Second

I'll probably do it in bit other way. Examine the game first in editor, then become disappointed, have loads of beer and beat my wife. At late night i pass out into river/ditch and drown. That is bad versions or it. Good version is that i examine game, i actually like it. I ignore beer and wife. Eventually i will die because of undernourishment. That is more bright version of it. Ps. With heavy loads of fiction/dark humor/irony/sarcasm involved. Really!

Ah shite! :butbut: Well point me to right one dear fellow. I shall wield my sword and ever gallantly gallop against it to smite it to ground! Or not... That depends of things.

Sure... From days of OFP AI has been able to take cover. So not very great great progression there. Leaning has been showed, over year ago. On one video. There are tons of videos released after that, but no leaning in any of them.

Well to think that ArmA2 AI seemed to act like ArmA AI... What for example i am expecting is to AI to reach 2007 or 2008 year's level of "AI in combat" Problems? 1. AIs rushed forward even when player killed couple of it's mates few seconds earlier. They had wall which they could have used as cover, they had tree which they could have used as cover. But what did they? They rushed forward in ArmA-style. Another kind of reactions have been part of computer games for years. 2. On later part of video, AIs (two of them) just stood still on the open when there was several objects offering cover such as walls and buildings. Player wiped out both them one-by-one. What was AI's reaction in both cases. Another kinds of reactions also have been part of computer games for years. Sure those things could be put on chaos of combat-situation and not on worthlessness of AI. But overall this is quite common in ArmA2 trailers which presents infantry combat of ArmA2: AI doesnt' seem to have anything truly new. They are bunch of headless chicken still, so to speak. So... Until proven that AI is really better i will not believe it. And each time i see AI reacts/acts like AI in ArmA, instead of new and shiny Arma2, i grow more weary and uncertain. Should BIS do something about it? Release enlighting trailer of AI capabilities? Have Suma or someone smashing the whining with few facts? Overall seems that 30-50% of "whining" comes from AI. Or something...

To cause some emotional waves in the people: Well COD4 wouldn't be bad option as training tool. It pretty immersive, it's controls are easy to learn and it does present some things enough realistically to have training-value. For example MOH: airborne wasn't as good as controlling soldier demanded some "getting used to"-time, if we have 10 hours oe less of time to spent on squad's virtual training soldiers should be familiar with controls after first hour or half. Once asked form one guy form Finnish Defense Forces official which disposal is to keep eye on possible training tools said that COD4 would be considerable option if it would support things which for example VBS supports. Instructor-mode so to speak: easy to use mission editor, possibility to records every ones actions to be monitored later and so forth (i think he also said that recovery system should be removed too, but am not too certain). With those criterias fulfilled it could be considerable option if they, FDF, would consider "virtual grunt"-training programs to be needed, which they don't seem to do.

Really! my impression from GR1 was that it's AI wasn't too good if not too bad either. Naturally i wasn't biggest fan of series (i in fact liked GRAW pretty much! ... You may kill me now), but played GR1's original campaign thru once. Only once or twice i faced suppressive fire from enemy (which was pretty wicked experience!). Mostly i was killed by super-fast and super-accurate snap shots and bursts, AI was much worse than ArmA at maximum skill settings! Like in original Rainbow Six, which i didn't like too much either. But i take your word, my time with GR1 was pretty short... Only wishing that i wouldn't have sold my GR collection :(

Because it worked just as it works in reality. Badly. In ArmA Clock directions changed many times even within seconds, there might have been over 45 degree change in 12 o'clock of squad. Besides limited FOV didn't make things better (where the **** is my leader and what the **** is his azimut?). Yeah. We have clock system as one way to give directions of something. Usually we used left, forward-left, forward etc directions. Or then showed direction by hand or rifle. Advantages: More exact (hand and barrel), easier and faster to understand (forward-left and also etc) as no-one probably don't have a glue about 12 o'clock's direction in any case. In defensive positions clock system might work well (pre-made fireposition cards which defines 12 o'clock) but then again things in there were sorted by naming terrain features. If there was time and needed to report exact location we used compass bearings in mils. EDIT. Yeah in Australia things might be done differently, and you might learn to use it well. But i hardly ever seen or used myself clock bearing as other methods usually suits better in situation. They are faster/clearer and/or more precise. Thing about militaries: Altought they are mostly idiots they still might be many ways to do things. Like direction reports. USMC probably uses clock method, as probably all other militaries in world, as ONE WAY of doing things.

Such saddening video from AI's part. Has ArmA-title sank to geing just MP-game, which offers brainless bots for single players? Seems like it.

My old crappy computer with old crappy resolution of 1280 and i was able to spot prone soldiers from 200-300 meters distance in very short time. I had to scan 45-60 degree wide area infront of me to find them. There was three targets prone at said distances placed randomly and i could usually spot them in less than minute, if they were unlucky enough and didn't get placed behind bush or rock. Not totally realistic/complete test, but i was awed by fact how easy it was. Only few small rocks did cause problems as they looked bit like prone soldiers. Those ranges, that time without any kind optical aid (i did use maximum iron sight zoom) sounds pretty wicked. Alerting satellite textures to more spotty ones did add more time to spotting, but we discuss about minutes of time as they were not able to actually hide from me even in that case. So eventually they all were discovered. I wasn't happy, and in the end i stated to think that something should be done to soldier's camouflage, as just making terrain to have more variation isn't necessarily enough. Haven't tried with my new computer and new resolution. Alteast with OFP i've ended up thinking that better resolution after certain point starts to make spotting harder, as troops can be broken into more pixels (=more colors), which then again mixes them better into terrain. Don't know is it true, that is just feeling i'm having.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Battlegroups There are quite a lot of choices. Dunno which BattleGroup (and of what nations it would compose of) it would be in standby readiness during ArmA2. EDIT: This would, by my understandment, fit quite well with ArmA2's background story as they, BattleGroups, are pretty similar to US MEU: batallion in steroids with wide array of armament and support. Yeah. but like said it's too late model any BG into game and yet modeling EUBG's takes alot of time because wide array of uniforms, firearms, vehicles, languages and such. It isn't very cost-effective.

It probably is very kick-ass when i have to cross field filled with dud bomblets now working as mines, of course i'm in the side which chosed to use MRLS strike in the first place. So hopefully high dud rate is modelled also. ArmA2's land mass isn't desert, but forested region where dud rate is prone to rise pretty high... Naturally i don't expect BIS to model this thing, which limits uses of MRLS quite much, as any cluster munitions be it field artillery or airstrikes. I just have hard to time to think of uses for MRLS in ArmA2 scale. Only uses i can find for it are guided munition ment to take out high priority targets for SF missions. Or warfare/Evolution kind MP-missions.

I believe i've tried one for those CEX missions... However i wasn't very impressed (sadly). I who have commanded company-corps level units in other games [Me so Strong, Me Tarzan, Me hits My Chest now]. Anyways it doesn't much count in my point of view, as i didn't say that Arma wouldn't be complex as it is if we open editor and start to look at things... It's just ArmA ain't complex in it's main playing field, which is that shooter part. Me, my mouse, iron sights on monitor forming (un-)holy alliance while trying to take out virtual enemies. ... So ArmA is shooter, i look enemy thru my ironsights/optics and try to kill that bugger or tell my guys do do that. In this i find out that corridor shooter's provide more complex situations&solutions in sense of me trying to take out my opponents or reaching my objectives.

Every waypoint is script it self this in ArmA as in any other corridor shooter. AI in Vietcong has just few types of waypoint. They do what they do by that, engage enemy, pull back, advance, take cover, it's all there behind there waypoint types coded into game. Main characters' (pointman's) waypoint are more advanced (and well made) but player can ignore those and tell team to follow him across other route while his men will follow him and fight "creatively". I know guard-waypoint. It's about ArmA's openness, which doesn't belong to corridor shooters as they have little use of it (limited area, limited amount of units). However in your example we have squads moving in unpredictable manner (or not, depends of case), while in Vietcong (for example) we have individuals moving/acting in unpredictable manner (or not, depends of case). When i'm the one watching thru iron sights or optics and taking shots at enemy i like more of the later. Even more: Fights are not chaos in the way things usually turns out to be in guard waypoint, guard waypoint is usable just in limited cases. As with guard waypoint they don't follow coherent plan, reason why more plan focused scripting (=waypoints) is very much needed always. So in the end we see just as scripted (=waypointed) action as in any corridor shooter. Move you squad from here to there and then there. Always, replay after replay. This is the reality of ArmA as it is reality of most shooters.

As every reaction is scripted in ArmA, it isn't much different from corridor shooters. You, Walker, can't run away from it. Have you looked at mission editor of Vietcong, Farcry, Crysis? I bet you haven't. You overestimate need of script AI in corridor shooters, sure something like COD4 relies heavily on it because it was designed to work that way, but not nearly all. It isn't much else than in ArmA. In corridor shooters they just manage their actions better as individuals with same amount of scripting (waypoints) as in ArmA. So what Vietcong for example lacks in open endness it gains in immersiveness and tactical problems in firefights. Firefights which happens in thinner or wider corridors but offer yet wide selection of actions which player can do. AI offers much better opponent compared to ArmA, and there is rich microterrain which offers options to try to overcome AI (unlike in ArmA). I overall think you, Walker, indeed are prisoner of your mind. Your prison is Real Virtuality Engine.

I agree.

Hopefully Kozlice's pellets works better than in OFP. It worked just like rifle with multiple shots fired in rapid phase and recoil lifter every bullet (=pellet) bit higher. very small dispression made it so that pellets (=bullets) formed steadily rising impact points to several hundreds of meters away. Overall quite useless but still fun. Overall i welcome idea of ArmA2 to have bunch of less militaristic firearms in game. Rifles, shotguns, mixes of those two, revolvers, pistols etc (what ever is available for civilian buyers in there). As we will have civilians it would be nice to have fighting/hunting equipment for them too.

M24 already has mils. I don't remember how many mils one dot marks, maybe one, maybe ten. But true, it's odd that there has not been mils in binocs... Not that i've missed it much, i don't much like to snipe with principles of one-shot-one-kill. Anyways hardly any weapon has right or even workable sights and many has so flat trajectory that range estimations are not very vital, so basically it's pointless. From what i remember: Overall i've sometimes used typical ways to find distance to target out. Matchbox, finger's tip, multiple fingers (first being most accurate, last two being not so). Ironsights at maximum zoom gave just right scale compared to reality, then matchbox to arms distance from eye (almost touching monitor) and voila! ... Or that is how i recall it.

I just don't get it that how things turned into this. What happened? Did old MP-community just fade to other games or to private servers... Did it degenerate or advance to "higher" step of MP-gaming? As far as i can see this is common trend in MP-gaming overall. People like to play regular maps to which they have got used to. Why is this? Because they want to perform well, because they want to play it safe (=eat pizza always with onion, kebab and pepperoni) or because they have nice memories of them? I don't understand the reasons, but i sure would like to know answer. Ps. Am i only one who is in impåression that at start Arma served quite selection of various missions in MP, but soon at least public servers started to run just same few missions.

I'm not very sure how dynamic AI would make it easier to do mission, in the sense i understand dynamic AI. If we take Group Link, some suppression system or SLX as example (from which Group Link and SLX offer pretty dynamic system in my mind)... There is lots of things which i would not like AI to be able to perform in my mission as they don't fit into my idea of how battle should be fought. I want AI to be able to perform basics well in combat. So that i would NOT Â need to spent hours in tweaking their combat actions (in most cases i even can't do that), like use of fortifications and cover they offer or how to advance under fire . In other words I want individual fighting skills of AI to be as good as it gets, not necessarily good but "good", like in COD4 but with some tweaks... And i want a pony, but that is whole another issue. Scripting (semi)dynamic counterattack for group is easy task. telling them to preserve themselves and present interesting&believable opponents for player as individuals is not.

In fact latest Combat Mission (shock Force) got rid of strategic AI just because human as scenario desginer can handle things better and it's very hard to code AI able to handle tactical scale (company and above) things on modern battlefield on it's own... So just tactical AI remains in CMSF. The one which handles individual units, from squads, teams to vehicles. Map designer defines actual plan of battle.

In fact it's not hearing so much as it is engine feature, which makes AI able to pinpoint aggressors location from distances over 500 meters. If someone gets killed from group killer gets somehow highlighted to rest of group. Good example of this is that i can fire belts and magazines from long distances at AI without hitting them (or firing very close to them) and they don't react to it and don't know my location... But when i fire just one round which kills or wounds one of them, AI becomes well aware of me. This is limitation/flaw in ArmA as it was in OFP... Stealthy stationary sniper style won't work after first hit has been scored. AI will land on him like ton of bricks. That if sniper is alone. If sniper has like squad supporting him this is pretty good tactic to take out AI's which have holed to some place which is hard to take over. Shoot them from distance and cover all directions by few own guys. Then enemy AI just sends his men to "slaughter house"... If enemy AI is able to send his men to engage that sniper (defined by mission editor). Will be interesting to see how enemy mortars will be able alert uses of this tactic

You might wish to crawl all the way from camp to sniping spot. You never know where counter-snipers are How AI sees/hears snipers? Hard to say when ArmA2 haven't been even released. In ArmA they were pretty good at pinpointing sniper's area and if sniper remained in his position he might receive 5.56/5.45mm welcoming present to his neck/face/ear. That might have been fixed in ArmA2, i guess i've heard something about it.

guys watch the USMC video again, the night scene, two of main heroes walking in the woods. If I'm correct, you hear vegetation noise in there. Well that would be indeed good news. +1 (or +10) for immersion factor. Ofcourse it is interesting to see how AI copes with this.

Actually, the AI can react even if they are not in the same group and without LOS. My testing indicates it to be somehow related to what direction AI currently look at so I recommend you to experiment with the AI looking at different directions as well and not just turned strait away from you. Again I refer to the above mentioned thread/test mission for a complete description of the issue. /KC Yeah. There are less concealing type of bushes and stuff, that is why there is fix for that. My point was that bushes do provide concealment, not that do they offer enough. They do spot killed guys outside their LOS under certain conditions? That sounds interesting.

Agreed!