HETMAN - Artificial Leader

@About HC

Probably such an implementation will be devastating for the player-giving the LeaderHQ and his his groups exclusive raw-CPU-power

on reactions and waypoints.

LeaderHQ probably he will be able to re-plan/act in MUCH lower cycles without burdening general performance..

I can't say i haven't dreamed of it playing yesterday..

Thanks for the headsup about the new version :cool:

Updated version frontpaged on the Armaholic homepage.

==================================================

We have also "connected" these pages to your account on Armaholic.

This means in the future you will be able to maintain these pages yourself if you wish to do so. Once this new feature is ready we will contact you about it and explain how things work and what options you have.

When you have any questions already feel free to PM or email me!

Agree that headless client would probably help HAL with HUGE battles :)

Think of the headless client as an AI load helper.

All right, anybody has at hand some link, where basics about HC/scripting for HC are explained?

Maybe Add a userconfig to it. BTW I've found some incompatibilites with HAL and AISS. I think I get and ammo error when the Artillery starts firing off. I have it set to reload ammo after every salvo.

Will try to fix this on my end if possible. Going to put an AISS variable to set to tru or false. Also my CAS part does use waypoints. I'll look for a work around. Other than that They both do seem to work pretty good together. Again RYD awesome mod! Been looking foward to the release. :) Thanks man.

(Sorry i m currently really busy.So..with a quickie..)

What is Headless Client?..

ARMA 3 Headless Client Servers & Administration thread

Probably there are other guys who can be more help then i..

Check this post out and the linked PDF file:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?146708-A-comprehensive-guide-to-creating-a-headless-client-compatible-mission

BTW I've found some incompatibilites with HAL and AISS.

Yes, very probable. Depends, on what terms these two should work together, perhaps easiest way would be to be sure, that anything controled by AISS isn't controlled by HAL. Especially, that amongst other things, HAL provides similar features, as AISS, like arty and air support, even if in other way, and messes with their waypoints, arty ammunition...

Another option is to disable HAL's arty handling and emptying air category (or exclude air units), so both functions will be left only for AISS, if that is, what you desire...

So..with a quickie..

Thanks, I'll check these soon. If HC allows to have more AI on map by better CPU usage, then indeed may be a crucial aid for HAL, especially BB.

Check this post out and the linked PDF file:

Great, I will.

So, very preliminary notes after some reading about HC:

The only difference is, "who" controls AIs - server or HC, so question is, if I must do anything at all to make HAL HC compatibile, or perhaps it is compatibile as is right now (if can from server control non-local AI. For sure can give waypoints for non-local players), and all trick is about setting HC (not HALs/mine concern) and making AI handled by that HC (setOwner)?

Perhaps HAL should only transfer AI under his control from the server to HC if find one and proper int variable is set, so mission maker should be not bothered by that task (after reading that pdf seems like simple scripting - to determine, if there is HC, if so, obtain for server its clientID and transfer all AI from server under control of HC)...

I'm wondering, if is possible to have on single PC dedi, client and HC? If not, may be impossible for me to test any work...

Probably no friend.

HC requires a different ARMA3 copy and a different STEAM account.

I hope maybe someone on this forum is economically-able to donate you a copy.

... and second PC, so I could set a network. :) No, one copy founded is for sure enough. If my above thinking is right, then scripting for transfering AI should be simple. In such case may be possible (even if not easy) to work with someone, that has possibility and is willing to test, whatever I write, if it is working.

Basing on my understanding of HC, tried to prepare piece of code, that ran in init.sqf on server before HAL should check, if there is HC, and if so, transfer all AIs ownership from the server to the HC. This is new knowledge to me, and not tested, so I have no idea, if this is proper code. If someone could check that, would be great.

If script is fine, someone also could test HAL with that code and HC set up along with dedi and the player on regular client. RydHQ_HC is the name of the unit (logic object?) with forceHeadlessClient=1; added to his mission.sqm entry.

Just to know, what will happen then - will HAL work properly with AIs on HC, or there will be some errors (and what errors exactly).

(paste this into init.sqf before HAL init config)

[] spawn
{
if not (hasInterface or isDedicated) then//if HC, 
	{
	RydHQ_HCActive = true;//then define RydHQ_HCActive as true
	publicVariable "RydHQ_HCActive"//and broadcast it
	};

if not (isServer) exitWith {};//rest execute only on server

waitUntil {sleep 0.1;(not (isNil "RydHQ_HCActive") or (time > 10))};//server awaits 10 seconds, if RydHQ_HCActive var will be defined/broadcasted

if (time > 10) exitWith {};//if not defined in that time - code will exit here

	{
	_x setOwner (owner RydHQ_HC)
	}
foreach (AllUnits - [player])//transfer ownership of all units except possible local server player to the HC (where playable is RydHQ_HC unit)
};

Probably no friend.

HC requires a different ARMA3 copy and a different STEAM account.

I hope maybe someone on this forum is economically-able to donate you a copy.

i believe this is false. You can run two copies of Arma easily enough using same content and steam account. My guess is that HC can definitely be run this way for testing.

---------- Post added at 20:04 ---------- Previous post was at 20:01 ----------

Hmm. Never saw such thing in the demos... At least yesterday. :) "Problem" with A3 is, that it is still under dynamic development. Do you by a chance use dev branch instead of stable (there are such things, right? Only heard about). "BIS_fnc_setObjectVar_Object1" looks like name of BI function instead of unit name, so this is nothing from HAL side... But I'll by watchful about that. Thanks for report.

this was with stable branch. This must be in some marker code because it is part of the marker text.

i believe this is false. You can run two copies of Arma easily enough using same content and steam account. My guess is that HC can definitely be run this way for testing.

I m quite sure i have read the HC should be in a separate account (mainly STEAM reasons)

I assume you can probably use the ARMA3.exe where the Server.exe is..but (again assumption) you will still need a different

STEAM account..so a different ARMA3 copy to connect and test as Player.. (2 clients sharing 1 account=impossible to my knowledge)

@ Rydygier

btw friend the HETMAN (as you assumed) seems to work out-of-the-box perfectly in MP dedi server..or at least without

noticeable-by-me problems.

I just added 3 slots in my SP experimentation and..voila -MP mission :)

*clap* *clap* *clap*..

@ Community

About other AI mods compatibility.

I used with PERFECT results HETMAN + ASR_AI3 + TPW_CAS (Embedded LoS disabled) + TPW_LoS (*latest additions from TPW_MODS pack)

With the above selection..i have a great mixture of Platoon level management (HETMAN) and Fireteam/Unit level management (the rest mods)

If things go well..i can foresee soon there will be H.C. support and then..the new/average or hardcore player will be forever Doomed :)

Edited November 1, 2013 by GiorgyGR

This must be in some marker code because it is part of the marker text.

Yes. This part of marker text normally is "stringed" name of a player unit as secondary player notification, where he should to go now, something like "B B: 2-3 blahblah (Rydygier) - DEFEND POSITION". And in all my tests so far it was that way, so this is mysterious issue (relevant code line looks just fine)... How about others? Have you seen issue described here with player mission marker? This occurs only in that demo, or eg in the simple demo too? Tried to find setObjectVar function in function viewer, but failed. BIS_fnc_setObjectVar_Object1 looks to me like kind of temporary dummy global variable replacing unit name - acting just like you put in the player unit's name field "BIS_fnc_setObjectVar_Object1" as his name. Why? When? No idea.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Rydygier

^^ I got the same error. I wonder if it is linked to DEV version or another mod that I use? Actually it COULD be that I was playing the mission in MP instead of SP ?

Actually it COULD be that I was playing the mission in MP instead of SP ?

Maybe... Tested MP usual way - TADST for dedi, I client side from same PC, BB demo exported as MP scenario. Result:

(odd, unlike in SP editor preview, despite ammo bars in editor are full, at init all my subordinates reported lack of ammo. They really haven't any ammo apparently, as HAL, as we se, considered group as combat ineffective (HAL counts magazines) and assigned rest order... new game bug?)

Then tested same misson SP:

(normal idle patrol order)

So perhaps somehow is important, if client is on the same PC, or not? Those, who get that issue, could try to give any name to player unit and compare, if this make any difference...

Was there ever any progress on my idea of different strategies? It would be nice to see a leader who waits until recon comes in to act go against a leader who makes a plan and sticks with it. And if needs be, I can explain the way it works in real life.

And if needs be, I can explain the way it works in real life.

Any explanation/discussion, how in real world these things are conducted, would be very appreciated. Progress, also in this direction, is something, what may happen now, after HAL release. Earlier wasn't any progress, as for HAC (A2 Hetman) development stage was finished long time ago.

Speaking of Real Life. This week in the U.S. Army bases in Bavaria are putting on an expo of their video game training system VBS2. From what I saw it looks pretty much like they ripped off OFP (same green text, same map interface, etc.) see some screens and read about it from page 3 of this JMTC article.

The presenter guy was trying to assure me that it was NOT OFP and that it has a very smart and dynamic AI enemy programmed to set IEDs and ambush convoys, so the soldiers can practice virtual tactics, which reminded me of this Insurgency Idea from the HAC A2 thread. I'm not sure if BI will release us some guerilla style factions for A3, but for the people who port A2 content this will be a great feature. You could also attribute something like a sabotage-mission for certain regular army groups.

What do you think about this:

An array RHQ_Saboteurs[]; that include units from RHQ_Inf[]; who have satchel charges or mines.

Units included in this array will receive special Sabotage Missions

Sabotage Missions

I imagine something like this:

-leaderHQ defines areas with potential enemy traffic, opposite side of current objective for example

-leaderHQ sends a group with units from RHQ_Saboteurs with waypoints to the ambush spot.

-in the OnAct of the waypoints you tell the saboteur to lay a satchel, in A2 it would be:

TERRORIST1 fire ["pipebombmuzzle", "pipebombmuzzle", "pipebomb"]

I think in A3 the classnames are "satchelcharge_remote_mag" and "DemoCharge_Remote_Mag", not sure if the command works the same though.

-A trigger gets created at TERRORIST1's position: Conditions, enemy vehicle enters 5m radius. with OnAct telling him to blow his junk:

TERRORIST1 action ["TOUCHOFF", TERRORIST1]

-another waypoint for terrorist group to wait at a safe distance for victim to trigger the trigger's trigger.

The same could apply with mines, (again with A2 language)

unit action ["useWeapon",mine]; unit fire ["minemuzzle", "minemuzzle", "mine"]

LeaderHQ with personality = "terrorist" will be more likely to use this type of mission. Schemer maybe also.

It looks like it can be done just with waypoints, avoiding too much low-level AI manipulation and you can keep your high compatability goal. Any more ideas?

Any explanation/discussion, how in real world these things are conducted, would be very appreciated. Progress, also in this direction, is something, what may happen now, after HAL release. Earlier wasn't any progress, as for HAC (A2 Hetman) development stage was finished long time ago.

Do you want me to go into the basics of an attack and a defence/delay too?

@ monyetswa

Although i LOVE your idea..i really think the LeaderHQ uses mainly "straightforward" tactics.

It will be a VERY GOOD opponent if YOU will play the "terrorist".

It's a scenario i tested already.

Again..i would like to hear if Ryd_mega_man believes THAT kind of Leaders personality "TERRORIST" can be achieved.

Perhaps we need a terrorist style commander for HAL :)

Yea but..things are getting "complicated" (as 2nd thought)

Groups controlled by a "TERRORIST" leader personality should work under different "Low-level" AI behavior because they should move based on stealth..

Doesn't this require Unit level/Squad level different behaviors? (Something Rydygier wants to avoid?)

Edited November 1, 2013 by GiorgyGR

Sabotage, bombs, guerilla tactics - This idea isn't forgotten. I have on my HDD something ready in 60% that is not HAC/HAL mode, but entirely separate project concentrating on constant, ambient (spawned) asymetric AI (terrorists/freedom fighters/partisans) vs AI (stabilisation forces/occupant) warfare. And yes, it needs micromanaging AI. A lots. There is implemented whole dynamic ambush mechanics. From predicting, where is a place worthy of set up an ambush, through sending ambushers there, setting a bomb, hiding, waiting for convoy, touching off the bomb and attack, to the dynamic smart withdraw.

There are ready dynamic patrols, sweep the town operations, partisan hit and run tactics (where "run" part is working really)... Still much to do.

So, why it is only 60% done? I do not know. Just after implementing these ambushes about early June somehow lost interest (temporarily, I hope), and took other projects, that keep me busy till now. So I guess, when I'll return to that, I must rewrite all under A3. When? Do not know.

Why separate, not inside Hetman? Too different approach. Hetman mechanics in its specificity will limit too many features, I want there.

Do you want me to go into the basics of an attack and a defence/delay too?

I do not pretend to be any kind of tactics/strategy specialist. I probably am awared about part of the basics, but who knows, always can learn something new, useful for Hetman. So - decide on your own, what and how verbose do you want to share with me/us. I'll be grateful for anything, that possibly may improve HAL. Of course not all, what is reasonable in real life, is possible to reasonable implementation...

---------- Post added at 16:50 ---------- Previous post was at 16:36 ----------

The presenter guy was trying to assure me that it was NOT OFP and that it has a very smart and dynamic AI enemy programmed to set IEDs and ambush convoys, so the soldiers can practice virtual tactics,

Yeah, it is rather deeply modified/expanded Arma, on visual level somewhere between A1 and A2 (for

). It is partially parallel development, but VBS has features, that armaverse never saw, from the other hand, as for engine, it is one step behind Arma (models one or two steps, but much, much more of them, than in Armas). Of course, it is not a game, not very entertaining, so visuals are secondary. As for implemented AI - well. Unless they added something like that lately, situation there was similar, as is in Arma. You want to have advanced AI tactics - you must script them. There may be scripting/other tools, that make it easier, than in Arma, still... Of course some third party companies sometimes developing something like that for VBS2 as external plug-in or something like that.

Also they are working on VBS3, I see... Interesting, what new there. VBS is great, but not so much for gamers, rather for professionalists for training purposes. I guess, AI has there lesser meaning, it is more about trainees working together/alone in the network.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Rydygier