A hooray for the AI

[[frl]myke 14]

Well, you might think the thread title is BS. Fair enough. I don't want to state the ArmA 2 AI as perfect or flawless and it surely needs still a lot of attemption by the developers.

But still, the ArmA 2 AI is far better than some might think.

Let us first see what aspects the AI has to fulfill.

• Navigate free in unknown terrain
  
• Have situational awareness
  
• Make decision based on the actual situation
  
• Use advanced tactics which suits the situation
  
• Ability to handle different weapon systems and vehicles
  

First point: navigate in unknown terrain.

You may say, Chernarus and Utes shouldn't be necessarly unkown terrain. So far so right. But still wrong. ArmA 2 is a pretty open architecture which allows creating and importing your own terrain. For the game developers and therefor for the AI this is unknown terrain but the AI must be able to handle it.

In a lot of other games, the AI already know the terrain, mostly done by pre-setting AI path to the terrain itself. Only very few games allow importing own terrain data so this case can be left out when developing AI.

Try it yourself: plan a path from Berezino (NE) to Kamenka (SW) without using the coast route.

Resulting out of this huge area and the limitless freedom to move raises a sheer endless amount of possible wrong decisions. You note them as bugs and for sure those has to be eliminated. But still, for a AI this is a impressing capability to find it's way.

Next point: situational awareness.

Something pretty simple for us. We look around and we see immediately where we a re and what happens. For a AI this is much harder. They don't have eyes and ears like we do. The AI routine has to gather infos out of the running game code and weigh the importance of each bit on info. There the accuracy of code often interferes with what realistically would be possible. Data gathered are accurate and have to be unsharpened by special routines. Sometimes this works too perfect, another times not. Depending on the situation we state the AI is cheating or acting dumb.

Balancing on the razors edge this is, getting a routine that works accurate enough for not being dumb but inaccurate to some point to be believable.

This leads to point 3: making decisions based on the situation.

As you and i often make decisions based on our intuition, AI doesn't have intuition. AI has bits and bytes and a huge amount of digital data. Making a decision out of this bunch is a huge mathematical process with a lots of variables and unknowns. If we would have to make the same sort of decisions based on the same variables and unknowns without using our intuition, already a simple decision like "taking left or right road" would probably take hours.

Point 4: Using advanced tactics.

Based on the above, you get an idea what it takes to lead a group of AI through a battle. The situation is changing every second and therefor the tactics has to be adapted. This may lead to problems that in one second the AI decides to run left, in the next second to run right and one second later runnin left......you see where this leads. Sure, we shouldn't just accept this behaviour and ask for fix but keep in mind what the AI already is capable to handle.

Last point: using different weapons and vehicles.

Here all comes together. Pathfinding, situational awareness, tactical decisions and so on. Sometimes the AI makes wrong decisions. Also here we feel the lack of intuition. Data has to be sorted and weighted and based on that, decisions has to be made. Do i switch to RPG or do i keep the AK? Sometimes the taken decisions are obviously wrong. Also a result of code which should the AI make more human. Not that this was intentional, just these codes leading to wrong decision.

Final word: some forget that every little action has to be programmed. Let me give you an example. Let's assume we sit face to face and i tell you "the next hour i'll just do what you say, not more and not less". You'll probably start to smile, awaiting an upcoming hour full of fun for you, already planning what stupid things you'll let me do.

But instead, after a very few minutes i'll probably fall down, dead. Why? Because you'll probably forgot to tell me to breath in....and breath out....and breath in........you get the point. :D

So again, i'm not saying that the AI is perfect. Some points definately need improvements, no doubt. But still, i think the AI already is amazing, measured on what she has to deliver.

[[GLT] Legislator 59]

Hmmm difficult topic, clan buddy ;) From my own mission creations I know what the AI is capable of (good and bad things). We've faced many dangerous situations. Do you remember when a squad of us infiltrated an enemy city area? We crouched all the time, did not fire any shot (it was at night) and yet those hundreds of AI units didn't spot us.

But let's face the other side as well. If you want the AI to do certain things you'll have to code it. For example: Standard AI doesn't lay mines and satchel charges on the street. Well that would be one of the most awesome features. Think about AI that lays mines in the calculated pathways of tanks driven by players!

Ah that's the next point .. calculations. Basicly everything needs to be calculated by the CPU for the AI. So having a fast CPU should make react better in theory, especially on the dedicated server. But what is "fast"? Fast for the player? Fast for the AI?

I'd like to have an AI that is as good/bad as a player is in aiming, pathfinding, reaction time, etc. Most people don't know that some those values at least can be altered a little bit by setting a different AI skill value.

However the many AI addons out there show that improvements is needed and wanted.

Try to destroy a tank 500 m from an infantry group. Those guys will most likely stand there and think "Huh? What was that?" "Nothing, just a seagul flying in the wind."

What really impresses me is the air-ground attack ability of AI planes. Suddenly out of nowhere you can be attacked by the planes and they're a real threat for the player. That's good! However the AI airplane "tactics" never would fit into the real world.

[Tonci87 163]

@Myke Really good Statement.

[dm 9]

@Myke Really good Statement.

10 chars of +2

[instagoat 133]

Good post there. I´ve just finished another test series where a Squad has to go up against a static machinegun.

To my surprise I found that the AI notices the killzone after taking some casualties, and that there is a way to get behind the MG using cover. There were a few problems, like friendly fire, or the AI getting stuck, but generally they did a really good job at getting the task done.

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/700/arma2mgtest1setup.jpg <- this was the setup. The AI noticed the killzone in EVERY test, and in EVERY test they tried to get behind it. I did ten tests, and in two cases there were friendly fire incidents (with three losses in total). However, in five out of the ten cases the AI got stuck in the pathway leading to the rear of the MG, which I think has to do with the confinement of the area, which was the only massive problem I came across in the test. The AI also never used grenades, which surprised me.

Short version: Rly gud job BIS, keep it up! You people rock.

[mosh 0]

the ArmA 2 AI is far better than some might think

agreed... and good post

[walker 0]

Hi all

The AI in ArmA still regularly hands our asses to us at Zeus; to add to the near Mythical Forest of Death in the old OFP mission on Nogova, we now have a new bet noire, the Wall of Death where whole squads have disappeared into the meat grinder.

ArmA AI kicks ass.

Kind Regards walker

[lwlooz 0]

Hello,

I would agree that Arma2 AI certainly has got the best pathfinding there is.

I would also agree that it has way better pathfinding than OFP/Arma

On situational awareness I would have to say that I am still not all to impressed.

But I grant you that they do react.

What I don't get is "Advanced adaptive tactics". I would love to see a test mission that reproduces that behaviour since in all my tests the AI has absolute no tactical understanding nor much options and certainly is much more scripted than adaptive.

But I suppose viewpoints can differ. For me the AI currently simulates a bunch of CTF players on a public server that are nice enough to work together in the same trained routines.

Unfortunately they speak a different language than the player does , making leading AI a pointless exercise at this point.

So I suppose the AI is fairly good from an FPS-perspective , but I believe it has massive flaws in the squad-tactical and the human-interface department which in my view reduce its effectivness quite a bit in one situation and in human-led-squads render the game pretty much worthless of the title "Tactical Warfare Sim".

P.S: Don't base your propaganda on Zeus walker. As much as I love your advertising BIS , you well know that Zeus does not and has not had a proper AI-based A&D since OFP. Shooting static targets is hardly something to boast about.

[TRexian 0]

Watching vids of human MP sessions, I must say that many of the AI decisions are no more irrational than many human decisions. :D

I think the AI are capable of believable squad-based tactics. They may feel somewhat artificial... since they are... but they do not spoil the immersion.

All IMHO.

[icebreakr 3100]

Not sure about you guys and your teams, but we usually get into a firefight and sometimes we fight for 15-20 minutes holding ground before we are able to fool AI with tactics and advance without further losses :) AI often doesn't forgive and there are couple of times when you are really shocked what they are able to pull off ;)

One example: we paradropped near enemy town in cover of darkness, enemy BMP patrolling along with numerous troops. One of our guys got separated in the drop and landed 150m away, in woods with only a wide clearing between him and us in cover. He just tried sprinting across when Mi-24 Hind appeared over the clearing, quickly landed, dropped 6-7(?) soldiers and took of to provide CAS for their team on ground. Firefight broke out in order to save our guy and our position soon got a visit by AI troops and two BMPs. With our CAS and reinforcement minutes away... we lost majority of the team. AI FTW :o :)

[froggyluv 2130]

Yes they are far better than some people think/claim, and I agree with OP on most points. Imagine InstaGoat's scenario in OFP/ARMA, that would indeed be a bloody chicken coop.

If the AI could do a better job of keeping their LOS (gunbarrel) oriented toward the primary threat, I think they would appear far more competent. Whether it be by more side strafing movement, or returning towards imminent threat direction immediately after movement, they would at least have the possibility of always getting off a shot rather than lying down perpendicular to the major threat.

But overall considering scale and all other ginormous variables, they are quite good.

[Heatseeker 0]

The a.i. itself is very good but the instructions are not ideal.. and make it seem worse than it actually is.

A.i. lacks team cohesion and tactics, the engagement routine is the same old flashpoint.

Targets detected, squad leader goes prone and starts sending squad members after the targets, each tries to find a position to shoot the target he is assigned to on his own.. and they end up running all over the place.

I'd like to see half the squad supressing or holding while the other half flanks, using team tactics.. something a bit more believable atleast.

[-=Firewall=- 10]

You are right! The tactics need to be improved.

Some intersquad tatics would be nice. Ok, I know that its a lot to calculate for the CPU but now every squad is doing the job on its own.

It'S a big problem with the commander sending his troops one by one to attack an enemy. For example they leave the cover of the periphery of the town and move to the open field.

If you send a AT soldier to destroy a tank, he moves miles before he shoots despite he is in a good position. But then its often too late.

[[GLT] Legislator 59]

Well at least the scripting commands are already there for years. In theory BIS should be able to use them to improve the AI. I see only one problem and that's hardware related limitation for the AI calculation, especially when running around with hundreds of units all over a open terrain. I bet it's possible some day. Once the AI is in combat it's really great. Since patch 1.05 I got killed very often by handgrenades.

[SaOk 112]

AI is very great but group behaviour would need urgent tweaking. With 1.05 and vanilla game the AI group members are ultra slow if you suddently need to withdraw from ongoing battle. Also they want to stand sometimes in middle of the flying bullets (even with prone command) and medic is too slow to heal anyone in combat.

Group should always follow close to you in aware behaviour, medic should run straightway the shortest way to injured men (even with combat behaviour, under fire and enemy tank next to him) if ordered and in combat AI members should only stand when they move to given position or when they leaving much behind the leader.

Balanced gameplay is the key for everything.

Edit: There could also be a shortcuts e.g. to order medic into autonomic mode (on/off style) where he could automatically go and heal when somebody is injured in his group without separate orders. Also AT soldiers could be set to antitank mode where they would use only AT weapon and against vehicles. And for engineers player could draw an area on ground where they would put all the mines/satchels they have.

Edited March 29, 2010 by SaOk

[Sith 0]

The a.i. itself is very good but the instructions are not ideal.. and make it seem worse than it actually is.

A.i. lacks team cohesion and tactics, the engagement routine is the same old flashpoint.

This is not true. ArmA2's AI squads are using an actual "buddy system" during combat movement. One unit moves, while his buddy provides cover. It's quite a big step up from OFP, where Engage orders would indeed be executed by single units. And as shown on the previous page, they also take kill zones into consideration a whole lot more. Have a good look at a squad's movement patterns when they make contact. A good giveaway is the "Go, I'll cover!" messages you're probably quite familiar with :p

[instagoat 133]

This is not true. ArmA2's AI squads are using an actual "buddy system" during combat movement. One unit moves, while his buddy provides cover. It's quite a big step up from OFP, where Engage orders would indeed be executed by single units. And as shown on the previous page, they also take kill zones into consideration a whole lot more. Have a good look at a squad's movement patterns when they make contact. A good giveaway is the "Go, I'll cover!" messages you're probably quite familiar with :p

It works well most of the time, and it´s really cool to observe. The only problem I personally have with it is that I have zero clue who my buddy is, so I always stick with a random squadmate.

That´s possibly also the case where the endless "go, I´ll cover" occurs: your buddy (somewhere on the other side of town) wants you to move up with him, but instead you´re stuck with a guy of a different squad, causing your teammember to go into an endless loop.

What´d be a really cool is some sort of cue to who your buddy is in Arrowhead... uh... actually, I think I´m going to carry this to the suggestions thread.

[W0lle 1042]

This is not true. ArmA2's AI squads are using an actual "buddy system" during combat movement. One unit moves, while his buddy provides cover. It's quite a big step up from OFP, where Engage orders would indeed be executed by single units. And as shown on the previous page, they also take kill zones into consideration a whole lot more. Have a good look at a squad's movement patterns when they make contact. A good giveaway is the "Go, I'll cover!" messages you're probably quite familiar with :p

I'm pretty sure you mean that:

One of the few things really driving me crazy. :cool:

[galzohar 31]

Yes, the buddy system and overall bounding overwatch is definitely not working properly. Right now it doesn't do a lot more than slow them down to a crawl as soon as they hit combat mode regardless of whether they are facing a rabbit or a company, and their actual bounds are executed very ineffectively. Combat mode is one of the main things that need a lot of work, if anything to at least make the AI be able to move faster while doing it.

One of the biggest things that bother me with the AI, though, is their inability to tell the difference between positions that give them LOS to their enemies to positions that don't and to positions that give them partial LOS (aka cover). They have no problem running in the open on one hand, but on the other hand they could sit around wondering why the can't shoot that guy on the other side of that hill/wall and won't try to move to a position from which they *can* shoot him.

But yes, I agree with the OP that the adaptability of the AI without any pre-defined paths is quite impressive.

[Bulldogs 10]

I actually like the bounding overwatch the AI uses. It slows the movement right down but keeps them alive a lot longer. The only problem I have with it is that sometimes when you've cleared all enemies and you know that the enemies are clear so you tell your AI to enter safe mode, they still stay in danger mode and you have to wait hours for them to move.

Although it doesn't really happen much with an AI squad leader.

[galzohar 31]

I wish it would help keep them alive, but currently it's more making them sitting ducks and spend a lot of time standing up and going prone and very little time actually shooting. Often they'll just go prone either completely in the open or behind somethign that prevents them from shooting altogether (and then dare to say "Go, I'm covering" (yeah, right)).

[[GLT] Legislator 59]

Oh guys ... I really really tried to create a good AI fight video using no mods at all. I failed :( After two hours of nonstop testing and recording, I ended up with a comedy clip.

i60kZV0VVMc

My only guess is that fraps used most of the cpu power so the AI was meant to fail. I've never experienced anything like that in sp or mp mode before.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Heh, looks like they're bitchslapping their M16s.

[AnimalMother92 10]

Oh man that was a funny video :p

[[GLT] Legislator 59]

I'll have a new test this week. Next time in Chernarus on wide terrain and no pre-settings for the waypoint. AI had a skill of 1, waypoint attributes were "ceasefire, fire on their own", "limited speed", "behaviour safe", "formation staggered column" having a move-waypoing and a search-and-destroy-waypoint afterwards.

I've seen amazing AI fights, even in close quarter combat, but I was never able to capture it in ArmA II properly. It's like bigfoot ... you chase him all the day and once you found him the battery of the camera is empty :p