Second

Well they do favor to move in streets, and not to move inside building if not ordered. That is the problem with them as they don't use buildings flexible as player can. Still their ability to navigate and move inside buildings is way better than in OFP, and use of ladders was something that shocked me too. [aboutladders] I remeber that from some ladders player has to "drop" off when going down, game just didn't allow me to get off from ladders before... Maybe this applies to AI too? [/aboutladders]

Well i can see that people are putting lots of trust to invisible targets... Which is good. I have bit pessimistic feeling about those targets. They feel somewhat un-natural, so i rarely even try to use them in anything... Time to check my attitudes? Seems so

I'm fine with ArmA's towns... Indoors are something that player can use flexible and AI can't + urban warfare in general is bit over-used in nowdays...

Well problem with invisble targets is that the supporting team gives away it's position and enemy doesn't react to suppressive fire. They may lay down, but then they start to shoot supporters who consentrates to invisble targets and not to enemies which are killing them. Assaulting team might start to engage invisible targets and not enemies... Attack goes little bit out-of-the-plan, so to speak

It is simply amazing... and fresh. AI seems work better almost in every aspect. North Sahrani is beautiful, just did some recon (sightseeign) along mountains. Forrests are truly nice (this is always most important aspect in maps to me... Being forrest-folk my self). I like everything in ArmA, even demanding flightmodel (have you ever tried choppersimulator named Hind? Boy that was hard)... hmm. I must be in love Mounth or couple away i was whining about ArmA (but only a bit ), but after getting used to demo... Had to have it. Love

Most of the buildings don't have indoors... So don't expect too much housefighting. Parais(s)o (in the demo-version too) is biggest town i think, North Sahrani's capital seems smaller and not as town-like.

Press F2 and then by command-menu give him the target... I order targets that way as it's easier. But i haven't spotted that kind of problem and i'm not sure that it has any effect to issue your asking... Maybe you gunner skill-level is too low (he can't spot the target so easily as better skilled gunner would), or is there something blocking the line-of-sight like a tree maybe? Are you using hellfire-missile or cannon and not rockets?

There is some strangeness with ArmA: With move-waypoint to forexample fortress 2, units moves in fortress 2 and if in aware-combatmode he stands and empties his magazine to enemies and then lies down... And won't stand up (until he determes that it's safe again) seems that reload-thing has some flaw... Should they lie down then reload and possibly stand-up. As now they reload and lie down. This seems to include buildings too... However: I've found out one intresting thing in ArmA... Use of Talk-waypoint. If editor places (attaches) talk-waypoint to fortress (or soldier which starts in fortress) man moves there and behaves as he should, some times crounching or lying down then standing up again (in combat-combatmode they stay more in cover than in aware-combatmode). With 2-or-more-store buildings use of talk-waypoint is more complicated (seems that Talk-waypoint doesn't have specific z-coordination... maybe that makes them to stand up. But i not expert with talk-waypoint, just discodered that one thing). To be sure that they behave as they should, i put to their init-field a command to setpos (this setpos ((nearestbuilding this) buildingpos 4) to certain position, then i give that guy a move waypoint with same buildingpos ([this,1] setwppos ((nearestbuilding this) buildingpos 4). Then i make talk-waypoint with same command ([this,2] setwppos ((nearestbuilding this) buildingpos 4). do the trick and should be enough sure to work. I don't know why guys lay down and stay down sometimes with this talk-waypoint still... Is there a "in-build timer" with talk-waypoint or something (like suppression) forces them to lay down. That trick works in start of the mission but at some point (which i don't know) "fortified" soldiers starts to lie down and do not rise up to stand. I have this situation where 2 squads are in they fortresses (2 man for every "fortress 2"-object. And every men individual so they aren't in groups) and 3rd squad behind them in forts too (in same way). If i breach the first line and clear (some or all) forts, then 3rd squad seems to go lying down. Attacker has three squads too (so defender isn't outnumbered). Casualities for both sides are heavy at this point and there are lot's of support for both: defender has hummer's with TOWs, both has howitzers and attacker has tanks + automaticgrenadelaunchers in hummers and strykers which all stay back from that fortified line. So is there some kind of general suppression value for both sides which forces in this case the defender to stay low? I can't figure out anything else as defender's supporting arms (howitzers and hummers) are depleted complitely and half or more of it's men are dead. Hope it didn't get too complicated and i managed to use understandable english

Okay... Here it comes! ArmA's campaign was better! I'm not too fond in stories and personalities... i want WAR! And ArmA's campaign gives that + story in ArmA's campaign had very nice twist btw... Primary missions usually consentrates on massive battles. And Secondary missions were arcadish (yet guite fun) volunteer-based so there is no pressure to complete them with blood-taste in mouth (that thing totaly ruins even best story...) CWC-campaign had nice atmosphere, even that it is best campaign (i counted all user-made campaigns too) for OFP, but it still pales to brutal and imerssive virtual war in ArmA... Half of CWC campaign's mission were something that i don't like "black-op" (aka James Bond), piloting, tanker... Blaaah. ArmA's chopper mission (Great battle) was nice for it didn't force me to stay in the chopper, and the massive battle on ground just kept me flying all-over for spectating happenings. There was serious bugs, but i take them lightly, even those which prevent me from completing mission as there is that endmission trick. So i seem to be those "few-and-proud" (please don't take this as flaming, take it more like a sarcastic/ironic note)

Damn! I didn't think that i would be this childish... Just downloaded german version and played couple of hours and i'm thrilled (usually hate the word). ArmA feels good, even better than demo as it didn't have editor... And some things that made OFP feel edgy, playing feels smooth now. collosion detection is very-very good + moving is much more smoother now = I feel much more stabile and present in game. Now i finaly understand why people say that they haven't played OFP. ps. Plase don't crush me with whining i'm just exited... Thrilled more like

From first moment i played OFP, i knew that it won't perform well in urban area: It's for open areas. If i want good urban area warfare experience, there are plenty of games focusing on that. CQB is big fault in OFP/ArmA's AI, but still there isn't better game (that i know of) that shows what the warfare is in wilderness and i dare to say that AI is designed to handle wilderness and i don't see big flaws in that: Maps can be too "open": no rocks, no ditches, nothing but couple of lonely trees + mission design for AI many times sucks + lack of suppression + bad quality of fortifications (for lacks in game's engine). But AI behaves good, still not as good as experienced human, who is probably replaying mission like tenth time as he/she couldn't finish the mission (as AI kept killing him) earlier

There seems to be possibility to play SP missions/templates in demo now, but no mission/templates in patch itself. Is there missions to download for demo? I noticed too that demo runs better now... But i'm not 100 % sure that it's for patch as i've been tweaking my 3D settings.

To me those all are only mark of bad mission designing. Taking cover works, with engage-at-will+"_x disableai {target}" foreach units this or thislist (with trigger). Now AI has different order of doing things. NOTE: This is OFP-thingie as i don't have ArmA but it feels logical that it works in ArmA too. 1. Take cover (bit shady: some times taking very good cover and sometimes not. AI seems to value more of solid ground and cover it provies than objects) and target and shoot enemy if it's spotted. 2. Don't engage (aka. don't make suicide attempt to close in enemy) Now we have different style of gameplay, battles lasts longer, even hours! But i've noticed it get boring to keep eye on bushes and forrest where you saw enemy units just 30 minutes ago, as they might be still there (If that is mission gesigners choice). AI in ArmA/OFP is very much about mission designer. Does AI send tank to take care of that lousy sniper or maybe soft him up with mortars/airstrike. Or just stupidly charge against that sniper. EDIT: I was overjoyed to read from scriptingcommands that we now have an enableai (this covers almost totaly the lack of suppression that i've been whining about)

Sounds that in urban area AI uses almost same redused LOS-range than OFP did with it's woods (aprox. 50 meter is default spottingrange in there). Is this for reducing processorconsuming in urban area fights? I don't see anyother reasons for it... And it's bit stupid! Now i understand few things about demo, and why i finaly managed to finish it's coop (it wasn't because of my superiour skills, but for bad AI's spottingability)

I noticed the same. Collosion detection is too good . No more running and dashing thru fences or other not-so-tall/strudy-obstacles. Bit shame really as it "simulated" jumpping/climbing over obstacles.

I'll try to steer this topic from off to on... Hnuuuugh! BLANG! There it is! One thing how keep your mates alive is to keep them so that you can see them and what they are doing and you have better idea of what they should do next. Keep it simple. If part of your squad is flanking enemy, you should be part of the flanking team. Order remaining part of squad to stay where they are (give them positions and watching directions), that way they don't atleast run to trouble without you knowing about it... Trouble has to run to them + plus you are aware of what kind is terrain they are fighting in as you been there earlier. Knowledege is power!

Quite a trip you had there, salutes. You played it Three hours! My little kid and (nagging ) wife don't give me even a hour and a half for coop... Yes i know i'm poor sucker, who's time is limited to SP only (because of pause possibilty)

"Engage at will" and "Take cover" are two different commands. Ordering them to do one isn't the same as the other AI leader gives to it's group members a "take cover"-command as danger has presented itself (in engage-at-will) (how long do you think this can go on before lock? )

That doesn't give them the take cover command. No it doesn't... But engage-at-will gives. That line just makes sure that they keep hiding and shooting when opportunity rises and not to performing suicide engagings. Wrong again. You order them to take cover with the "take cover" command. Well to be exact: I don't order them anything, but AI squad leader does (by engage-at-will).

That is the case (in OFP atleast) if take cover is assinged to multiple men: the point man takes cover and rest of the guys just keeps the formation. If it's assigned to invidual men like: "2 take cover", "3 take cover", "4 take cover", "5 take cover" then they search hiding place for themselves (as every one are point men to themselves) much more effectively, but it's guite slow to command them... I don't use it myself, but with AI squad leader it's good feature (me thinks).

That doesn't give them the take cover command. No it doesn't... But engage-at-will gives. That line just makes sure that they keep hiding and shooting when opportunity rises and not to performing suicide engagings.

In OFP AI responded to it quite well (they took cover behind trees and bushes etc...). AI leader gives them this command individualy (in engage-at-will mode) like: "2 take cover", to multple men it didn't work as good. Not sure about ArmA, but i haven't seen same reactions to it as in OFP. Little shame really, as best skrmishes i had in OFP was against AI which was ordered to take cover in woods with "_x disableai {target}" foreach units this -line

To me it seems that take cover-command is useless in ArmA (demo). To me command view is best, just order "move to..." each men individualy to it's position, like bushes, trees etc... Or how take cover-command works best. Should it be given to multiple men like this: "3,4,5 take cover" or individualy like "2 take cover", "3 take cover", "4 take cover"? I've used it individualy, and there doesn't seem to be anykind of effect. They just go prone, but stay where they are. And same thing seems to be when ordering it to multiple men. Or do they react to take cover-command only when dangerous thing has presented itself, so they don't look for cover if there isn't anykind of dangerous thing that they know of? Stealth seems to have very strong effect to behaviour of AI in ArmA. I've seen that they don't like to use AT weapons if in stealth mode and vehicle is in aprox. 100 meters away.

I dont know where you have your info on Soviet tactical doctrine, but it was never designated a sub machine gun. You're thinking of what the Chinese designated the AK47, they called it a submachine gun. Furthermore, its designed to be a robust and easily maintained mass produced weapon. I dont know where you get the idea of large volume of fire, they have the PKM and the RPK for that. Large volume of fire at time when AK47 was new weapon, meaned that it had automatic-fire and high bulletcount in magazine + fast reloading possibility. At that time other countries used bolt-action or semi-auto rifles and SMGs, so AK was indeed only of it's kind: rate-of-fire like SMG and accuracte shootingrange much better but not so good as with rifle. Pretty much as Col. Faulker said. Original AKs suffered from poor bulletquality, and barrelquality. But AKs are produced by many countries and factories and there are very good models and very bad models.

I think that it the same as in OFP. You can hide pretty well, but when you fire your weapon enemy might notice you and... well you know the rest. As each weapon in OFP (and most likely in ArmA too) has it's own audio- and visiblevalues when weapon is fired. AI in ArmA (as in OFP) can't see thru bush, but if it's aware of you (you fire round, or someone it's groupmate spots you) then it can "see" you thru bush... I don't know is there somekind value for bushes and trees which determes how strong "image" (enough rounds fired, AT-launcher fired etc...) of target AI has to have before it can shoot thru object. This rating should be increased in ArmA as bushes in ArmA are thick and there is no way player or AI could see thru them.