Infantry Combat-Boring and Unrealistic?

To be honest, in the video, he’s just using poor ai, probably ASR_ai.

This type of ai very rarely break formation when under fire. When engaged, they will go prone, then either fire from prone or crouch position, sometimes standing, although stance is enhanced when using 'TPWC_suppress', with this they may try and look for cover, but this will be poor cover on the whole nearby.

Anyway; prone or crouch, then fire, move forward (in formation), repeat the actions until either one of the sides are dead… or indeed run away, probably still in formation.

Sort of WW1 tactics.

Not realistic..

See sig below for better ai behaviour.

The AI break the Hold Fire command when the are detected by the enemy and only then. It is difficult to notice this because they do so immediately before the enemy even has a chance to fire. Essentially, the friendly AI notices that he has been detected right before or immediately after the enemy AI detects him. This makes it look like the friendly AI has gone rouge but in fact he was just trying to save his own life. In the situation above, the enemy never saw you (Somehow) and that is why they kept walking and why your men never fired on them until you did.

In this case I'd prefer the AI drop to prone (if not already) and ask "Spotted! Permission to fire?!" or the like.

What you are asking them to do is ask you "Sir! Do I have permission to die?"

They fire because that is the best thing they can do. Them holding fire gives the enemy the upper hand. This way there is a chance he might take out a few guys before he dies.

That might be the explanation of it. But I agree with tonci that it has to be fixed (if not in ArmA 2, then in ArmA 3). Because that behavior ruins most of sneaky actions and guarantees a lot of deaths.

They should be more loyal ;)

It doesn't ruin ANY sneaky operations. He has already been spotted. The damage is done. They already know you're there. If he holds fire, sure maybe they won't hear him fire but they're going to hear their friendly guys firing and killing him and now there is an intact squad that knows about your squad instead of a squad that is down a man or two or maybe even three or four depending on how the situation plays out.

More loyal!? No mate, more disciplined. That's what the military is all about, discipline. Forget the honour, the glory, it's all about discipline.

You're asking the guy to sacrifice his life for nothing. It isn't discipline, it's self preservation. Something which we have been asking for since OFP times.

In this case I'd prefer the AI drop to prone (if not already) and ask "Spotted! Permission to fire?!" or the like.

Two problems with that. First problem is that dropping prone won't necessarily save his life. Second problem is, if dropping prone did save his life now he probably can't fire back. Not to mention now the squad is aware of his position so him moving will probably get him killed. Hell there are situations where he might be able to stop the entire threat to the squad if he opens fire.

Back in OFP, guys used to have discipline. If they were on hold fire, you could walk up to them and poke the entire squad in the back with the barrel of your gun and they wouldn't do a thing about it. I can't count the number of times I lost guys because they didn't open fire when they had a better grasp of the situation than I did (I was young and a poor commander). There were numerous times when them opening fire of their own accord would've saved not only them but my entire squad.

That being said, I do think it would be nice for them to go "I'm spotted, opening fire!" so that you have a better understanding of what's happening. Although at the same time that radio call may interfere with your own telling the rest of your men to open up. There might even be a better way of doing it but all the suggestions I have seen here so far are steps backward.

The AI break the Hold Fire command when the are detected by the enemy and only then. It is difficult to notice this because they do so immediately before the enemy even has a chance to fire. Essentially, the friendly AI notices that he has been detected right before or immediately after the enemy AI detects him. This makes it look like the friendly AI has gone rouge but in fact he was just trying to save his own life. In the situation above, the enemy never saw you (Somehow) and that is why they kept walking and why your men never fired on them until you did.

I don´t think that this is fully true. I had AI opening fire on their own while certainly not beeing detected by enemys (perfect ambush position, enemy not alarmed and the AI still opens fire. Especially snipers, MG and AT gunners are quite triggerhappy when it comes to this. Also vehicels)

I really don´t like that. If I tell them to hold fire, then I do this for a reason (an ambush, or a quick retreat).

I wouldn´t mind if they open fire when beeing fired upon, but only then!

@ChrisB

ASR_AI does what it is supposed to do, the enemys didn´t see me because it was pitch black, absolutely no moon!

Your AI Mod lists has several mods in it that are either seriously outdated (Zeus) or have a heavy impact on performance (GL4 SLX) wich in return makes your AI actually more stupid if you have a slow CPU.

What you are asking them to do is ask you "Sir! Do I have permission to die?"

They fire because that is the best thing they can do. Them holding fire gives the enemy the upper hand. This way there is a chance he might take out a few guys before he dies.

It doesn't ruin ANY sneaky operations. He has already been spotted. The damage is done. They already know you're there. If he holds fire, sure maybe they won't hear him fire but they're going to hear their friendly guys firing and killing him and now there is an intact squad that knows about your squad instead of a squad that is down a man or two or maybe even three or four depending on how the situation plays out.

You're asking the guy to sacrifice his life for nothing. It isn't discipline, it's self preservation. Something which we have been asking for since OFP times.

Jake is totally right here. If you ever come in the situation where your subordinates break fire discipline, it's your fault. You were leading them in a situation where self preservation becomes the first priority. No one else to blame.

---------- Post added at 10:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 AM ----------

I don´t think that this is fully true. I had AI opening fire on their own while certainly not beeing detected by enemys (perfect ambush position, enemy not alarmed and the AI still opens fire. Especially snipers, MG and AT gunners are quite triggerhappy when it comes to this. Also vehicels)

I really don´t like that. If I tell them to hold fire, then I do this for a reason (an ambush, or a quick retreat).

I wouldn´t mind if they open fire when beeing fired upon, but only then!

I only ever noticed that with AI of very low skills. Having played "Lost" a lot over the hollidays that happened only with a bunch of "partisans". They are especially trigger happy when armed with MGs to fire at helicopters ... :butbut: But, as mentioned before, they are skilled much, much down; I even had a guy once with aiming precision and shake and courage at 1 (meaning 0.01)!

Jake is totally right here. If you ever come in the situation where your subordinates break fire discipline, it's your fault. You were leading them in a situation where self preservation becomes the first priority. No one else to blame.

---------- Post added at 10:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 AM ----------

I only ever noticed that with AI of very low skills. Having played "Lost" a lot over the hollidays that happened only with a bunch of "partisans". They are especially trigger happy when armed with MGs to fire at helicopters ... :butbut: But, as mentioned before, they are skill much, much down; I even had a guy once with aiming precision and shake and courage at 1 (meaning 0.01)!

Thank you for that example.

AI opening fire on a helicopter while not beeing detected by it is like asking for death. So skill setting might have something to do with this? Interesting. I would really like a Dev comment on this.

AI needs to warn/report threat(s) to TL/SL before breaking a direct order like "hold fire"! The AI feeback/report/warning system to the player needs to be improved. It's not the player to blame if AI communication with player is clumsy. Guess BIS wanted also to please those people who found it too demanding or stressful to verify AI reports and give new orders as TL/SL. Btw using AI tweaks like scripts and addons usually don't show the default A2OA AI behaviour. Be careful with assumptions that aren't based on pure vanilla A2OA!!

AI needs to warn/report threat(s) to TL/SL before breaking a direct order like "hold fire"! The AI feeback/report/warning system to the player needs to be improved.

I agree with this. The ai's communication with the player needs to be improved, not only concerning the hold fire issue but on the whole. Speech and animations both need to be made to clearly show what the ai is doing or wants you to do and why. An example of poor animations is when I see an ai constantly switching between prone and crouched behind a low stone wall. My first thought is that he is glitching up, but then again maybe he is simply peeking in and out of cover. An example of poor communication is when the squad leader issues and engage order to the player. "2 target that missile soldier". Yeah, mind at least giving me a direction and distance to look for that dude? I know I could turn on the red reticle that appears over enemies your leader is ording you to engage but that's far too much knowledge and allows me to shoot enemies behind foliage with ridiculous ease... and then the ai would bitch about players having x-ray vision and shooting them through foliage. A more communicative ai will help players fully realize the ability of the ai which is still very impressive for what it is.

Regarding the OP, I agree that infantry combat is unrealistic and does become boring especially if there isn't significant "buildup" to a fight. If I just fire up the editor place two squads to run into one another and play, it is quite boring and predictable. If however I make a more complex patrol where I don't know when or where the engagement is going to happen it makes the fight a bit less predictable and consequently less boring. This is of course only for SP and to a certain extent COOP. PvP is never boring or predictable, but still isn't quite realistic. I find sound mods make any firefight a little less boring though have no real effect on gameplay.

Ai will never be as smart as a human obviously, so will never really pose a challenge if you have half a brain, but they could act more human-like if you ask me, so even if they aren't challenging they still act and more importantly, react realistically. This is why I like mods like TPW's suppression. If anything it makes the ai easier to defeat, but at least you are doing it in a slightly more realistic way than in vanilla.

That being said, no ai mod truly fixes the ai. They improve it and the placebo effect helps you enjoy the game more, but really it still suffers from the same core problems that make infantry fighting a very predictable and non-dynamic affair.

Ai will never be as smart as a human obviously, so will never really pose a challenge if you have half a brain, but they could act more human-like if you ask me, so even if they aren't challenging they still act and more importantly, react realistically. This is why I like mods like TPW's suppression. If anything it makes the ai easier to defeat, but at least you are doing it in a slightly more realistic way than in vanilla.

That being said, no ai mod truly fixes the ai. They improve it and the placebo effect helps you enjoy the game more, but really it still suffers from the same core problems that make infantry fighting a very predictable and non-dynamic affair.

Humans aren't really smart most of the time.

Of course no AI mod will "fix" the AI. And I am sure that the AI could be better. But then most of the users are complaining that their 4GHz Quadcore CPU are too slow to run the game.

Humans aren't really smart most of the time.

Its not even that much a matter of smart but rather of situational awareness and reaction. If a human is feeling pressured, Ie. taking heavy fire, most times they will respond with more panic, spray and pray, shooting quickly and inaccurately. When a human has plenty of time and knows that the target he's shooting at is unaware of him, he will generally takes his time and shoot accurate shots. A human generally tries to stay near to potential cover. A human that is near cover will generally take and use it before trying to shoot the enemy. A human generally values his life more than that of the enemy/ the objective.

The ai on the other hand is very unresponsive to things. None of the above really have an effect on the ai or, if it does, the way of triggering the correct response is so rarely triggered it might as well not exist. Its not necessarily that the ai needs to be smart, it just needs to be more dynamic and human like on an individual level.

Of course no AI mod will "fix" the AI. And I am sure that the AI could be better. But then most of the users are complaining that their 4GHz Quadcore CPU are too slow to run the game.

True, and I realize everyone has different opinions on what is good enough and where priorities should be. I personally feel it would be better to make the AI a bit more CPU intesive so I don't need to have 100 of them running at once to have a firefight last longer than 5 minutes. I'd rather have 20 ai reacting realistically than 100 ai who are mindless.

Of course performance improvements are always welcome and I like what I am hearing about the headless client stuff. Maybe the ai will have its own core in A3...

What you are asking them to do is ask you "Sir! Do I have permission to die?"

They fire because that is the best thing they can do. Them holding fire gives the enemy the upper hand. This way there is a chance he might take out a few guys before he dies.

It doesn't ruin ANY sneaky operations. He has already been spotted. The damage is done. They already know you're there. If he holds fire, sure maybe they won't hear him fire but they're going to hear their friendly guys firing and killing him and now there is an intact squad that knows about your squad instead of a squad that is down a man or two or maybe even three or four depending on how the situation plays out.

You're asking the guy to sacrifice his life for nothing. It isn't discipline, it's self preservation. Something which we have been asking for since OFP times.

Two problems with that. First problem is that dropping prone won't necessarily save his life. Second problem is, if dropping prone did save his life now he probably can't fire back. Not to mention now the squad is aware of his position so him moving will probably get him killed. Hell there are situations where he might be able to stop the entire threat to the squad if he opens fire.

Back in OFP, guys used to have discipline. If they were on hold fire, you could walk up to them and poke the entire squad in the back with the barrel of your gun and they wouldn't do a thing about it. I can't count the number of times I lost guys because they didn't open fire when they had a better grasp of the situation than I did (I was young and a poor commander). There were numerous times when them opening fire of their own accord would've saved not only them but my entire squad.

That being said, I do think it would be nice for them to go "I'm spotted, opening fire!" so that you have a better understanding of what's happening. Although at the same time that radio call may interfere with your own telling the rest of your men to open up. There might even be a better way of doing it but all the suggestions I have seen here so far are steps backward.

Well lets say the "Take Cover" command actually worked so that when one of your guys is spotted 300m+ out, we'd get the "Spotted!" and have the option to send our boys to cover before they intiated a firefight. Another major factor here is distance - so if the spotter is _x meters away the AI would simply state they are spotted but if they are within 100m it would be declared imminent threat and the AI would just open up. Another workaround if thats too expensive codewise is to have a CQB Alternate of all commands so that Hold Fire in this parameter would also be executed as imminent threat. AI going prone when the threat is far away makes sense but in a tight CQB situation not as much as just returning fire.

And yes I do agree that the current solution is far better then OFP's total non-response but that doesn't mean better calibration or new parameters are not worth discussion.

@Guess Who: C'mon now, this is AI were talking about not 5 humans who can individually stay outta sight.:p

Well lets say the "Take Cover" command actually worked so that when one of your guys is spotted 300m+ out, we'd get the "Spotted!" and have the option to send our boys to cover before they intiated a firefight. Another major factor here is distance - so if the spotter is _x meters away the AI would simply state they are spotted but if they are within 100m it would be declared imminent threat and the AI would just open up. Another workaround if thats too expensive codewise is to have a CQB Alternate of all commands so that Hold Fire in this parameter would also be executed as imminent threat. AI going prone when the threat is far away makes sense but in a tight CQB situation not as much as just returning fire.

And yes I do agree that the current solution is far better then OFP's total non-response but that doesn't mean better calibration or new parameters are not worth discussion.

@Guess Who: C'mon now, this is AI were talking about not 5 humans who can individually stay outta sight.:p

Well, I do agree with most of your post, froggy. But I usually go with a small group of SF guys with skills set to at least .70 to .90 on all sides plus I allways use ASR_AI. Highly skilled units under human/player command are well aware of their environment and are able to stay out of the enemies' sight as long as they are in formation with their human leader and you keep some distance in stealth mode. Just my experience in SP ...

Ok I hear ya Guess Who, and yes they are quite commandable properly modded and with a good/patient human commander.

The more I think about it -the more I really would like to see a CQB qualifier for all infantry commands that would lead to different behaviour. In a town 'Move' order while in Combat/Stealth could mean much quicker cover to cover and more frequent angle checks/head turns etc... The list could go on and on really.

This is a two minute to put together fire-fight test, literally two minutes..

Using the ‘Town Construction’ module, on the ‘Testmap’ terrain.

Its a common configuration I use for tests, its easy, but extreme, testing cover is easy, as there is not really any cover there, other than what you put on, plus its extreme, as you can place cover out of the way, to test how the ai will react in trying to find the cover. Then of course leave a large killing field between the cover, to see how the ai cope.

We have had talk of, shoot first then sort out cover later, also that ai have no self preservation..

The vid shows instances that question this opinion, ai moving up a little early, then having to re-treat back (self preservation), same with flanking, the need to withdraw. Plus at the beginning of the engagement a need for the squad leader to think speedily and go for hard cover, even though this cover is quite away off to the right. This would maybe be a case of, don’t necessarily shoot first, rather think and shoot combined, plus self preservation in finding decent cover.

There is also building and rooftop use and ai shooting from inside buildings.

Of course the drawback of any fire-fight is the human, we tend to always have the edge, or is that really correct!

Here, I have the edge as the opposing ai are not that great (on purpose), so picking them off is easier.

However, in a proper mission, limit re-spawn (two or three).

Then give the ai skills based on their faction, rank, unit type, etc. (Perhaps this is a little easier for our group, we play an ongoing campaign and all factions are ‘skilled’ based upon performance throughout the campaign, we have set skill configs we swap over).

Anyway, lastly, make a really good mission (unlike this test), then you will get a feeling that perhaps staying alive is not that easy and being the human doesn’t necessarily give you any edge.

Test:

Two opposing sides (one group each), placed opposite each other at each end of the terrain here, then a ‘Move’ waypoint to run at each others starting position, no other changes or orders given. They are all on default ‘Aware’ behaviour.

The two settlements have been placed a way off to the right of each faction (right hand side of each faction), I am just a rifleman in a group (not squad leader) the rest on the terrain are ai..

Its worth noting, that only at the end of the engagement i.e. we have beaten the enemy, does my squad leader feel that we can move on and finish the waypoint..

The video was recorded using low settings (25%, msi), so its not great, but there again its only a test. Plus the sounds out a little, could have been the upload to youtube..

It’s a very basic format test, but it gives you an idea of how it could be, in a better made mission..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hlbcBFPaDQ&list=PLj7LIw2iwG-HBxjqFG4Y32YHKRMkz2AF-&index=53

Just set with one waypoint to get across a settlement that has a large group of enemy. I am following the ai group, just want to see how they proceed. Which as it turns out, is not too bad, all are ai. Slightly different pbo mix. Not a great quality vid, as usual..:p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LwbqMMG_KE&list=PLj7LIw2iwG-HBxjqFG4Y32YHKRMkz2AF-&index=45

___

Its quite interesting that some players don’t realise that ai behaviour will drop in quality when their system is under stress, this can be a direct cause of the thread title.

For instance, I can play on a desert type terrain with around 150ai total and get reasonably good fps ‘65+’, so the ai behaviour is really good.

Now if I press record, to record the test via msi-afterburner, which costs me 30-35fps, the ai behaviour shows straight away a lower quality, decisions are not as good, moving within the environment is less coordinated.

So if I play SP, I will not have above 150ai max (for my A2 system ‘pc’), usually around 100ai or below, it depends totally on terrain. Desert terrain I can increase some, heavy terrain i.e. Chernarus and terrains similar to that, I drop ai to a lot lower levels.

I like smaller skirmish type missions (70-80ai max) anyway, so it suits my game-play and missions, that’s why I have the pc I have for A2, to suit the game I wanted to play.

So its worth remembering, that if your fps hits 25 or lower, ai is going to be pretty basic (poor), 25-35fps and ai will be o.k. above 35fps should give you good quality ai. Its my rule of thumb this, but has sort of worked out for me when testing over some time.

Get onto a PMC terrain i.e. '51km desert' or similar, put down a few settlements and the ai are top notch, behaviour wise, as the fps is usually always above 70 and can easily be above 90-100.

It does make a difference choosing your terrain and ai count, most players know this, but newer players may expect that the same levels of ai can be used in all missions on all terrains, you can't.

If your making missions, compensate for heavier terrains, drop ai or use mods to lower grass, veg, etc, atoc disabled inc aa disabled can help a lot.

BIS missions or user made missions may require you to lower settings, to make up for game-play quality i.e. better ai etc.

The OP's problem is that he's playing with AI. Have you EVEN tried playing with a realism unit? You'll have more realism than your 'loose' formations and 'box' formations.

AI is reliable and they perform fine, I don't hold the same respect for humans.

Chirs: your video was very revealing. Your use of comments is fantastic. Has your magic mix evolved recently following this research and/or updates to mods?

What is most annoying (will probably never be fixed since it's an issue since at least 2006):

* AI infantry shoots with bazooka at infantry (even single soldiers)

* AI fumbles around with pistols although they have rifles with enough ammo

* AI shoots a whole magazine within two seconds at a single infantry man (i.e. it never uses single fire mode)

Point 1 - if you don't use asr_ai, use Zipper5's AT fix. AI will still fire OG7, HEDPs etc., but at least they won't waste AT missiles on infantry in the way that vanilla AI do.

Point 2 - remove pistols if possible, also remove rangefinders (as that's another bug that fucks up the AI moving) - see the CITs on dev-heaven.

Point 3 - yep, leads to "Out of ammo" in any extended firefight. Needs fixing but I have no idea how...

Point 1 - if you don't use asr_ai, use Zipper5's AT fix. AI will still fire OG7, HEDPs etc., but at least they won't waste AT missiles on infantry in the way that vanilla AI do.

Point 2 - remove pistols if possible, also remove rangefinders (as that's another bug that fucks up the AI moving) - see the CITs on dev-heaven.

Point 3 - yep, leads to "Out of ammo" in any extended firefight. Needs fixing but I have no idea how...

You can't be blamed for not using mods concerning point 1. Such essential things need to be fixed in the vanilla (simulation...) game.

Chirs: your video was very revealing. Your use of comments is fantastic. Has your magic mix evolved recently following this research and/or updates to mods?

Actual ai behavioural enhancement’s, taking away effects etc, and with the ongoing improvements via the recent set of beta’s, my ai pbo list is now down to 11 pbo’s, which is what I had running in the vid above.

It seems that some of the older ai mods are running better with the newer beta’s, which is great, less draw on the cpu.

However our group is moving away from ACE so not using that now, better game play, I think anyway.

Of course you have to add a few more game enhancements to compensate, but its runs well and looks great.

Thanks regards the comments, makes vids a little less boring..:)

_____

To anyone wanting to try the mix:

Edit: use pbo list in my sig: changed the list slightly due to ongoing beta's..

To anyone wanting to use this mix list: Do not run any other ai mods/pbo’s if you want a similar or same outcome to my vids.

And don't forget, to those using this mix, they work for me, but may not necessarily work for you!

When I was in the Army we walked in wedges a lot...with intervals of 35 meters in between to lower the effectiveness of grenades, the army is all about wedges squad fire team wedge and all that, but thats all terrain dictated your not walking in a wedge on the side of a mountain, your just offset and you keep your distance, and maybe you have found the infantry combat unrealistic and unappealing but I found it pretty accurate, and if you need too look up FM 3-21.8 (FM 7-8)

When I was in the Army we walked in wedges a lot...with intervals of 35 meters in between to lower the effectiveness of grenades, the army is all about wedges squad fire team wedge and all that, but thats all terrain dictated your not walking in a wedge on the side of a mountain, your just offset and you keep your distance, and maybe you have found the infantry combat unrealistic and unappealing but I found it pretty accurate, and if you need too look up FM 3-21.8 (FM 7-8)

I always thought that an essential addition to the command menu would be increase & decrease formation spacings.

The essential addition will be the behavior where AI units walk with their guns at the ready. It's one important advantage of playing with a human team - AI team will never approach an enemy position being ready to suppress it.

It shouldn't be hard to do for BIS since it doesn't require any complicated conditions, just something in between Aware and Combat modes (like when AI knows enemies are there (low knowsAbout) but hasn't come under fire yet)

You can't be blamed for not using mods concerning point 1. Such essential things need to be fixed in the vanilla (simulation...) game.

+10

All four bugs need fixing (though I believe that the rangefinder problem is being addressed already) & the pistol bug was reintroduced in one or other of the most recent patches so I expect that to be fixed in 1.63.

---------- Post added at 01:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 PM ----------

The essential addition will be the behavior where AI units walk with their guns at the ready. It's one important advantage of playing with a human team - AI team will never approach an enemy position being ready to suppress it.

It shouldn't be hard to do for BIS since it doesn't require any complicated conditions, just something in between Aware and Combat modes (like when AI knows enemies are there (low knowsAbout) but hasn't come under fire yet)

Good point. Hmm.. kju/norrin put together an addon which makes it possible to lower weapons (for player only IIRC) when near an object like a wall. I wonder if it is possible to do the reverse for AI? Obviously better if it was an option in-game - menu 7 or 8 - but still...

The essential addition will be the behavior where AI units walk with their guns at the ready. It's one important advantage of playing with a human team - AI team will never approach an enemy position being ready to suppress it.

It shouldn't be hard to do for BIS since it doesn't require any complicated conditions, just something in between Aware and Combat modes (like when AI knows enemies are there (low knowsAbout) but hasn't come under fire yet)

What do you mean by this? In danger mode ai always have their weapons raised. In aware mode some of them will and most won't - but upon contact, even if shots aren't fired they raise them I believe (will have to test). But I just don't see how having their weapon raised would help them that much besides when they are at close range. At 50 metres plus I don't see how the second it takes to raise their weapons would make that much of a difference.

and maybe you have found the infantry combat unrealistic and unappealing but I found it pretty accurate

Are you playing against ai or PVP? Don't you think that lack of foliage and shadows at distance and small terrain features alone make the infantry combat pretty unrealistic? Add in the fact that the ai has very little care for cover and I am confused how you could say it is accurate.