When should AI subordinates use the "bounding overwatch" movement

[Scrub 0]

After playing for some time and reading this thread with the poll question in mind, I've come to these opinions:

1- The AI should be self preserving enough that when a surprise contact is made they get to cover if near, or at least return fire. (pretty much done)

2- Any command from AI or Player leader supercedes the AI's self preservation only enough to follow the order. (If I tell them they are safe in a shitstorm of bullets, they are SAFE dammit! lol) If I just say 'move to a position' and don't override their combat stance, they will retain their self preservation and keep to cover. A clear condition resets their self preserving mode.

*Sounds like a subset of conditions is needed (one for the unit's desires, and one for the leaders orders). Or maybe a simple 'move fast' setting to get them to run even in Danger mode so they bound, return fire and run to cover.* I'm up, the see, me I'm down. While running.

3- The AI leader needs to be generally aware of troop strengths. What is present, what can be called, what is known opposing strength. This is to decide whether to attack, hold, or retreat.

That about covers my limited knowledge and hopes. :D

Edited December 14, 2009 by Scrub

[Helmut_AUT 0]

The problem with the choice of "when somebody is firing at us" for me is that on occasion you might want to get the hell out of dodge (break contact). If enemy bullets keep the AI to slow bounding overwatch they will never run away as fast as the human team leader.

[cm. 10]

The problem with the choice of "when somebody is firing at us" for me is that on occasion you might want to get the hell out of dodge (break contact). If enemy bullets keep the AI to slow bounding overwatch they will never run away as fast as the human team leader.

This.

When you are getting shot at and trying to gtfo of there ASAP there is no time to be bounding.

[rundll.exe 12]

Agreed, with the last 2 post, but then is the question: how to tell the AI?

My best solution would be: IF the AI is more then x meters away from its desired position (formation position), it should not engage or track new enemies but sprint back to its desired position. This way they would not take endlessly to get back as they do now.

[cm. 10]

maybe make a command "run fast" or something?

[jasonnoguchi 11]

The thing is that in RL military, bounding is used from COVER TO COVER, not run a few steps and then suddenly stop and get shot at. If bounding is modelled properly, it should work perfect with AI running from cover to cover quickly and covering each other and will also be useful under fire. What the AI is doing now isn't really bounding and definitely not totally useful when in "danger". As such, we don't need extra commands. we only need bounding to be made the way it is meant to be.

[Helmut_AUT 0]

Agreed, with the last 2 post, but then is the question: how to tell the AI?

My best solution would be: IF the AI is more then x meters away from its desired position (formation position), it should not engage or track new enemies but sprint back to its desired position. This way they would not take endlessly to get back as they do now.

Sounds good, but what happens when you send four guys off to a waypoint. What is then their "desired formation position"? Relative to each other maybe?

It may be counterintuitive (by name), but I think that AWARE or SAFE should totally remove any bounding movement. At least thats how I always used it in earlier versions, and that seemed to work - DANGER for combat or move to contact, AWARE and SAFE for moving around quickly.

[Bouben 3]

The thing is that in RL military, bounding is used from COVER TO COVER, not run a few steps and then suddenly stop and get shot at. If bounding is modelled properly, it should work perfect with AI running from cover to cover quickly and covering each other and will also be useful under fire. What the AI is doing now isn't really bounding and definitely not totally useful when in "danger". As such, we don't need extra commands. we only need bounding to be made the way it is meant to be.

+1 I agree

[Grizzle 0]

This should explain it:

That it does. ;) Didn't see that.

[rübe 127]

Please make sure, that at least assigned teams of one group (re-)act independent! While team red comes under heavy fire, team blue might need to keep a fast pace to help team red out. But if the danger-status of team red also set's team blue to danger, they won't arrive in time.

It would be even better, if there would be a check for each unit, maybe checking the distance to the danger-zone, and consider not switching to danger.

Sure, in a lot of missions, you aren't supposed to split up. But for gamemodes like warefare this is pretty important.

--

2nd: if a vehicles get's under fire and the cargo or even the crew has to bail out, make them run! It's sad to see a whole squad die, because they are jerking around the vehicle beeing under fire, doing the slow danger-dance instead of immediately heading for a safer spot and then they may go to danger-mode. (such a behaviour is needed for indirect fire too, as already mentioned, which are (hand-)grenades, artillery and the like)

[Bouben 3]

2nd: if a vehicles get's under fire and the cargo or even the crew has to bail out, make them run! It's sad to see a whole squad die, because they are jerking around the vehicle beeing under fire, doing the slow danger-dance instead of immediately heading for a safer spot and then they may go to danger-mode. (such a behaviour is needed for indirect fire too, as already mentioned, which are (hand-)grenades, artillery and the like)

Yes, this is totally must have behaviour. + 1

[froggyluv 2136]

--

2nd: if a vehicles get's under fire and the cargo or even the crew has to bail out, make them run! It's sad to see a whole squad die, because they are jerking around the vehicle beeing under fire, doing the slow danger-dance instead of immediately heading for a safer spot and then they may go to danger-mode. (such a behaviour is needed for indirect fire too, as already mentioned, which are (hand-)grenades, artillery and the like)

+1

There needs to be a general haul-a$$ element to the AI that overrides all else in some situations such as the aforementioned exploding vehicle; artillery; overwhelming armor/air and player's command.

[cm. 10]

Excellent suggestions, it would definitely be more realistic if they ran anywhere as soon as they got out of a vehicle that it critically damaged.

[stun 5]

Any chance of having a "use bounding overwatch" option added to the movement menu? It seems to me that it would be useful if it could explicitly be requested when advancing rather than automatically kicking in when under fire or when the danger order is given. I would rather that units kept low i.e jogging hunched over if I give the danger order and they know an enemy is nearby.

It would also be cool if there was a "sprint" movement order to get the AI to haul ass when crossing exposed ground.

Edited December 17, 2009 by stun

[sprayer_faust 0]

I voted "danger", because the leader doesn't always want their squad to move slow when "under fire". I agree with froggyluv here. There should be another option in the same submenu, where your team mates would try to follow you as close and quick as possible no matter how fast you run.

I've had frustrating moments in the campaign, because the AI team didn't follow me as fast as I wanted them and we got pinned down - when this happens your whole tactic is ruined, the game turns to babysitting and annoyance kicks in while you save/load every 20 seconds because you do not want to restart the whole mission.

[nomdeplume 0]

Agree that fast movement is often needed. Maybe it could be added as an engagement option (combat mode)? The current "hold fire" isn't quite strong enough for stealth missions (your guys like to stop holding fire, seemingly at random), but also is a bit too strong for patrolling under (you probably want them to take shots if they're sure of getting a kill).

So maybe three options could work:

• Open fire - works as present, units shoot at anyone they see
  
• Restrain fire - units report contacts, engage if they have a really good shot, but otherwise try to stick with the leader
  
• Hold fire - units never fire unless they're actually under fire
  

The middle option could then also serve for when you want your team to get out of a bad situation without trying to engage the enemy. They'll still shoot if they happen to get a good clear target, but they won't hang around trying to get it. It would also be useful while on patrols and such: if you spot enemies at some distance and nobody has a good shot, they'll just call it in and you can decide what to do. But if you stumble on them and are already in a good firing position, your guys can start shooting right away.

Having an in-between mode like this also means that you can make the "hold fire" stronger, as the player can then decide how much risk they want their guys to take.

Alternatively: the "open fire" mode (yellow) could be changed to make the AI less interested in pointing their gun at their target, thus creating a greater distinction between it and "open fire, engage at will" mode (red), but this might have negative ramifications for a lot of gameplay.

[jasonnoguchi 11]

What's with all the "crouch walking" under danger thing??? That's not what real military do, at least not what I did with my 8 years in SF. You only crouch walk or stealth walk or what we call ghost walk under stealth. When under danger, you run like lightning and shout like thunder, thats the way we were trained. So, please keep the "crouch walking" thing to stealth and let soldiers behave properly under danger. Its stupid to see soldiers crouch walk under fire! In fact, I don't use the DANGER command anymore and just stick to stay alert where they still run after the leader! That stupid crouch walk thing was what made me always put my squad mate somewhere safe and do all the missions alone in ArmA1! PLEASE for God sake GET RID OF CROUCH WALK or keep it to stealth mode. Crouch walk is STUPID and is not what real soldiers do in the field!

[4 IN 1 0]

I personally thinks it is better to have different moving command for different pace, for example, move/move fast/sneak, move fast means dont do overwatch and get from point A to point B ASAP, move means squad move at normal speed and will sometime do overwatch and will say "Go! I will cover", and sneak means squad will always do overwatch but remain silent. Combat mode should have any of these move command pre-set but should also

be able to overrid when ordered to

[stun 5]

@jasonnoguchi

I wasn't referring to walking around in a crouch while aiming. I meant the anim new to A2that lets you jog while hunched over to lower your profile. My fault I have edited my post accordingly. If bullets were flying about and I was moving - unless I was in a dead sprint - I sure wouldn't want to be standing as tall as possible.

Edited December 17, 2009 by stun

[jasonnoguchi 11]

@stun, oh the low running. Yes, that one is very realistic. :) That's what we mean by keeping your head low under fire, yes, the AI don't use it much, they should be running that way more under fire but when to sprint or low run is really subjective. I am personally against having crouch walk in danger mode. It should belong only in the stealth mode and only when there is no enemies at sight. When enemies are in sight, stealth = prone. No other options.

[stun 5]

Yeah, I am surprised that the AI never seems to use the crouching run. I would love to see BI get the AI automatically doing this when moving under fire. The only exception would be if the squad leader starts sprinting - they should do likewise. This is why I would like it if bounding overwatch could be a separate command. basically units should follow what the leader is doing unless explicitly ordered. i.e. sprint if the leader is sprinting, keep low if not sprinting etc....

@jasonnoguchi

How was bounding overwatch used when you were in SF. I assume that whoever was commanding the unit would let them know that they were to advance in this fashion rather than just legging it?

Edited December 17, 2009 by stun

[jasonnoguchi 11]

@stun, in the SF, our team leader almost never have to tell us to do anything. Everything's in the drills. We usually go into bounding overwatch when contact is imminent. When assaulting in built up areas or when approaching our target area. In fact, our team leader don't even have to tell us to do it, its really a mood thing. We get into that mood when we know danger is imminent and from the way our team leader starts getting into more cover, behaving more cautiously and talking lesser. That's why we train together all the time as a team so that all of these coordination becomes automatic.

I guess this could translate into "Danger" in the game as the team leader seems to shout out "Get Ready For Contact" when that order is given. Yes, we would go into bounding overwatch when contact is imminent, so that would fit in nicely. Apart from that, the fact remains that bounding overwatch in ArmA2 is BROKEN. We bound from cover to cover, not stop halfway between covers for nothing.

Those who voted for "Take Cover", I really don't understand why. When ordered to "Take Cover", units really find a safe place and dig in. This is usually preparation for a defensive, dug in, fighting where you don't expect to move around much or at all.

When units come under surprise fire, all behavior should default automatically to DANGER and then let the bounding overwatch in the DANGER mode take over. So, the conclusion is, this bounding overwatch, if FIXED (COVER to COVER, no CROUCH WALK!), should just belong in the DANGER mode.

Edited December 18, 2009 by jasonnoguchi

[bhaz 0]

Voted for danger & when under fire.

If I order "find cover", I don't want them spending 30+ seconds moving to it, I want them there asap, and with bounding behavior this just won't happen. I guess switching to bounding after they found cover wouldn't be a bad thing, but taking their time moving to it is just gonna get them mowed down.

Also, you could take a completely different look at it, danger in my opinion just means if you're not moving, stay in cover or concealment. Bounding overwatch should be something toggled by the squad leader, usable with any behavior excluding 'safe'.

Edited December 18, 2009 by bhaz

[jasonnoguchi 11]

I think the difficulty in making very generalised combat behavior also lies in the fact that the combat drills used by a normal infantry soldier fighting in a platoon or squad is very different from what is used by a specops. However, in the game, every kind of soldier shares the same behavior. so, yes, in future versions, BIS may want to make every aspect of the game even more detailed; detailed movement orders and maybe even different ones for different soldier type, detailed weapons customisaton and clothing customization.

[rübe 127]

... different ones [behaviour] for different soldier types ...

Totally! Though I wonder what the best approach to get "there" is.

special expert books (AI)

A first idea would be different "expert books" or rules for different soldier classes/types. But I think this would still be too simple. I think some basic and completely different "expert books" would be nice, mostly depending on the capabilities of the weapons at hand (rifleman vs. sniper -> completely other movement and attack behaviour is needed; special AT/AA behaviours, ...)

So this is more a hidden and automatically assigned behaviour, thus non-scriptable, because the given weapons define the behaviour (parts of it).

Speaking of special expert books, of course, Dslyecxi's guide comes to my mind. Though to pull this trick, the AI probably needs a more elaborated and extensive means of awareness (which is probably one of the core problems poor BIS-devs have to deal with).

elaborated rpg system

I guess a lot could be done with this simple approach alone. What's still missing is personality or reflection of the given class. Eg. Speznaz are better trained than a simple soldier. To fill this gap, more RPG-elements are needed, with default and slightly randomized values for each classes.

Thus "skill" has to be replaced with a lot more different traits/characteristics (which need to be set/get-able of course). I think this could induce a lot of depth into the game at low cost.

Imagine we had the following traits instead of skill only:

• driving skills
  
• aviation skills
  
• shooting skills pistols and guns
  
• shooting skills sniper rifles
  
• shooting skills rockets
  

Nothing too fancy yet, but think about it: you couldn't just assign anyone to pilot your helicopter anymore, thus any pilot would gain real importance instead of being only another model. No aviation skills at all would lead to you not beeing able to fly anything at all. And if you don't care - e.g. for a mp mission - you could still give all the players all the skills.

Of course, nobody wants to see AI driving even poorer than now, so the effects of this should be carefully considered.

Beeing able to get and set skills makes things probably interessting for types like domination. SP missions too could profit from this, by modeling the learning process/training of the player (think at campaigns! Think at the resistance campaign with the awesome soldier-pool-function! Now loose your best tank-gunner, the best sniper or pilot again :eek:).

Of course, most of this is for AI. Though I could imagine some effects of skills/traits on the player too! Speznaz player should be able to run slightly faster, non-sniper-classes have way more weapons-sway than those with sniper-skills, etc... This would be way better system to prevent circumventing a class-system, for it wouldn't simply remove weapons from you which you're not allowed to have...

I guess I should make a point here. Maybe this even deserves it's own topic. Anyway, as a homework for all of you guys: think about it and come up with your own skills/traits you wanna see and what their effects would be. The first who's about to return his thoughs may open a new thread for it in the suggestions forum :D