HETMAN - Artificial Commander

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

Thanks guys for that info, but now, before sleep only about this:

I think this is the issue. I nnoticed too that groups given a ride were a team of 6 or smaller. Only 1 team at a time rode in truck. But squads of 9 had no ride.

Test1: MTVR and full squad (13 troops): they not get in, cargo is not assigned. Reason: MTVR has space for only 12 + driver.

Test2: MTVR and 12-men group: cargo assigned, whole group boarded.

Test3: AAV and 13-men squad: as above.

Conclusion: empty space counter is good. So system works, at least for me...

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

One thing Ive also found is the truck will take one group up to a certain size. I think the max is around 8 in the group. So if you have 2 groups of 4 it will only load 1 group and not fill the truck.

That is true and there will be that way (but max size should be limited by available space, this I can check). Implementation into HAC taking more than one group at once, while each group has own and different target point or even different kind of mission, if not impossible, then for sure is nightmare.

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

File formation, you say. Will check this. Thanks.

You have right, I'm trying to displace all spotted errors, if this publication was to be final. But on the other hand, I'm not sure when I'll be able to deal with the next version when I finish this.

---------- Post added at 17:44 ---------- Previous post was at 17:07 ----------

One thing about that: in fact I do not set "column" formations to anybody. Just set "safe" behavior, then always column is chosen and any other formation is overrided. So, if reserve should use other formation, there must be changed behavior to "aware". I'm not sure yet, if this will be fine.

BTW. Just confirmed, that also land cargo vehicles are reused after their first course and returning. It is rare and was hard to test, because until cargo finish first run often all units are in action already, but I did it and I saw it.

---------- Post added at 18:11 ---------- Previous post was at 17:44 ----------

So, now will start with multiplicating leaders (I think, that in future versions will concentrate on code efficiency and will try to make, that many commanders will use one set of files, it is possible, I think, but to much work with this to deal with this now).

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

@CB

This is in my cargo demo on in other mission? And there are another unused trucks, that do nothing when attack missions appear (not later, if on foot move waypoint is given, then will be not changed even, if there will be available truck after this order)? If you prepare vanilla demo with this problem (there are available, currently not in use trucks, there are attack mission farer than 1000 meters and groups designated to this mission when trucks are unused and available, still walk on foot without cargo assigned, and some cargo do nothing in this time, in moment, when attack orders are issued) then maybe I'll be able to say more. Until then - I saw cargo used as should be, sorry... :( I'm ran out of ideas about what this problem causes. Of course, if there are only two trucks, and at same moment eight attack ("inf" or "Cap") missions designated, then two groups will receive truck, and rest will walk towards its targets.

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

@CB

OK then. There is two times same command, but it is not important. So what exactly happens with markers? Are units of B side going to def positions and these positions aren't marked by black and brown dots or maybe in def mode units doing nothing or continues attack? Any other markers still appears? Is there still info about new cycle/morale or it stop to show up?

With this init:

RydHQ_Debug = true;
RydHQB_Debug = true;

RydHQB_Order = "DEFEND";

RydHQ_CargoFind = 1;
RydHQB_CargoFind = 1;

nul = [] execVM "RydHQInit.sqf";

I saw this:

http://i41.tinypic.com/vhewdl.jpg

in CargoDemo. All def markers on place, so can't reproduce this marker problem...

---------- Post added at 14:24 ---------- Previous post was at 14:19 ----------

Its only a guess but I think the AI get tunnel vision when waypoints are set, especially on hold fire commands, may be wrong though so I doubt its anything at all to do with HAC rather ingame mechanics, on a different note works great with blakes ai forward observer and BI should hire you for your coding skills and dedication IMO - it would be a must to see in arma 3 as it allows me to play a member of a squad rather than having to lead them and makes the whole game seem more immersive than it has ever been.

In fact my coding skills are rather, khem... :)

I'm sure, that every serious coder, if he saw my scripts, would laughed or cried because of so much redundancy, lack of optimization and not using more advanced techiques. Funny is, that with so small knowledge there is still possible doing such things like HAC... And I learned to write these scripts just last autumn, before I had very little to do with any kind of programming.

---------- Post added at 14:31 ---------- Previous post was at 14:24 ----------

My init.sqf:

RydHQ_Debug = true;

RydHQB_Debug = true;

RydHQB_Order = "DEFEND";

RydHQ_MAtt = true;

RydHQB_MAtt = true;

RydHQ_Personality = "EAGER";

RydHQB_Personality = "GENIUS";

RydHQB_Order = "DEFEND"

RydHQB_SubAll = true;

//RydHQB_SubSynchro = true;

//RydHQB_SubNamed = true;

//RydHQ_ResetOnDemand = true;

//RydHQB_ExInfo = true;

//RydHQB_Excluded = [ex1,ex2,ex3];

//RydHQ_ExReammo = [art1];

//RydHQB_ExReammo = [art1];

nul = [] execVM "RydHQInit.sqf";

RydHQ_CargoFind = 100;

RydHQB_CargoFind = 100;

RydHQ_Excluded = [LeaderA1, LeaderA2];

RydHQB_Excluded = [LeaderB1, LeaderB2];

nul = [] execVM "RydHQInit.sqf";

null = [] execVM "DMZ_delete.sqf";

setviewdistance 2000;

//

briefing = 1;

debriefing = 1;

ShowCompass = 1;

ShowGPS = 1;

ShowMap = 1;

ShowNotepad = 1;

ShowWatch = 1;

ShowRadio = 1;

minScore = 0;

avgScore = 1000;

maxScore = 10000;

execVM "briefing.sqf";

Why there is RydHQInit executed twice? There is HAC launched two times simultanously then...

---------- Post added at 15:52 ---------- Previous post was at 14:31 ----------

About not returnig truck problem:

Tested, and there is, what I saw:

1. Attack mission for infantry group was issued, distance about 3 km.

2. Infantry group do nothing, appears waypoint for truck nearby that group, truck drives correctly.

3. Truck reaches its waypoint and wait. Infantry group receives "get in" waypoint on truck and followes as should.

4. When all group is in cargo, truck receives waypoint at infantry attack destination area and drives towards it.

5. On destination point truck stops and infantry gets out and following with its mission.

6. Truck waits another 20 seconds to ensure, that group is far enough (this is because of drivers AI with tendency to hitting allied soldiers).

7. Truck receives return waypoint but:

there is another script, that every minute checks, how far initial positions of land cargo vehicles are from leaderHQ and from objective plus some enemy presence checks. If conditions are met, then inital/returning point for given vehicle is moved in some place in 400 meters radius from leaderHQ. So truck returns to that new point. Maybe in these conditions is some error, will check, but even then truck returns, but not to its initial position, but near leaderHQ.

I do not know, if this explains mentioned problems, in any case, that way it looks in my tests.

This is for now. Also must check if truck is after returning again available, as should.

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

Only issue is still trasnport. Trucks will pick a suad or 2 but only if there is enemy contact right at start of mission. Otherwise everyone is walking.

Just tested that with Cargo Demo. Changed demo, so enemy was spotted after 3-4 minutes (so recon missions occured first). And saw on my own eyes :) all trucks in use as cargo for infantry when it is infantry attack mission and when distance between infantry and its target is greater than 1000 meters. This is correctly. You may think, that trucks are not used, because before enemy was spotted, most infantry get idle mission ("Res") and then they all walk until attack mission is given to them.

Also may confirm, that after unload trucks do not returns to init position, but choose some position nearby and they may be used to "capture" mission even when empty with driver only. This is not correctly.

---------- Post added at 13:43 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------

I have noticed that if I select defend in init field the debug is no longer available. I remove it and it works again ..

RydHQB_Order = “DEFENDâ€

Have you used exactly this command? With this kind of quotes? Then check rpt, should be full of errors (main was, when I tried use this in init.sqf. And it is impossible to set this in unit's init field in editor - generates error message). Defend mode shouldn't begin at all and HAC may stuck.

Should be: RydHQB_Order = "DEFEND" (for B side of course)

I guess, that you just copy&paste from manual? Word changed me this quotes when I wrote manual. This will be corrected in new manual.

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

Sorry to be a pain, I tried without ASR AI using just ACE I have a feeling that it is not to do with HAC as such but with the HOLD FIRE command, my squad drove through zargabad past multiple manned enemy armoured units at point blank range and was only fired upon when the Stryker halted to disembark troops while under fire from a BTR 70. Then again I can live with it - can just see the bewildered takistan tank commanders saying.."Did you just see that - That cocky damned american, hell we'll just see what he does...", the commander observes the stryker halt about 100 yards down the road, sparks lighting the air as it comes under fire from third squad, "Sigh..he says stubbing his cigar on the manifold, best finish the job..take aim..."

:) One important thing - is this effect present only, when playing with HAC? Without HAC all is as should be with this? Can't test it, have only vanilla Arma 2.

@gunterlund21

1. Depends. It is absolutelly possible, that some units will stay as reserve long time if not necessary on front in HAC opinion. Especially, when HAC knows about enemy antitank weaponry on battlefield and has "cautious personality". Most of armor/motorized units, when assigned as reserve, will do nothing, because HAC do not issues such groups idle orders.

2. Land Mobile Combat Unit. :) (means not aerial or naval and not unarmed and not static) It is used only in "defend" mode.

3. Trucks and support units should to gather near leaderHQ in defend mode. Shouldn't go on forward positions. With cargo/support I have some problem: these vehicles are by default manned by non-crew unit, so HAC has tendency to consider such units as regular infantry. So I set up additional filters, which allow HAC to distinguish cargo from infantry, but maybe in defense mode some does not work, as should be. I'll look at this.

EDIT: Filter is set and works. Trucks are gathering near leaderHQ, not on forward defensive position. However changed that, now trucks will gather behind leaderHQ, together with support vehicles. Of course if there is no spotted enemy, HAC do not know proper direction, toward which perimeter should be set. Then he gather defense around leaderHQ unit and choose watched direction randomly.

4. If destination point is closer than 1000 meters from infantry group, there will be no cargo assigned. Also if nearest available cargo is to far (1500 meters from group for trucks, 4500 for choppers). If nearby target point are some known enemies, cargo will unload group earlier (halfway). Land cargo also will unload group when driver noticing enemy at route. Of course cargo should wait for loading of all groups and this is implemented. Rarely occured in my tests however, that if loading was disrupted, cargo vehicle can go before last unit is loaded. Have some theory about that, so try to fix it, but no promises here.

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

Only issue is still trasnport. Trucks will pick a suad or 2 but only if there is enemy contact right at start of mission. Otherwise everyone is walking.

Hmm. Then will test that with cargo demo and will hunt down problem. :) Fact, cargo system is perhaps most complex part of HAC, so there is many hidings for errors.

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

@Jingle

Perhaps try to play only with HAC, and next with rest addons but without HAC and compare results. HAC by principle do not mess in any way with unit's awareness and other unit level AI factors/configs (so also has no influence on SMAW usage). HAC just analyzes situation on battlefield, and issues waypoints to groups accordingly (well, there are some exceptions, but very rare and not in this matters).

About not recognizing not vanilla units: Check maybe yours RHQ arrays for CO units, if classnames are added without typos. But this is recognizing as enemy/ally by HAC on higher level. If unit just do not want to fire upon enemy, then again, it is not HAC for sure. HAC just does not deal with this matters.

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

They seem to pick up one squad and dump them off then just sit around and do nothing. Had some other squads in the back that the trucks could have gone back to pick up...

In fact trucks should go back to its initial position and then be available for other groups, but maybe there is some bug (choppers however was returning after delivering in my tests), or maybe driver saw some enemy and enters in "panic behavior & do not listen any orders" mode...

[Randomly occuring problem with "no error/no effect" executing code + Squint issue]

b) the first screens seems to lack all newlines - did you make sure you use windows and not linux type

Yes, it seems, that newlines just... vanished. Earlier they was there (as on pic2) and when I open same file in other editor they are where should be. But in Squint not working code changes its look in that time. After adding or removing empty line in Aedit, newlines usually (not always) are back in Squint and code works fine again. Although I had described problems long before I downloaded Squint (from there). I use Vista 64-bit, so maybe there is problem. Code in editor used by me looks always as on pic2, regardless it works at the moment or, because this problem, not.

[Randomly occuring problem with "no error/no effect" executing code + Squint issue]

Sometimes it happened to me when I tested some sqf code (as always, written in "ArmA Edit", maybe this is important), that it does not produce any effect, although he had no errors and a moment ago worked well. This code started to work again, when I removed or added to it a line, even empty or with comment. Some time later I installed the Squint for error checking. He threw new light on this problem. When this problem appears, code in Squnit looks like this:

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/3379/squint1.jpg

And after adding/removal line looks normal again:

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8853/squint2.jpg

What is going on?

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

Thanks, gammadust, now things are more clear... But I would rather not have to reconfigure leaderHQ unit in any way, would not interfere in matters may be relevant for some mission makers, so, I guess, must be satisfied with simplest messages (or even only text + beep).

---------- Post added at 16:45 ---------- Previous post was at 16:40 ----------

About multiple commanders: maybe there should be an option to tie commander to area marker, so that commander will only issue orders inside the marker, somewhat like UPS. This way it will be possible to create fronts.

Yes, I was thinking about something similar. So must find the way, to specify in the code, if given unit/place is in such area, or not. I'm not sure yet, how to achieve that without sophisticated trigonometry. Distance to the area center point is not enough for this purpose, unless area will be round...

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

Will support units be implmented (or maybe already is?) for example medic assigned to platoon going out to heal injured units in different squads. Repeair truch going out to repeair other vheciles on battle field and ammo truck giving ammo support.

Support is implemented and cooperate with generic support system (support vehicle drive in area, where is needed, then units, that need support goes to vehicle, also support vehicles are grouped behind front when some allied units are between that point and enemy). HAC handles only support vehicles, not individual medics. Will try to set some ambulances/reammo or refuel and some wounded or damaged/without ammo vehicles in cargo demo. You have also teleport ability and you are indestructible. Also added HC module for additional HC markers (ctrl+space). Personality is randomized. Cargo and support is behind you, infantry in front. Enemy in sight, so attack missions starts immediately. About 3-4 cycle + 60 seconds should support markers appear. Tested few times, cargo trucks are all used. By the way found some quite new bug (idle orders are not issued for A side) but this will not affect demo clue.

Cargo Demo

---------- Post added at 14:12 ---------- Previous post was at 14:11 ----------

What do you think about a lite version and a advance version.

-lite v:reduced script version, only Commander

-advance v: Medical & logistic, text&sound, Surrender , etc.....

Cargo, support, bigboss, additional commander, surrendering,voice comms - it is/will be all optional and easy to turn on/off.

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

For the orders, I have to say, I got on both ocassions HOLD orders and I moved to location waited 5 minutes or so them moved on before other orders were recieved. Maybe this was the issue, should have waited some more?

Possible. Maybe just HAC do not needed you as long... :) HOLD is "idle" order, you can simply ingore this kind of orders if you wish and next will (should) appear regardless of moving/not moving. Idle orders may be simply interrupted any time by "serious action" order. For example in my test HAC issued me patrol order at secondary objective, but before I reach area, redirected me on recon. There was no enemy on map, so after recon completing (just reached point and waited for back up mission ending because of lack of movement), I was directed to objective capture mission and so on.

But having 8 commanders, would that tax cpu resources more?

It is possible and I afraid that (some efficiency tweak is planned for this reason), but maybe it will be not so bad, because total number of units on map is main factor here and this will not change.

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

SO not sure what the orders are based on?

Time and kind of order depends on many factors, generaly on situation on battlefield. Is considered kind of your unit, its position relative to target, other groups available... And there will be no new order until first is complete or until you will stay without move long enough (code checks cyclically speed of unit, if is equal 0 numerous times, waypoint is called off it is some back up for "stuck" situations). So I'm for now not sure, if mentioned situation is proper, or there is some bug. Still in my tests human controlled team leader received many orders one after the other.

About big boss: this is some very promising concept linked with up to four leaderHQs per side option and limited control (each of them controls only part of units of given side). Bigboss is strategist and commands leaderHQs only (not their forces directly). He will be able to move objective markers and leaderHQ positions, will decide, when and where given leaderHQ should push forward, and when only defend position. Also will make one of leaderHQ's force a strategic reserve if needed, and so on. There are some difficulties with this (most of them with setting up sectors for given leaderHQs, so they should pay attention only what is going on in given to them sector, and not on rest of the map), but if I manage to implement this, will be great. BB level gives for example opportunity to implement requested differences in strategy between west and east factions (reserve management).

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

Great. This SecOp briefings looks promising. Maybe even there will be no need for cutting. Must test them first. Today I want to end voicecomms implementation into code, so at worst it will be a simplified version for now (easy to complete later), so as not to create unnecessary delays. Still waiting for me the last couple of implementations, and the last, big thing, the bigboss level. Also will try do something about code efficiency, it may prove neccessary for eight commanders, and still I have on mind this mentioned by CaptainBravo problem with cargo (vanilla demo mission with this problem may help a lot, CB). Well. To work then. :)

---------- Post added at 11:12 ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 ----------

Strange thing: it looks, like callsigns from SecOps works, and other SecOp phrases do not.

For example this:

    class Sentences
   { 

       class First
       {
           text = "STAND BY FOR NEW ORDERS.";
           speech[] = {"Frostbite"};
           class Arguments {};

       };

};

gives sound...

...and this not, only "beep":

    class Sentences
   { 

       class First
       {
           text = "STAND BY FOR NEW ORDERS.";
           speech[] = {"SecOp_Escort_Briefing_1"};
           class Arguments {};

       };

};

(tried also with SOM module on map and synchronized, same effect)

Oh, well, will do voices simplier for now, like I said, and will return to this later. Of course I'm all the time open for any ideas/help in this matter.

EDIT: for now it will be like this:

(text&beep): STAND BY FOR NEW ORDERS.

(text&sound): THIS IS HQ. MESSAGE. (over)

(text&sound): I'M ON IT!. (out) - or other randomized confirmation

(journal entry appears)

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

I will rest. Soon. :)

Keep track of the words/sentences you will need, maybe later on I find some time to look at configs in search for good equivalent phrases.

Thanks again. Specific words my vary, but I need mosty short description of given mission type. For example "Move to destination point (and attack enemy)", "Make a reconnaissance in the designated area." "Provide support in the designated area", "Defend position", "Hold designated position", "patrol designated area","Take and deliver group to target area", "Look for hostiles". It is all, I think. Maybe also "near target position" or "nearby designated point"... something like that.

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

Interesting, thanks gammadust, must look at this closer, when will be more rested.

For now - only very limited demo with dialog concept for interested. There is nothing to do, just wait and listen, voice is applied only for idle orders, and such order will be issued to you. In tests some sentences may vary, it is this randomization feature. Also gaps between sentences are randomized to make conversation more realistic. You can also to change in editor leaderHQ and yours unit to WOC or RU faction and compare (remember about init code for players's unit).

VoiceComm Demo

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

Thanks guys, I know, this is only ornament, not clou, but still... There are some reasons, for which better are generic phrases: JSRS audio mod gives them very nice touch, and there is matter of launguage, which is, or should be, matched to faction. Will release version with voices, when ready, rather not today, slept only a few hours last night and now barely keep myself vertical. :)

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

About voice notifciation...

Tried to prepare some kind of semi-dynamic minidialog (sentences without dynamic arguments, but with some random choosing, and partially dependant on circumstancies and kind of mission, so there are for example five different order confirmations and one of them is randomly chosen), but encountered problems. Full sentences are consist of pieces - individual phrases like "take", "position", "BeAdviced", "enemy", "NotFar" and so on. First problem is, that there is no some important for my purposes phrases (like "patrol", "area", "defend", "destination" etc.); second is, I found, that only part of them has equivalents in other languages (Russian, Czech), so sentence, that sounds fine in English, is incomplete in other languages; and third problem - can't test, if this will work for non-vanilla factions, eg from OA. For now I do not know, what to do with that, so, unless I manage to figure out something, there will be by default only on-screen text notification and optional voice dialog recommended for USMC faction only... :(

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

does HAC utilize artillery? Or would it work if I used Blakes forward observer script to call artillery with HAC giving orders to the FO?

HAC itself do not utilize artillery, however works fine with external artillery scripts, FOs should be placed by HAC on forward and elevated positions. Didn't tested with Blakes FO (probably works fine), but tested with my own FAW. Because FAW was maded earlier I decide do not give to HAC internal artillery control, but maded HETMAN in such way, that works with FAW good. If I decided to combine HAC with FAW, this would consist simply in adding FAW scripts into HAC folder, so when used as separate pbo/scripts, works same way, as if combined into one addon. There is one logical limitation in this: HAC only partially takes into consideration factor of own/enemy artillery firepower and do not control directly artillery fire (so will not, for example, make artillery smoke screen to cover withdrawing units, but will consider enemy arty units as important targets, also will send on good positions units, that are by default used by FAW as FOs (FAW will choose and cover with salvos most valuable and vulnerable enemy target known to FO unit with quite smart correction for target movement), so in fact HAC makes rather good use of FAW controlled artillery). Of course, you may try to use any other artillery addon/script instead of FAW, if you find another one more suitable. Tried to make HAC that way, that worked well with other addons, and should until other addons do not mess with waypoints.

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

Exactly. Will do some test with UAV when finish radio messages (I prefer to end one thing before start with another). Counting also on this demo mission from CaptainBravo, his cargo problems worries me, also reported and until today not recreated in my tests lags.

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

What is that supposed to happen when combat starts? Trucks drive to squads for pick up? Squads run to trucksto get in?

Cargo should drive to squads, then squad should get in, and then cargo should drive to squad destination (or halfway, if near destination is spotted enemy and cargo is unarmed). If truck is with driver, must be in 1500 meters radius from squad to be assigned, 4500 for choppers. Can you upload pure vanilla demo with this problem? In my tests cargo is used all the time...

And yes, this was attack missions so cargo should be used, if available.

[HETMAN - Artificial Commander]

ON a side note: I have the enemy bases 4-5 kms apart and the infantry is still choosing to walk instead of taking a truck. I have both empty trucks and trucks with drivers near squads and they still walk 4-5 kms. Am I missing a setting that I need to configure?

Always try to notice, what kind of mission is this (markers are usefull for this purpose). Without this info can only guess, that perhaps this was recon mission (red dot with "Rec A" or "Rec B"). For such missions cargo will be not assigned (recon is based on stealthy approach, and vehicle is very easy to spot from far distances). Or some "idle mission" (red markers, half-transparent and smaller dots with "Res"). I assume, that RydHQ_CargoFind (or RydHQB_ for B side) is definded with positive number. Really good idea is also to use HC module on map and "ctr + space" during test. This gives very useful info about designated routes and waypoints.

Also, if you will test on vanilla maps/units, then I'm able to recreate given problem by playing your mission, which is always better, than only problem description. Then there is far greater possiblity, that I find problem and eliminate it. This is beause I know my scripts and know, to which, for others seemingly insignificant details, to look to determine where in the code is the problem.