much professional tactics they use?

[mr.g-c 6]

To read some criticism about AI from the Press Version, click the link in my signature (not the forums link, the other one :P)

I also wonder, in the linked Ivan Buchta Video, the AI was really doing some awesome teamwork in protecting/covering themselves, but why was the Press Version (which was way newer) this not working included anymore?

I don't think BIS forgot it to implement it for the press release, as it was actually a bit important that one of the major critic part, the AI, gets improved in Arma2 and the press should see that.

I also think, like mentioned that the german release one month before all others is rushed. I think its again the pure greediness of our well known, but not liked at all, german publisher....

[PhilippRauch 0]

Maybe press previewers are too used to their scripted/prearranged 'AI' in other shooters, so they scoff at ArmaII AI behaviour because its not what 'they' are used to.

So they may make their preview publications sound more harsh than it really is, since they had more/higher expectancy?! (since its 'the' military sim) ... and now they are disappointed because 'their' dreams were not that wet as they thought they 'should' be ... but at the same time they forget to count in the other countless parts this 'game' actually has, besides other factors, and as such their view is somehow 'clouded'.

This also just reflects the actual trend in journalism in general... :(

[maxter 10]

...using centimeter precision or approximate precision to find cover, etc...

I sure don't hope that will change with the skill slider, or whatever method you'll be configuring their skills with. I'm pretty sure a civilian would know that if you stick half your head over a wall you're more likely to get shot than if you don't, just as well as an elite soldier would. Just saying. Seeing different behaviors in tactics etc would be neat though, I'm all up for that.

[Second 0]

but at the same time they forget to count in the other countless parts this 'game' actually has, besides other factors, and as such their view is somehow 'clouded'.

This also just reflects the actual trend in journalism in general... :(

Or then they (some part of them at least) are professionals who understand what makes great game.

Maybe press previewers are too used to their scripted/prearranged 'AI' in other shooters

Yes. That is exactly to what they are used to. AI which acts in a way of which could be said that: Yeah. I myself would do just same... Well bit better. If ArmA2 can't get close to that level in firefights then AI gets bashed.

In the end ArmA AI isn't any less scripted. They need waypoints to do even something, they need pages after pages of scripting to do some basic tasks somewhat properly, like take cover.

[celery 8]

Maybe press previewers are too used to their scripted/prearranged 'AI' in other shooters, so they scoff at ArmaII AI behaviour because its not what 'they' are used to.

So they may make their preview publications sound more harsh than it really is, since they had more/higher expectancy?! (since its 'the' military sim) ... and now they are disappointed because 'their' dreams were not that wet as they thought they 'should' be ... but at the same time they forget to count in the other countless parts this 'game' actually has, besides other factors, and as such their view is somehow 'clouded'.

This also just reflects the actual trend in journalism in general... :(

To be perfectly frank the AI we've seen so far in OFP and A1 is quite bad. They don't talk normally, mostly they are just silent, their movements are robotic, their maneuvering is retarded and they have no self-initiative. The only thing they can do is shoot when they see the target and that's what they do too well at times.

Talking about scripted AI in other games is a moot point because in those games the intended result (believable adversaries and allies) is achieved with such methods. If the AI in Armed Assault matches the intended result, the devs must be stoned. Seriously, I would absolutely freak out if a real person acted like the AI in this game series.

[S!fkaIaC 10]

What happened to the cm precision? Didn´t BIS told us everything will be better with the higher precision?

I guess another problem is that AI does not have a kind of "chaos managment".

As soon as many AI queuing on a narrow point like a bridge:

1.)Even if the bridge provides space so that 5 soldiers could walk side -by -side, only one enters the bridge, the rest becomes impatient and is using a way via Paris-Roma-Erkner.

2.)In ArmA 1 they perform kinda moonwalker-dance instead of walking if more then one is at the bridge

3.) Park your car at the bridge (you could pass the car on both sides by truck) and bridge is blocked for every kind of AI unit - common cheat in CTI maps to hinder enemy AI

What I would like to see is that a logic screens for AI clusters and takes over the virtual command for that cluster reades the waypoints of each units and does a kind of intelligent queue management to erase that cluster. If path is calculated per AI, such managment is not possible.

Edited May 1, 2009 by S!fkaIaC

[4 IN 1 0]

precision have almost notthing related to combat behavior, the only thing thats being affect is pathfinding and taking cover i think

[smeg head 10]

I must say that I have nothing but praise for the AI in OFP and ARMA! They are smart, but they have to be given smart waypoints.

In both games you were fighting a bunch of poorly trained conscripts, and the AI did a splendid job of simulating that. Sure they made the occasional mistake, and didn't handle suppressive fire very well, but what else would you expect from Russia's most remote and unimportant garrison in the Baltic Sea?

You must remember that real soldiers do stupid things as well. Especially new recruits that are typically posted to unimportant places like Kogujev or Bananaland. Many fresh new soldiers probably couldn't pull off a section attack any better than the OFP AI could. Remember this and the occasional mistake made by the AI doesn't seem so bad. Maybe he isn't shooting at you because, being a rather unobservant soldier, he actually cannot see you?

Occasionally there are flashes of brilliance where the AI does such clever things that I am astounded! I have seen the AI in OFP and ARMA perform flanking moves, and keep me pinned down until they can get into grenade range. They actually are very smart. The reason that people complain about the AI, I believe, is because they are playing missions where the AI soldiers have been given stupid orders.

Let me give an example of what I mean...

One mission in ARMA involved attacking a beach, where the enemy were just sitting haplessly on the shoreline WAITING to be blasted away. Once they had landed, they made no attempt to move to nearby cover of the trees, even though it was only 10 metres away! They just sat there in clumps waiting for me to pick them off, which I did. A sensible NCO would have moved his squad to the trees in order to give them cover and better defend the beach, but the silly enemy did not even do that. Creating a simple (MOVE) order in the mission editor would have solved this, and made the enemy seem SO MUCH SMARTER without requiring any change to the coding.

Another example from ARMA was a mission where you had to attack the enemy at night. You had 'Night vision' and the enemy didn't. A sensible enemy at such a disadvantage would avoid conducting an offensive, or at least move through the forests. But instead they were, once again, just standing idly in the middle of a clearing with NO nearby cover (and no night vision). WHY would any army order its troops to stand in the middle of a clearing at night time and not move? In both these examples it felt as if the enemy had been placed in that particular spot in order to provide some pretty fireworks and something to kill... NOT because it made any military sense for them to be there!

And of course we all remember the mission where you had to infiltrate a base by yourself and destroy 4 tanks with a single AT-4. Imagine how much harder (and better) that mission would have felt if the enemy had been SENSIBLE and piqeted the small hill that was overlooking their entire base. All it would take would be a lone guard to stand and the hill facing out, and a nearby squad to respond to his death (using a trigger). One tiny change in the mission editor and the AI would have seemed so much smarter.

Thus the performance of the AI depends not only on their coding, but upon the directions you give them. If you tell them to assault a tank across an open field, well then of course they are going to perform miserably! Because you gave them a stupid order! You have to give the AI sensible orders in order to get them to perform well. I find that whenever the AI is performing badly, it is because the mission maker has given them stupid orders which do not make any sense. Orders like "Sit here and wait to be destroyed" were sadly not uncommon in the ARMA campaign... The orders you should be giving your AI units are "hide here and try to kill me" or "Approach through the trees and try to kill me". In urban combat the AI fares badly because the orders they recieive are simply (MOVE) to this town in (LINE) formation. Now lets say you ordered small MG squads to surround the town and take up positions covering the main roads BEFORE sending the main "blob" in for the kill. They will still stumble and trip over each other, but you've made the AI a little bit smarter just by adding in a few extra waypoints.

If you place the AI in clever spots where real infantry units would ACTUALLY operate (i.e. forests, hills etc.) you will notice that they are much MUCH more effective! Put infantry in forests, disperse RPG soldiers in clever hiding places, give them sensible patrol routes. etc. etc. All the best mission makers do this :)

I find that the AI in OFP and ARMA is extremely clever, as long as you give them sensible orders.

[Second 0]

In both games you were fighting a bunch of poorly trained conscripts, and the AI did a splendid job of simulating that. Sure they made the occasional mistake, and didn't handle suppressive fire very well, but what else would you expect from Russia's most remote and unimportant garrison in the Baltic Sea?

I also was playing against very poorly trained US professional soldiers in both ArmA and OFP. And AI did splendid job at simulating that. They didn't handle suppressive fire or overall basics, what one can expect from one who does soldiering for a cash and not for call.

What could i expect? I playing as Soviet or SLA well trained conscript.

[celery 8]

Trying to see a game's technical shortcomings as smart and realistic innovations is definitely something new on this forum.

No, not really.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I am not sure if he is sarcastic or not.

[4 IN 1 0]

Well for the record Celery is a big fan of old fashion pvp and not quite care about AI other then SP gaming(or did be ever into SP gaming?)

[dave8 0]

Here are my top 11 suggestions for AI. I think if the majority or all of these suggestions get implemented, this game can stand on its own as being the best tactical shooter of all time.

1. An order to increase / decrease spacing between individuals.

2. An order to increase / decrease spacing between teams (for sake of traveling overwatch)

3. A proper squad column formation with fire-teams in wedge (for Army squads).

4. All soldiers watching their lanes (360 security), even during movement.

5. A "360 security" formation with fireteams automatically forming a circle around the Squad Leader or PL for the sake of ORPs or security halts.

6. Whenever soldiers stop moving when in "combat" mode, they automatically kneel and do not keep standing and take cover in the closest cover in a 5 meter radius. Then they go prone after 30 seconds to a minute automatically.

7. Making roads "danger" areas so that they don't walk right in the middle of it during "combat" mode.

8. All soldiers hit the dirt or seek cover once being fired upon. They shouldn't be standing up and scanning as they are being shot at.

9. AI leaders should not call out individual soldiers to flank/attack. They should be calling out at least a fireteam to flank.

10. Make suppressing fire work against and for AI.

11. AI work in buddy teams and fire teams.

I hope it's not too late to see any of these being thrown in there. It'd be fantastic to see even one of these features in the final game.

[smeg head 10]

I also was playing against very poorly trained US professional soldiers in both ArmA and OFP. And AI did splendid job at simulating that. They didn't handle suppressive fire or overall basics, what one can expect from one who does soldiering for a cash and not for call.

Thats easy to explain, they were pogues! :D

OFP's AI is like a bunch of children. If you tell them exactly what to do using waypoints and triggers they are VERY smart! But if you leave them to their own devices and just say (MOVE) to this town in (LINE) formation, well then half of them will just go off and eat candy behind the BMP-2... And that is what lots of mission makers do

Like real squads, they need to be given good orders and good directions in order to be effective