How's ARMA2 AI shaping up?

[eem 1]

Hi all . :)

Here's what I've heard so far... "We need an AI that simulates all stages of modern warfare using both well and not so well trained soldiers, animals that act like their species, civilians that act like civilians, partisans that act like partisans, fly all manner of aircraft effectively, drive all variants of complicated military vehicles, and oh, please try to simulate the apparent variances to me the player... all at once"....heh... what scope!! anyway..:cool:

Mentioned by a few others in this very good thread, the urban combat behvaiour has just never cut it in any previous version. I agree totally... +1 here for any improvements with ARMA2 in that area. What's always been missing for me ( I play A LOT of Warfare)...is having enemy units take positions inside and on top of city buildings (without placing them there first, or issuing the "MOVE" command through script). I have seen a few videos that seem to indicate at least they will take short cuts through buildings in ARMA2. Does anyone know if the new precision applies to inside/on top of buildings? Has anyone seen or can comment on the AI performing CQB?

eem

[LJF 0]

This is going to sound odd ... but I really liked ArmA's AI ...

In fact, I would go so far as to say that ArmA had the best AI I've ever seen. It could move in groups and would do little things that you didn't really notice like prefering forest to grassland. One really amazing example was when I had a group of enemy AI on hold fire stealth mode, they didn't fire on me when I wasn't looking, but as soon as I turned and spotted me they took the shot ... one round. It can be uncanny just how good it is sometimes ...

... however, I would also go as far as to say that it is possibly the least polished AI ever to be created. You look at it and the first thing that you think of is "omg ... not ArmA AI again!" It needs polish and more individual fighting as well as fighting as a group. Maybe things like keeping close to the squad leader yet choosing cover over exact formation.

I really do think we'll notice a great change in the AI. I hope they can really take cover well and fast and pwn me good and well. However, I think it'll be the same AI, maybe with an extra 30IQ slapped on but the same AI nevertheless. We'll no doubt see it doing some pretty retarded things ... granted, that could be a distraction while the other half the enemy squad sneaks up behind you and lightens their magazines!!

[Nihilistix 0]

Things don't look all that good for the AI. The latest videos from gamekult show some urban combat and some of the AI in action. In all honesty I wasn't very impressed with their performance in those particular vids for a couple reasons: In one the player was walking right in front of and enemy and the enemy soldier didn't even react or do anything, he just lay prone looking around. In one of the other vids the player is in the open, shooting at a squad of soldiers and was able to take down 3 that were just standing like statues.

I know there has been improvements but I have yet to see a really clear example of this microAI in action or any video showing any real big changes in AI behavior since Armed Assault.

[LJF 0]

I'll have to agree with you there, it didn't appear to be overly ... ah ... good at ... ah ... anything at all ... apart from being a nice target. Though in it's defense I did see one soldier actually jogging ... granted ... he did jog right into the sights of the player ... and then he did kind of ... stop and wait to be shot at ...

... I hope this is just the difficulty and not BI trying to be "accomodating" to new players ... that would be ... like ... really gay.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Mmm... the latest videos of Gamekult, particularly the skirmish in town, are simply ridiculous, the tester obviously doesn't know how to play that game and has set the AI to its lowest setting in order no to be killed in the first few seconds. We never play those games on the cadet mode but on the veteran one, setting the AI to its highest level, which is then VERY challenging.

Secondly, OFP, ArmA and ArmA2 aren't game intended to be played on the "in town CQB" level. Nore on the "i quickly put two squads on the map and have fun" level. It's a more clever and versatile game. OFP campaigns - the best ones ATM - are very hard but very interesting because the goals arent' "kill everbody", but more sophisticated - sabotage, hostage rescue, intelligence, avoiding enemies etc. And for these kinds of missions, no need of CQB AI.

[celery 8]

Secondly, OFP, ArmA and ArmA2 aren't game intended to be played on the "in town CQB" level. Nore on the "i quickly put two squads on the map and have fun" level. It's a more clever and versatile game. OFP campaigns - the best ones ATM - are very hard but very interesting because the goals arent' "kill everbody", but more sophisticated - sabotage, hostage rescue, intelligence, avoiding enemies etc. And for these kinds of missions, no need of CQB AI.

Stop kidding yourself, there's nothing clever and versatile in a stupid AI. There are urban environments so the AI should be proficient in handling them. And incidentally urban areas are the most important objectives of wars. For some reason I recall most of OFP's campaign missions being about killing as many enemies as you can so that you can keep an objective or capture one.

[LJF 0]

but very interesting because the goals arent' "kill everbody", but more sophisticated - sabotage, hostage rescue, intelligence, avoiding enemies etc. And for these kinds of missions, no need of CQB AI.

But also remember that although not always the most efficient method of winning wars, killing everybody usually has the desired effect upon your enemies ... or ... their countries or something, since your enemies are all dead. If it's possible to kill all your enemies then hurray for that. In my opinion, killing the enemy is the best mission ever, it's also the most sophisticated and intelligent because you plan how you want to do things. Most games (cod/bf etc) take tiny bits of warfare and make a "game" out of it, capture control points, save the airport etc, but in reality, if you can eliminate the enemy's armies, then what do they have left? In BF, killing the enemy did you no good, unless you had the flags ... presumably for heroic photo opportunities later on!

... come to think of it, that MAY just have been how the Americans won the pacific! World War PHOTO CONTEST!!!

- And no, I have no idea what I was on about!

[Baff1 0]

Wrong. Seeing cover for cover is more advanced. This is what Arma II is doing. It has no quirky nodes that won't allow the friendly user-made tank that just drove up into the battle to be used as cover. If my guess is correct about how it's implemented, ArmA II will. Either way, the AI will look for cover and creep to get LOS on it's target.

A cover node is a method for designating cover to an AI that is looking for it.

It is a method for how an AI "sees cover for cover".

We all agree that we want it too.

While it is quirky, it is less quirky to have a covering position that is identified by a human than it is to have one that is calculated by a robot.

The whole point of having prescribed nodes is so that it isn't quirky.

So that AI's assume positions that look natural to the human eye. Positions, that if a human was in the same place he would chose (and has already chosen before, hence his placement of each node).

In our example of a game that uses cover nodes, I do not consider the positioning of the AI in BIA "quirky". Quite the opposite. They hide behind walls, windows and sandbags in strong tactical positions.

In our example of a game that uses LOS only, GRAW, it is very quirky indeed. More often than not leaving them standing out in the the open road.

I certainly think their is some weight to improving the accuracy of AI, but having seen how GRAW 2 fixed the issue using cover nodes, it is difficult to ignore that this is a viable, if not superior, method of improvement.

Tanks can be assigned cover nodes in their design, if you have played Planetside (or even ArmA) for example, each vehicle has assigned nodes for entry attached to the model. When the model moves, the nodes move with it.

A user created model would thus have to include cover nodes (as well as entry nodes) on their model when they modelled it for it to work nicely.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Baff1

[froggyluv 2130]

After watching the videos from Gamekult.com, I'm really puzzled and more than nervous about the state of the AI. By now, we should have at least seen glimpses of an enhanced AI but I've seen nothing that even hints of a deeper thinking robot that wants to live. I remember reading some time ago that hordes of enemy AI were used in previous versions to keep up the challenge to the player but that in the newest build, "a couple of enemy soldiers are very dangerous." Where exactly can this be seen?

So far, it looks like more of a turkey shoot and the enemy AI seem to be in some sort of daze...No sight of taking cover, leaning out, side strafing, fast reactions when both hearing nor being under fire...

It really pains me to say this, but I can no longer consider Arma2 as an automatic purchase the way things are looking now :(

[Scrub 0]

A cover node is a method for designating cover to an AI that is looking for it.

It is a method for how an AI "sees cover for cover".

We all agree that we want it too.

While it is quirky, it is less quirky to have a covering position that is identified by a human than it is to have one that is calculated by a robot.

The whole point of having prescribed nodes is so that it isn't quirky.

So that AI's assume positions that look natural to the human eye. Positions, that if a human was in the same place he would chose (and has already chosen before, hence his placement of each node).

In our example of a game that uses cover nodes, I do not consider the positioning of the AI in BIA "quirky". Quite the opposite. They hide behind walls, windows and sandbags in strong tactical positions.

In our example of a game that uses LOS only, GRAW, it is very quirky indeed. More often than not leaving them standing out in the the open road.

I certainly think their is some weight to improving the accuracy of AI, but having seen how GRAW 2 fixed the issue using cover nodes, it is difficult to ignore that this is a viable, if not superior, method of improvement.

Tanks can be assigned cover nodes in their design, if you have played Planetside (or even ArmA) for example, each vehicle has assigned nodes for entry attached to the model. When the model moves, the nodes move with it.

A user created model would thus have to include cover nodes (as well as entry nodes) on their model when they modelled it for it to work nicely.

We'll have to see, because I can't agree with your statement about it being more advanced. If what has been said by BIS is true about Arma II's AI, it's basically occlusion mapping, weighted by threat vectors and intent, just as a human does. Again we'll see. To me, Nodes just reek of expectant, predictable behavior that is prone to human placement error and complicates the objects properties unnecessarily. Arma II is not Arma I, or GRAW1/2, or anything else. From what I saw in 3/4 vids now is moments of pure cautious, aware behavior (the teammates, not the enemy), that I could see myself doing, were I in the same situation.

[Wolfish King 0]

Man this account is oldskool...

But anyway, I saw some peeps talkin' about 'cover nodes'... If I'm right I used those when I still was young and made my own missions for Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. And that was working great.

I just don't get it why they won't put it in ArmA2? Almost every game released in the past 2 years have a cover system the AI can use. I mean there must be a way to implant this with the microAI? Something simple like, if there is a house, the AI should be able to detect a wall and a corner, take cover, shoot, lean, enemy comes from behind? AI moves to another "cover node". Simple I guess.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Stop kidding yourself, there's nothing clever and versatile in a stupid AI. There are urban environments so the AI should be proficient in handling them. And incidentally urban areas are the most important objectives of wars. For some reason I recall most of OFP's campaign missions being about killing as many enemies as you can so that you can keep an objective or capture one.

I'm playing and modding OFP for enough time now that i don't think i'm "kidding myself". I meant that if you like CQB battle, just buy another game. I didn't mean that i don't want a better AI, but most of the time "kill everybody and youpee you won" missions/campaigns are uninteresting and boring, mainly due to mission makers lack of imagination. AI was never a trouble for me in OFP at least - ArmA is for me not a good game -, and with some little changes it can be very hard to beat. So hard to beat that mission goals can hardly be "wipe out every living enemies". But most of the time, good mission makers are very scarce. Very very rare. But the good campaign or missions i'm remembering were never based on extermination. Sorry if you didn't play them.

[Baff1 0]

We'll have to see, because I can't agree with your statement about it being more advanced. If what has been said by BIS is true about Arma II's AI, it's basically occlusion mapping, weighted by threat vectors and intent, just as a human does. Again we'll see. To me, Nodes just reek of expectant, predictable behavior that is prone to human placement error and complicates the objects properties unnecessarily. Arma II is not Arma I, or GRAW1/2, or anything else. From what I saw in 3/4 vids now is moments of pure cautious, aware behavior (the teammates, not the enemy), that I could see myself doing, were I in the same situation.

And what I saw was a row of ten people standing in a line down the middle of a street, with the central one in the middle of the street lying down prone wriggling around behind a 2 inch high fallen tree branch and the pother 9 all just standing around attracting attention next to him.... And the AI programmer proudly saying to the camera "see how the AI uses cover".

I don't see myself or my team mates ever doing that.

A human would never have placed a cover node behind a 2 inch high branch and he would never have placed the other 9 cover nodes in the centre of an open road.

He may however have placed them around the low walls or tree's or vehicles which where all to be found in great abundance within 10 feet of the same spot.

I'll stick with the human placement. It works.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Baff1

[Scrub 0]

Is this preview footage? So you're going to look at footage that has been stated 'it's not final', and ignore the several vids from GC'08 and.. wherever else they came from.. that showed the player, and enemy AI, getting down, getting to a wall or some such, and leaning out to return fire? Ok, your choice. I'm willing to see what comes in the box. It may very well be revolutionary, it may not. But I believe you're judging a child you've never met by the parent you do. Many times there's a surprise.

Cheers.. Oh and by the way, Arma II will not use nodes. Just FYI, so I guess we're arguing about a moot point.

@Sanctuary (below): True, I was just trying to say the outdoor navigation and cover seeking behavior would not use nodes. You'll probably agree they are different uses.. Hmm. I wonder if there is pathing in arma II? (For that matter, if there are any enterable buildings at all in Arma II?)

Edited May 13, 2009 by Scrub

[sanctuary 19]

It may not be called "node", but the concept exists since OFP for AI pathing inside of building :

http://ofp.gamepark.cz/_hosted/brsseb/tutorials/lesson8/lesson8_l.htm

Because since OFP and in ArmA there are objects that have built-in AI pathing and specific position pre-defined in the path lod.

Basically it is working the same as "nodes", built-in path and positions for the AI to navigate into.

[smeg head 10]

Putting cover nodes down will only mean that the AI will act stupid in some places instead of acting stupid in all places.

At least by 'being stupid everywhere' the AI is a bit more unpredictable

[MoS 0]

mmmh hey guys can you remember the one preview-vid where a group of soldiers infiltrated a barn and moved tactically and gave cover to each other?

Edit: found the vid -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1q5MZ0j-7I&feature=PlayList&p=654F7610F17E23A3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=17

I strongly suspect that there IS some kind of improvment in the area of searching cover (or placing special nodes).

I guess with the help of our talented scripters and modders, we could build ArmA´s AI on our own... what do you think? :o

[Scrub 0]

Here's another one... 2 years old mind you. http://n-joy.cz/video/n-joy/Ggxr7ID211nO3nYQ

[lecholas 2]

We have all seen those videos. It's nice if the AI can move tactically before a contact is made but what the really important thing is if the AI can act tactically after the contact is made. So far we haven't seen any evidence of that kind of behaviour. I really fear (I do hope I'm wrong), that we can end up having the AI who nicely moves threw the landscape (watching angles, covering each other) but totally loosing it's mind when they see an enemy (not being able to take cover effectively, sending single squad members on suicide-engage missions). I'd love to be wrong.

[dreday 1]

We have all seen those videos. It's nice if the AI can move tactically before a contact is made but what the really important thing is if the AI can act tactically after the contact is made. So far we haven't seen any evidence of that kind of behaviour. I really fear (I do hope I'm wrong), that we can end up having the AI who nicely moves threw the landscape (watching angles, covering each other) but totally loosing it's mind when they see an enemy (not being able to take cover effectively, sending single squad members on suicide-engage missions). I'd love to be wrong.

Well said! I am also disturbed by the lack of videos that would show any worthy improvement to the AI engagement tactics; while their is a plethora of videos that point to the contrary.

Peace,

DreDay

[Hyp3rdyn3 10]

At least by 'being stupid everywhere' the AI is a bit more unpredictable

Yeah, don't window-dress their stupidity, just give it to us raw.

[Heatseeker 0]

Improvements revealed so far are increased movement precision and the ability to shoot while leaning from cover, these two improvements combined should make things more interesting in the areas the a.i. failed the most (urban conditions).

One thing i would like to have would be improved squad tactics and coordinated movement/action but we will see how that turns out...

Things to consider here:

- Path nodes, waypoints and scripted behaviours.

Its important to allow the mission maker to control how he wants the a.i. to behave, where to go and what to do, otherwise all missions would be the same (repetitive), in other words flexibility, wich is also important for modifications that cover time periods where diferent tactics were used.

-A.i. stupidity?

Stupidity is a very strong term to use on a game that, for a pleasant change actually has a.i. programmed in it, the instructions might not be the most effective or even realistic but the a.i. itself is the best i have ever witnessed.

A.i. that comunicates and uses a chain of command, a.i. that is smart enough to run out of ammo, report this information to his superior who then gives him an instruction. This is an example of actual a.i.

A nicelly animated bot moving from cover node A to cover node B is an illusion of a.i.. ;).

[maddogx 13]

Improvements revealed so far are increased movement precision and the ability to shoot while leaning from cover, these two improvements combined should make things more interesting in the areas the a.i. failed the most (urban conditions).

It's not just the movement precision and leaning from cover, it's also the fact that they should now actively seek cover in the first place. Also, some early videos showed the AI moving tactically, covering different arcs aswell as each other. As long as those improvements are working properly, the AI should be infinitely more enjoyable. It'll also create a nicer foundation for future AI mods.

What really interests me at the moment are the hand signals. We know the AI will use them, but when and how? Will they, for example, drop radio chatter completely and switch to hand signals when in stealth mode? Or will they just use both all the time?

[ChaK_ 10]

I'm a little bit worried about hand signal.

If the team leader raise his first for a stop, and you're looking at the birds, you might hear a return to formation minute later.

[maddogx 13]

I'm a little bit worried about hand signal.

If the team leader raise his first for a stop, and you're looking at the birds, you might hear a return to formation minute later.

That's realism for you. If you allow yourself to be distracted by the local flora and fauna, you won't survive very long. It's best to pay attention to your squad leader. ;)