Close Quarter Combat is impossible in Arma2

[skooma 10]

I can't have a group of AI on a roof, since everyone but the leader will just run off the roof attempting to get into formation.

On the second mission of the SEAL campaign I walked into the tent with the satellite phone. I look to my left after shooting one guy to see a guy leveling an RPK right to my head. I lol'd at that one.

[An Fiach 10]

Just a guess but I bet a lot of people calling the AI lame don't realize it was toned down because of whining when the game was first released.

[11aTony 0]

Yeah, that was quite brutal sometimes.

[Hachiman 10]

I can't have a group of AI on a roof, since everyone but the leader will just run off the roof attempting to get into formation.

I don't use the 'group' function when playing on urban maps, it really limits the effectiveness of the AI.

I much prefer to place the enemy AI in mutually supporting positions and use a combination of triggers, waypoints and scripts.

Scripting and triggers is the key, you can script the enemy AI to continually move from house to house, room to room so you never know exactly where and when they will strike. This makes the enemy AI very unpredictabe and challenging, one minute everything can appear calm and quiet, then all of a sudden the place can erupt in violence as enemy snipers, machine gunners and RPG gunners are firing at you through windows, from doorways and from rooftops, which can in turn trigger an enemy counter-attack from multiple directions.

[maturin 12]

I DONT CARE IF AI IS SCRIPTED OR NOT.

YES YOU DO.

Unless you're okay with a 5 hour campaign and a smattering of small-scale user missions.

[Bouben 3]

YES YOU DO.

Unless you're okay with a 5 hour campaign and a smattering of small-scale user missions.

No, scripts can be used in a way which not limit variability and replayability of a gameplay. You don't have to script everything. You could script just critical things like taking cover behind obstacles, when something particular is happening and actual AI is too slow and dumb to manage it on itself.

We are not talking about scripts of Call of Duty. Scripts can be used and at the same time randomness conserved.

So don't overstrain please.

---------- Post added at 11:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 AM ----------

Just a guess but I bet a lot of people calling the AI lame don't realize it was toned down because of whining when the game was first released.

That is not true at all. AI was overpowered, because of their inhuman feeling and skills. For example: AI was able to pinpoint your sniper position, when you was well hidden and far enough to confuse anyone you start shooting at in real life.

So actually AI hasn't been toned down in stuffs they are dumb now. They can shoot very well, they are fast enough in aiming and pinpointing, but they still CAN'T move very well and they are almost useless on open field with few haulms.

So AI has been actually improved, but it has still lot of critical errors.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Bouben

[Defunkt 431]

No, scripts can be used in a way which not limit variability and replayability of a gameplay. You don't have to script everything. You could script just critical things like taking cover behind obstacles, when something particular is happening and actual AI is too slow and dumb to manage it on itself.

We are not talking about scripts of Call of Duty. Scripts can be used and at the same time randomness conserved.

So don't overstrain please.

You are confused, 'scripts' as used in this context detail predefined behaviours based on narrow and predictable events. Code (it may be in script form) that allows an entity to determine for itself what it should do in any given setting and respond to any event represents 'AI'. You're asking for the latter and calling it the former.

[Hachiman 10]

You are confused, 'scripts' as used in this context detail predefined behaviours based on narrow and predictable events. Code (it may be in script form) that allows an entity to determine for itself what it should do in any given setting and respond to any event represents 'AI'. You're asking for the latter and calling it the former.

Now I'm confused. :confused:

At Armaholic they call them scripts.

Anyway regardless of whether it's called script or code I'm sure we can all agree that we need it in order to enable the AI to acheive it's full potential.

[Bouben 3]

Now I'm confused. :confused:

At Armaholic they call them scripts.

Anyway regardless of whether it's called script or code I'm sure we can all agree that we need it in order to enable the AI to acheive it's full potential.

That's the point. Whatever it is, everyone understand I think.

[AliMag 0]

Hi,

This is a false debate IMHO.

The so called "AI" is nothing more than decision branching related to a set of conditions with a pinch of randomness. It can certainly also be achieved with scripting.

The term "scripted" as become pejorative because in certain corridor shooters scripts are used to force the AI to always have the same behaviour so making it to predictable.

I think what Bouben is saying is that in some situations this randomness factor should simply be removed. For example, an AI standing in the middle of the street without anti-tank weapons and seeing a T90 coming should not have any randomness in his behaviour. He should simply run for cover as fast as he can. And this, every time. No need to go prone in the middle of the street or stand or crouch (again in the middle of the street) or switch weapon or any other silly behaviour until he is killed.

Randomness is nice...but not always :)

Cheers

[Defunkt 431]

It might appear random at times but I don't believe there is any coin-tossing in the present decision making. What you describe (if (nearest.enemies[x] == T90) run;) is going to yield more negative side effects than the situation it solves. What if the soldier in questtion has a Javelin, or the soldier standing next to him, or a friendly gunship is operating in the area above him or he is backed-up by a whole platoon of Abrams. And so it goes, you cannot solve something so complex with such simplistic rules. To act independently the AI have to weigh up many factors or their behaviour will prove 10x as odd and inflexible as it does now or you will end up with something so computationally heavy you can only afford a handful in operation at once.

[froggyluv 2135]

It might appear random at times but I don't believe there is any coin-tossing in the present decision making. What you describe (if (nearest.enemies[x] == T90) run;) is going to yield more negative side effects than the situation it solves. What if the soldier in questtion has a Javelin, or the soldier standing next to him, or a friendly gunship is operating in the area above him or he is backed-up by a whole platoon of Abrams. And so it goes, you cannot solve something so complex with such simplistic rules. To act independently the AI have to weigh up many factors or their behaviour will prove 10x as odd and inflexible as it does now or you will end up with something so computationally heavy you can only afford a handful in operation at once.

This might very well be true, but sometimes simple is just better. I've been doing alot of Tank vs. Infantry messing around, and most often what gets the Infantry killed is too much movement. Meaning, with a tank inbound on infantry position, often the Infantry will move to some sort of cover -but then keep moving extraneously, and thats what gets them killed.

Plus the fact that only about 1/2 of the AT guys readied their much needed weapon and often when they do, even with a clear shot, they hesitate to fire... I'm thinking too many commands perhaps is rendering the bot ineffective? Don't know for sure. Infantry vs. Infantry combat has been much improved and I'm really hoping that Tank vs. Infantry takes next precedent.

[Defunkt 431]

Well then that requires 'tank' to have its threat rating elevated, but you can't solve it with an always run 'script' as suggested above.

[froggyluv 2135]

I'm not sure that raising the tank's threat level is enough either.

In my scenario, I have 1 Abrams approaching a village at limited speed to give Opfor ample time to get set and react. Representing Opfor I have 1 full Infantry squad just to the right of the road and 1 AT squad just to the left, thats 6 AT guys in total while I watch as civilian + Troopmon.

Opfor hears the tank well before the Abrams see's them and most of them start to take cover to side of the roads behind fences and what not and there are orders of "target that tank" and "attack that tank". The leader of the Infantry squad always plants himself squarely down in the middle of the street with his gun trained on the Abrams. Generally 1-2 AT's actually get fired and guys that initially had good cover are now doing standup/run/crouch/repeat until they jiggy themselves right out of cover and into fire. Most of the AT squad are laying prone with rifles out just to the side of a house where they enjoy minimal coverage.

I've run this about 8-9 times and Tank has always won with maximum damage of about 0.4.

Imo, with no other threats involved, good cover should top priority and it should be gotten to quickly. Leaving that cover should be a critical decision and not done lightly as thats usually when the AI were getting mowed down. Lastly, the AT guys gotta fire when they have a clear shot and not even think about going for their rifles.

[Defunkt 431]

Personally I never play with or against AI, not my thing, doesn't matter how good they are, they're still dumb. But I'm not sure what you're proposing should be done, if you want 'scripted' action then you have that option, just apply your own scripts to this scenario, this will always yield a better result because it is tailored to the situation. Not saying the default behaviours cannot be improved, there is always room for improvement and there are mods that seek to do that I'm just addressing the above call for 'Scripted' AI', it's an oxymoron.

[Bouben 3]

AliMag: thank you, that's exactly what I meant.

---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 PM ----------

I'm not sure that raising the tank's threat level is enough either.

In my scenario, I have 1 Abrams approaching a village at limited speed to give Opfor ample time to get set and react. Representing Opfor I have 1 full Infantry squad just to the right of the road and 1 AT squad just to the left, thats 6 AT guys in total while I watch as civilian + Troopmon.

Opfor hears the tank well before the Abrams see's them and most of them start to take cover to side of the roads behind fences and what not and there are orders of "target that tank" and "attack that tank". The leader of the Infantry squad always plants himself squarely down in the middle of the street with his gun trained on the Abrams. Generally 1-2 AT's actually get fired and guys that initially had good cover are now doing standup/run/crouch/repeat until they jiggy themselves right out of cover and into fire. Most of the AT squad are laying prone with rifles out just to the side of a house where they enjoy minimal coverage.

I've run this about 8-9 times and Tank has always won with maximum damage of about 0.4.

Imo, with no other threats involved, good cover should top priority and it should be gotten to quickly. Leaving that cover should be a critical decision and not done lightly as thats usually when the AI were getting mowed down. Lastly, the AT guys gotta fire when they have a clear shot and not even think about going for their rifles.

+1:thumbs-up:

[Hachiman 10]

I script most of my enemy AI AT infantry to take cover inside random houses and buildings, they wait for tanks to approach to within firing range then pop-up and engage the tanks from windows and rooftops. This makes the game much more realistic in my opinion as it forces the human player to use a combined force of infantry and tanks to clear urban areas.

[An Fiach 10]

Abrams is a bit overpowered I think, watch them get pummeled by rockets and T-90s and decimate the opfor afterward. Doesn't always happen that way but 9x out of 10. Could just be perspective though as I seem to die quite readily in them.

---------- Post added at 10:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 PM ----------

No, scripts can be used in a way which not limit variability and replayability of a gameplay. You don't have to script everything. You could script just critical things like taking cover behind obstacles, when something particular is happening and actual AI is too slow and dumb to manage it on itself.

We are not talking about scripts of Call of Duty. Scripts can be used and at the same time randomness conserved.

So don't overstrain please.

---------- Post added at 11:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 AM ----------

That is not true at all. AI was overpowered, because of their inhuman feeling and skills. For example: AI was able to pinpoint your sniper position, when you was well hidden and far enough to confuse anyone you start shooting at in real life.

So actually AI hasn't been toned down in stuffs they are dumb now. They can shoot very well, they are fast enough in aiming and pinpointing, but they still CAN'T move very well and they are almost useless on open field with few haulms.

So AI has been actually improved, but it has still lot of critical errors.

It wasn't overpowered at all. There were a few bugs regarding certain situations but honestly, it was much better to start, it felt like a challenge even if you already knew their positions from the start.

[Bouben 3]

It wasn't overpowered at all. There were a few bugs regarding certain situations but honestly, it was much better to start, it felt like a challenge even if you already knew their positions from the start.

Well, if you don't mind allseeing and allhearing enemy, than config your values to former one and enjoy inability to use stealth.

[maturin 12]

You could script just critical things like taking cover behind obstacles, when something particular is happening and actual AI is too slow and dumb to manage it on itself.

Aren't they already scripted to do that? If you want them to hide behind a particular tree, you can script them to do that the same way they did the cutscenes.

[McArcher 0]

For me this problem is caused by "lazy" mouse movements - I move my mouse and only in some time it moves the cursor to the target... Maybe my game is lagging (~30fps) or someting else, but all the OFP-series games had such problem with mouse speed :(

[TimRiceSE 10]

yeah.

try changing the mouse smoothing options and the settings for renderframesahead in the config.

[McArcher 0]

and of course, you cannot do MANY thing is Arma2 which you can do in real life.....

for example tak your gun and raise it from your position or put it to the corner of building, leaving your body and head standing aside.....

---------- Post added at 07:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 PM ----------

yeah.

try changing the mouse smoothing options and the settings for renderframesahead in the config.

thanx, I'll try.

what numbers are better to use? which do you use?

[TimRiceSE 10]

hm, for mouse smoothing its, i guess, around 20% on the slider, from the left.

aand

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1; seems to work nice for me.

the problem is when its rendering say.. 4 frames ahead, when youre getting.. i dont know, 20 fps. so basically youll get a 0.2 second lag which is very noticeable. numbers pulled out of somewhere for an example.

edit: If you go too low on the mouse smoothing it can, as i guess you might expect, make it jerky and unsmooth, so just find the sweet spot for you.

Edited November 29, 2009 by TimRiceSE

[Bouben 3]

Aren't they already scripted to do that? If you want them to hide behind a particular tree, you can script them to do that the same way they did the cutscenes.

Well, I am here to play this game, not to make AI do what they are supposed to do.