Jump to content

nkenny

Member
  • Content count

    974
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

90 Excellent

7 Followers

About nkenny

  • Rank
    First Sergeant

core_pfieldgroups_3

  • Interests
    I live here, Really.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Oslo, Norway
  1. Road Runner is ENDEX

    Safe journeys, you'll have a safe port with us if you find winds blowing Arma ways again. Thanks for your contributions and energy! -k
  2. @oukej Will the CROWS turrents on the MRAPs also see some accuracy tweaks? They've always struck me as too accurate. Sometimes to the detriment of good gameplay. -k
  3. I just want to add I that I completely agree with @x3kj's remarks. I wouldn't mind a simplistic implementation. The tactical and strategic ramifications of off-road vs on road and wheeled vs tracked vehicles is just too interesting to ignore. Besides, what is the purpose of IEDs or planned ambushes if on road travel is pointless? -k
  4. That is clever. Will check it out. Would however like to have a resources free way of configuring pylons. -k
  5. I like the new pylon dialogue, but dislike the limitations. Especially for carrier based missions the need for a rearm truck is cumbersome. Is there any way to use the [vehicle ace_player,true] call ace_pylons_fnc_showDialog function to bypass the requirements and limitations? I keep getting the same error: "stopped at pylon 1" -k
  6. I have experienced the same thing with the apex CTARS (CSAT 5.8 100rnd Automatic RIfle). Running a shopping list of mods however. -k
  7. Vehicle Interiors - Feedback

    Short feedback: Now having tested it, I must say that the new vehicle interiors added much more to the simulation than I expected. The immersive qualities are very good, and I hope it is adjusted according to the pragmatic feedback offered by this thread. Well done BIS. The current design seems to balance performance, expected workload of the designers, and reasonably well thought out interiors. Also: It is about time modern IFVs got sensors on par with civilian vehicles in the Arma3 setting. -k edit: I will also add, because it cannot be repeated enough, please provide alternate non-faction skins to all vanilla vehicles. It GREATLY expands the type of scenarios which can be put together.
  8. A simple ACE3 friendly mod which permits AI to target infantry, helicopters, and softskinned vehicles with the vanilla RPG-7 would be wonderful.
  9. OD, black, or otherwise neutral variants of all vanilla vehicular BIS assets would have gone A LONG WAY. With source files available it couldn't possibly be more than a couple of days work. This is something I would happily pay for. edit: The reason should be obvious. Non-faction limited skins for vehicles would greatly (and cheaply) expand the type of missions that can be created.
  10. AI Discussion (dev branch)

    @Strike_nor I will first give an outline of what it seems you are suggesting then some critique. It seems that what you are describing is actually a learning heuristic combined with a dynamic response mechanism on two levels. I. Recon A SIDE will develop information regarding combat strength (in your nomenclature: weight) by interacting with enemy forces. The side maps out an enemy frontline in relation to its own. Frontline is by this a measured in three categories: (1) location and (2) size/expanse of danger area and (3) abstract combat strength contained within danger area. II. Tactics In turn the AI will tailor low level response to information about dangerous, or potentially dangerous (as measured by abstract combat strength) along lines of (1) behaviour and (2) facing. (1) Combat behaviour. Stance and use of cover; more dangerous zones demanding greater attention to use of cover. (2) Combat facing. Group facing determined not by current waypoint, but by distance and combat strength of nearby combat foci. III. Strategy High level response would be handled by units linked to an administrative HQ (be it a module or actual unit or abstract SIDE) with the ability to consider a number of variables: - Enemy combat strength - Own combat strength - Ability to project combat strength - Sides rules of engagement High level response could include considerations of reconnaissance, resupply, reinforcement, and conservation of assets-- however I believe that this will vary greatly from mission to mission as to require a human level intelligence or else strict human defined limits to be effective. IV. Criticism First I will consider practical implementation a to b, then consider the internal tactical and strategic benefits of such a system c to e. Practical implementation a. If this system is applied on a general level it will break with many existing missions. High level command AI, such as enabled by the mod/script VCOM, does exactly that. Indeed the configuration, made by mission maker, necessary to establish sensible areas of operation may preclude it from being a time saving, drop-in mechanism. In your own example this is evident. A unit set to a GUARD waypoint is a very different in tasking from one set to HOLD. The reason why the AI is set to this waypoint may will also differ! A single solution will not give answer to the myriad of scenarios possible in Arma3. b. High level AI responses is not a quick fix. While the AI of Arma3 could do with a rough shaking, decrepitating the entire existing waypoint structure seems a project better suited for Arma4. At this level of development, Arma3 is in in need of fixes and enhancements, rather than rewrites. Internal tactical and strategic value c. It seems like you are describing a new game mode-- focusing on information gathering and weighing options rather than immediate AI response and actualisation of offensive and actions. This is interesting, but harder to make into a generic one-size-fits-all package. If unfamiliar with mission making and mods I recommend checking: HETMAN and VCOM. d. Introducing an expensive super structure to handle low level tactical choices is interesting. But what does it actually change? Already the AI will respond (in a directional) sense to known enemy forces. Units set to GUARD waypoints will move to support (in accordance to a combat strength evaluation) to enemy presence. The biggest benefit seems to alter behaviour of AI patrols moving into enemy frontlines or to units patrolling within a zone which suddenly is marked as enemy dominated frontline. Certainly limmersive, but how expensive is this compared to the minor benefits gained? e. The theory of modern military strategy has moved away from envisioning frontlines. Modern military forces are unable to muster the manpower necessary to populate them, and in any case revealing ones presence is to invite destruction by artillery or bomb. Even so handling the vast range of variables that must be considered by a high level commander are beyond what a AI could be expected to manage. If map specified Areas of Operations, or limited support weapons and QRF forces are linked to an AI module then this ties neatly to c. It sounds like a new game mode, rather than a unitary one-size-fits-all solution to our AI woes. V. Concluding While the idea is nice it seems that you are describing something different to basic enhancements to player-AI interaction in Arma3. A high level AI commander capable of smart development of information and responding to said high-level information is suitable for some, but not all scenarios played in Arma3. Therefore it makes more sense to focus the lower tactical level of execution of common infantry tasks. TL;DR: Sounds like a fun game mode, but beyond the scope of improvements to AI decision making and basic player to AI interaction. -k
  11. AI Discussion (dev branch)

    I feel that the main problem is the incongruities between selected AI ROE/orders and expected behaviour. While an annoyance as a mission maker, this fatally undermines any attempt to squad lead or command, by high command or ZEUS, multiple teams of AI soldiers. It seems that small tweaks could be made for great effect. 1.0 More aggressive AI: 1.1 I wish the AI engaged more aggressively, but perhaps less accurately with certain weapon systems. Compare the way players will deploy weapons (sometimes indiscriminately) to how the AI will. Especially low grade AT weapons like RPG-7 should see the AI cheerfully fire at any target of opportunity. 1.1.1 Low flying helicopters and infantry specifically. Think Black Hawk Down like scenarios. 1.2 Vehicle crews targeting garrisoned buildings. 2.0 Stealthier AI: 2.1 The current Stealth ROE is anything but. The AI may whisper, but the mode of movement is by rushing leapfrog. A sensible mode of movement would be limited to walking pace and going prone on spotting a relevant threat. 2.2 Stealth ROE has few or no ways of limiting fire to AI equipped with suppressors. A simple way to set this up would be great. 2.3 Sympathetic ambush AI: If one member of a team is spotted and opens fire, it would be a sensible change to have the entire squad respond. 3.0 Cover/Suppressing AI: 3.1 The new suppressive fire mode is good. The lack of ability to easily define covering arcs not so much. A way to easily define covering arcs from both editor and mid-mission would be a wonderful change. 3.2 On similar note: Halting or going firm, setting up an allround 360 defense would be helpful. 4.0 Lack of visual and audible feedback of suppression states 4.1 Perhaps the most grievous is the lack of feedback to help determine a player that the enemy is suppressed (or in a cowering mode). This undermines any attempt at fire and manoeuvring. 4.2 Crew abandoning burning vehicles also tend towards being laser accurate. 5.0 Lack of interface for certain common infantry actions 5.1 Deploying Smoke or Frag grenades 5.2 Deploying mines or demolition charges 5.3 Assaulting or Garrisoning buildings. 5.4 Force fire of ready AT or HE weapons at point targets 5.5 Rushing/storming/blitzing to or away from a location 6.0 Infantry formations 6.1 Current infantry formations are poorly suited for fighting in Urban areas. 6.1.1 The AI will sprint at inappropriate times (to keep in formation) 6.1.2 The AI will flank unnecessarily (instead of squeezing in behind formation leader) 6.1.3 The AI is generally unable to keep up with formation leader in both speed and agility. 6.2 Current infantry formations are poorly suited to conduct rapid rushes both towards and away from enemy. Compare and contrast Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear The 1999 tactical shooter dealt with a much more limited environment. Even so the user interface and tactical options available to the commander was in many ways greater. By combining two ROE setting, Mode and Speed, the player could adapt tactical approach to a large number of scenarios. See attached picture from game manual. Not shown is the mid-mission Quick command where the player could set up (or adjust) ROE and specific actions on the fly: Including cover arcs, allround defense, ROEs and as I recall certain grenade usage. Compare and contrast Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon The much simplified 2001 tactical shooter is another interesting point of contrast. Again simpler in scope and expansion to any Arma game, but easily superior in user interface. ROE was again a section of two modes: Movement and Combat. Covering arcs were also easily defined mid mission. Movement had three options: Hold, Advance, and Advance at all costs. Hold, the team would hold and seek cover. Advance, default option, the team would advance until fired upon. When fired upon they would adopt the hold mode. Advance at all costs. Just what the name suggests. Combat had three options: Assault, Suppress, and Recon. Assault, the default option. Suppress, the team will lay down a great deal of fire, sacrificing accuracy for effect. Recon, the team will hold fire unless fired upon. Conclusion My point is not that Arma should adopt any Tom Clancy's control interface wholesale. Arma is much more advanced than either of the suggested titles. What I suggest is that Arma3s AI, in addition to the navigation and movement problems mentioned by other posters, fails along three lines: 1. Correspondence of expected behaviour to user interface 2. Ability to actualise common infantry tasks in user interface 3. Consistent and conventional visual and audio feedback of current state of both friend and enemy forces. -k
  12. While I usually run a rather heavily modded game, ACE and RHS, and it has been a while since I tested dev-branch-- has something severe happened to AI engagement ranges? I was playing one of my AI test missions-- simple squad on squad environment-- and where I would usually have been picked off by vanillas rather accurate AI, I kept being able to press forward. Did I miss something? -k
  13. Holding our breath in anticipation. ;) @wsxcgy : Nice work on the uniforms! Simple and effective.
×