View Full Version : Urban combat formations
Apr 24 2003, 18:35
Would be good if your could tell the AI to follow the team leader in like a stream/line, somthing like in Rainbow6 cuz this would make it interesting.
Maby to save hassel with the AI recognising an urban or rural/open area, you could maby make area classes when you make the original maps.
Also, how about some animations when the soldiers are safe but don't have their weapons holsterd. They either look to comfortable, or like they're shitting them selves!
Apr 24 2003, 20:50
I kinda disagree, i think they should keep the long/mid range engagements in the same style forests and small vilages, there are too many close combat games already, i agree with the animation part though http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .
Apr 24 2003, 22:09
I second that! Movement in urban terrain isnt something reserved to just CQB-units, ordinary army units do that stuff too.
It would be nice with a ROE-mode that makes the AI take cover the best he sees fit by himself, not just a prone stance, flat on the ground. (Wasnt there something like that in the first demo? - "seek cover" or something like that?)
Apr 24 2003, 22:35
Like using a tree or building for cover?
Apr 25 2003, 00:32
Well, i still think this should be implimented a little, i don't like the way they move through villages.
Would also make it look/play better when they all hide behind the side of a building from a tank or some infantry.
Apr 25 2003, 00:45
I agree. A "stack" formation would be great. Your squad would all line up very close behind you, and when you turn to move in another direction, the squad would use the same pivot point for their movement. Thus, if you turn a corner, your squad will turn the corner at the exact same place that you did, so they don't turn into a wall or anything. Spacing is approximately 1 meter.
Another feature of that I'd like to see is that when you are moving in a "stack" you squadmates will all scan a 60 degree arc to their front. But when you are not moving, your squadmates will conduct security, alternating looking to the front, sides, above, below, and behind them.
A proper fireteam stack movement, notice they are all scanning forward:
A proper fireteam stack security pause: notice they are all scanning separate sectors:
A proper stack in action: notice the pivot point at the building's corner - all soldiers will turn there. Also notice the rear squad member pulling proper security - one soldier is watching the roof. If they were not moving, other soldiers would have their back to the wall and their rifles out covering separate fields of fire.
Hm... Militaryphotos.net doesn't seem to allow direct linking, so you will have to copy and paste the URL in your address bar.
May 4 2003, 08:01
I fully agree that CQB formations and movement commands should be implemented.
Try playing Nagual's Southern Afghanistan missions (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard301/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=4;t=29172;st=160) in SP. I stated there later on the thread that having a set of CQB abilities, as in SWAT3 (just a rough example) would make for new and exciting possibilities in OFP.
Maybe it should be implemented as a separate command menu subset (some sort of switch to CQB command menu) so as not to overcrowd the command menu as it is.
Right now, the AI just poke there heads out when they obviously shouldn't. In a tense, heavy action and fast paced CQB mission, your fingers will go numb in no time, giving orders to go, stop, etc., etc.
This can only open up more exciting and realistic possibilities in OFP. If you don't want to use these commands, no one will force you too. And if they can be menued separately, as I suggested, you'll hardly know they're there - until you need them. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
May 4 2003, 10:11
OFP's developers could learn a lot from the SWAT series, especially in the AI and ballistics aspects. I have yet to find a more realistic game.
May 4 2003, 10:26
My new addons (I'm a real ego today http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ) are using a closer formation than the normal ones.. Not as close as swat 3, cause i think the AI would then run from right to left to get in the right position, but their formations are about half as wide as the normal ones.. so "Form column" will make them stand in a short line... http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
But i think this is all about the AI..
As I said above, the AI runs around to get into the right position..and in CQB, it's not smart to run across the street and back, just to form a small line..
May 5 2003, 11:41
That's why the AI needs to be ... intelligent. By intelligent, I mean aware of its surroundings and capable of automatically using them to its best advantage. The way it is now, the AI strives to remain in formation even while under fire.
I like the simplicity of how Ghost Recon does it: if a team is under fire or you tell them to hold, they automatically move to cover (usually pretty solid cover - trees, rocks, etc.) by default unless you specifically tell them not to. Their ability to manage themselves to a certain point allows me to focus on completing the mission instead of constantly monitoring and adjusting the AI.
OFP is much more complicated, I know, but its combination of interface and AI is like babysitting 11 retarded kids with scissors ... it leaves me wishing I could play MP/Coop. As far as I can tell, there is no easy way to get AI guys to take good cover (relative to the danger/target so as not to be visible or vulnerable) without putting each one of them in a specific place myself and then having them watch a particular direction. The "Find Cover" command should be renamed to "Roam Around, Stop & Orient Yourself Randomly" or "Let's Not and Say We Did." Whatever that command was intended to do, it doesn't do it.
Another good point to take from GR is how AI team members mimic your stance. Overall, I hope they completely redesign and streamline the interface.
As for spacing, I think it's a good workaround in OFP, but for OFP2 BIS should address the source of the problem, not the result.
i agree with urban formations
also there should be an indoors element
since wat ive seen bas do in some of there missions
they should make more detailed houses so that enemies are able to hide there
not all enemies go outside and get killed by a tank
they usually hide in houses
Fibua's would be great but I cant see it happening.
Single File formation is a good idea however in the British army soldiers have a dedicated arc to look at, ie. first man forward, second man right, thrid man left, last man behind. Also, assuming grenades will be in the same style as in OFP, one nade could easily take out your team.
BAD ASS JACK
May 13 2003, 14:22
I agree with the need for CQB elements, but how about some buildings? and BIS i have noticed that the AI seems to... run through some tents http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
And if there are underground tunnels in it the AI must be able to use them and move in them well if its tunnels in nam what about europe, an old abandend sewer tunnel we could use for underground movment...:D
This setunitpos "up/down" is really gr8 but summit be missing... crouch!, this would be helpfull for CQB low roofs or somethin? and geting a guy to hide behind or under a table...?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.