When should AI subordinates use the "bounding overwatch" movement

[Suma]

In ArmA 2, when player is the group leader, AI subordinates always use cover and move using the "bounding overwatch" scheme once in combat. The combat mode is activated whenever player gives order "Danger", and also when player goes prone. This does not seem to give enough commanding flexibility. Now the question is: when should my subordinates move with me, and when should they use cover and move using "bounding overwatch"?

[CAS]

Nice to see that the developer takes his time to ask for our opinion!

[Himmelsfeuer]

Safe
-The Team dont use cover, allways stacks up with the player in given formation.
Aware
-The Team rarely uses cover, they are only "light" breaking the given formation and advance a bit more obsevant.
Combat
-The Team is ready for Engagment, primarly using cover and break formation
for it.They try to stack up and move FAST from Cover to Cover.
Stealth
-The Team moves slow and is hiding from enemys.They break formation for good cover.

Engagment Commands

Fire on my Lead
-The Squad ONLY starts to fire if the player gives the first Shot.
Cease Fire
-The Squad is never firing, also not if detected!
Return Fire
-If the Squad is receiving fire, they answer with engagment.

Prone,Crouch and Up should not have to do anything with the Behaviour of the Units. - When they are commanded to go prone or crouch, that shouldnt change there Behaviour.

[OT sry, but this is needed;-=)^
Anti Tank Weapons:
Please make the Soldiers not engaging Tanks or Armorde Vehicles with Rifles anymore and let them engage FAST with AT Weapons. Tanks actually killing whole Infantry Platoons even if they are with Anti Tanks Stuff.


The Fire or Engagment Commands ive given as example would be a massive improvment also and im sure many people what love to see that!

Notice: I think there are many people which are only using the Editor and playing Singleplayer Missions like me. The most important for a improved SP experience would be the AI and their commands, which are actually very frustrating.So improvments would be pretty nice!Thanks for your great support!

[wheres my rabbit ?]

voted when ordered to take cover (although adding a new order to use bounding would be nice :D )

i'd like the danger order to work like it did in ofp(but a little better)
so when ordered danger and keep low they stay in the ordered formation and copy my stance, if i get up and move they come with me (unless order to stay)
and when i stop they get down again ready to fight..

[ruebe]

If the stance (prone/kneeling) toggles any of this, please consider this: if your team-mates are all your proximity, then it's really nice to see them going down too. BUT: if I - as a leader - am far away, while my team is somewhere else, this leads to bad results.

Example: In warefare, it happens that I order newly bought units as reinforcements. I give them a waypoint to follow me or I send them somewhere else.. Well, I was prone and it turns out, this forced them into dangermode, thus they would never arrive anywhere.

Thus: only apply this to units that can see you at the moment ingame. Thanks.

[-=seany=-]

I would vote for : When I order "Take cover", When I order "Danger" and when group comes "under fire".

But...

What does cover mean to the AI? Are trees and bushes cover? If they enter this mode when we come under fire in an open area are they going to try to run off for 500m to find cover, or do the just go prone if there is no cover? I would not want them to enter this mode when we come under fire if that's the case.

I think when I go prone the AI should go prone and nothing else, the same for Crouch. (and like Ruebe says, only when they are near me. I guess the "Return to formation" command could help with that. Eg Ai not in your formation do not copy the leaders stance.)

Unless it works very well, I think its best to leave changes in combat behaviour to commands given by the leader eg danger, aware etc. Or else I can see see frustration for the player when the AI start doing strange things automatically, or when the leader changes his stance. But if its done well maybe it could work quite nicely.

[Bascule42]

although adding a new order to use bounding would be nice

2nd'ed...I voted for when I order to take cover. But a separate command would be great for this.

[NoRailgunner]

If fireteam A that moves to point X and exposes themselves to potential enemy fire without protection - fireteam B should take an overwatch position and cover team A.
After fireteam A has reached covered position they will cover fireteam B.

Isnt it better to implement a working command like "cover <selected unit>/<selected group>"?

[walker]

Hi all

I voted "When I order them "Danger" " but I would like some modifiers to the behaviour to give alternate bounds when in a hurry or when contact is likely soon but not actualy made; and successive bounds when in actual contact and more cautious. Best of all would be tactical movement orders as a subset as others have stated.

Though successive bounds is more akin to fire and maneuver and thus appropriate when with two or more fire teams.

The ability to designate a base of fire team would be great, but it needs an area supression/cover function too.

Also of import is including of the missing break contact procedure, using a center peel or diagonal retreat method. Something similar to what is described here:
http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Break_Contact

Kind Regards walker

[TRexian]

I voted for danger, but after reading this (and the beta build thread), I would like to offer up a rather different solution.

Documentation.

There are many nuances and subtleties to working with the AI that, once explained, are already workable. But, it is very difficult to stumble into them on our own, or find the gems hidden in various threads. Or worse, de-pbo the stuff and look at the scripting/configs/fsms.

I think a fair amount of these intricacies are things that are just kinda known by those who've played since OFP. Well, many of us haven't. (And that's a good thing.) ;) :)

Please don't take this as wining (although, I guess it is). BI continually proves to be an incredibly responsive software company (not just gaming company). This kind of responsiveness tends to only happen with open source projects (and often not even then)!

But, I look at the module part of the wiki, and there are entries that are less than helpful, and it almost seems like some modules aren't even listed. Just using that to illustrate that now/soon might be a good time to go back and document some of the great features you already have, BEFORE Arrowhead comes out.

Back to the AI issue, though - I suspect there must be some set of FSM diagrams out there that shows how they are supposed to act in certain situations. Sure would be helpful to have those out here. :)

Thanks for all the great support, though.

[Bouben]

Well, I think that one of the biggest problems is that AI in an open enviroment without cover tends to stop when fired at. There is nothing more suicidal than to stop on a flat open ground and "overwatch" when under fire. Units ordered to move somewhere should only stop when behind SOLID cover. The "overwatch" should be also much quicker, if under fire. There is no time to watch a beauty of nature.

EDIT: Or AI should be able to be really really fast when in an open enviroment when doing overwatch. Cover is the priority, because if you live, then you can shoot an enemy. If you get killed, what for is your body? :o)

EDIT2: I realized, that one more thing should be tweaked related to the overwatch mode. AI is moving only few meters till they start to cover another one from a group. I think, it shouldn't be related to some distance intervals but instead on moving from cover to cover. So AI will not stop to cover another one, when they have no cover for themselfs. I know that it has a lot of problems connected to it. Just notice.

EDIT3 (about "take cover command"): Also, I think that "take cover command" should be done FAST and somehow "more in panic" rather than with some precise overwatch and bounding. I tend to use "take cover" when I am in an ambush or in something similarly sudden and fast. So there is no time for scan for enemies. Allright, maybe some guys could just start supressive fire while a rest of a group would hide "without any thinking" just to save their asses (so they should run in effect of careless mode or sth). And they shouldn't be runing from cover to cover, when their current cover is good enough. Runing slowly around is the thing that get them killed so often. You know what I mean. Current "take cover" order is quite allright and usefull, but slow and not very reliable.

Other things:

Since I haven't noticed any difference between Combat and Stealth mode then I think that it would be good that units in stealth mode would never run asi if were under fire, but properly and slowly move in prone position MAXimaly in crouch but only if covered. Stealth is about "not being seen and heard" and that's exactly, what stealth in ARMA 2 is not.

This is really difficult problem to solve. Good to see BIS intersted in that.

[walker]

Hi all

I think TRexian's suggestion of FSM diagrams is an excellent one but I would go a step further among the BI Tools is an FSM editor,
http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/BI_Tools_2

those who wish to contribute could use that. It can be used to create save and print such FSM files.

Why not as a community make such an FSM saving the FSM on a download site for others to edit and printing it out for discussion here?

Kind Regards walker

[TRexian]

@<hidden> Walker -

Not to derail this into a one-on-one discussion :) but I thought of that, too. However, having gotten just a bit of an inkling into the inner scriptology of the BI functions and such, I gotta believe that the fsms are so interlinked that much effort would be wasted on the half-pictures and misdirections that come with reverse engineering what BI already knows.

With great respect - to you and BI - only they know how they want it to work. It could easily be part of the public beta process to say, "When you say danger OR there's shooting going on, the AI are supposed to go from cover to cover. To cancel this, the shooting has to stop AND you have to say Regroup...." or something along those lines.

Cheers. :beer:

[fabrizio_T]

Hmm ...

i'd like to see bounding overwatch:

- When I order them "Take cover"
- When somebody is firing at us
- When we see an enemy (being not too far!)
- When I order them "Danger"

When i lay down or crouch i wish my squaddies simply doing the same (don't take me wrong - not automatically) ;)

Also i'd like to see units never stopping in the middle of roads! :)

Seriously i hope to see more difference in COMBAT vs STEALTH mode behaviour, not just some stance change.
Actually it seems AI in COMBAT/STEALTH mode is using indifferently cover and concealing positions.

My suggestion is:

- In stealth mode, while being undetected, AI groups should prefer bounding across concealing position;
- In stealth mode, when detected, AI groups should use both concealing and cover positions;
- in combat mode AI groups should use cover positions, moving to concealed positions only in case no cover is around;

Generally, when detected, groups should do bounds as fast as possible, while when undetected they should move slower/cautiously in my opinion. Only exception i can think of is urban CQB, in this case i would prefer groups to move always slowly.

EDIT: By the way, thx to Suma and BIS for their efforts here!

[Bouben]

When i lay down or crouch i wish my squaddies simply doing the same ;)

The problem is, that they will do that even if you're 2 km away and having totally different reason to change your position than they have (for example no reason at all:) )

Exactly because of that I can't use the "copy my stance" mod, cause they were like slaves and it really hurted their effectivity.

[fabrizio_T]

The problem is, that they will do that even if you're 2 km away and having totally different reason to change your position than they have (for example no reason at all:) )

Exactly because of that I can't use the "copy my stance" mod, cause they were like slaves and it really hurted their effectivity.

We probably just need the vanilla "copy stance" command working properly for that. I think you can choose to which units assign the command.

Normally i tend to keep my formation tight and/r or split group into a couple teams, under normal circumstances i'm not wishing to have my men more distant than a few hundred meters (for mutual covering purpose) ;)

[mr.g-c]

Hmm ...

i'd like to see bounding overwatch:

- When I order them "Take cover"
- When somebody is firing at us
- When we see an enemy (being not too far!)
- When I order them "Danger"

When i lay down or crouch i wish my squaddies simply doing the same (don't take me wrong - not automatically) ;)

Also i'd like to see units never stopping in the middle of roads! :)

Seriously i hope to see more difference in COMBAT vs STEALTH mode behaviour, not just some stance change.
Actually it seems AI in COMBAT/STEALTH mode is using indifferently cover and concealing positions.

My suggestion is:

- In stealth mode, while being undetected, AI groups should prefer bounding across concealing position;
- In stealth mode, when detected, AI groups should use both concealing and cover positions;
- in combat mode AI groups should use cover positions, moving to concealed positions only in case no cover is around;

Generally, when detected, groups should do bounds as fast as possible, while when undetected they should move slower/cautiously in my opinion. Only exception i can think of is urban CQB, in this case i would prefer groups to move always slowly.

EDIT: By the way, thx to Suma and BIS for their efforts here!
Absolutely Quoted for Truth, can't add anything more!

Besides: Thank you very much Suma for your continuous interest in improving vital parts of your game/engine (the AI!).

Makes me also very confident that AI will get in future (even if just at OA) some sort of a "basic survival/self-caring FSM" because currently without waypoints they act very very strange when getting under fire or whatever happens. (But thats a different Topic).

[Suma]

As a next step to make AI control cleaner, based on this poll, rev. 60718 will contain following changes:

- AI now goes to Combat behaviour automatically only when under fire, not when player is prone.
- AI follows leader stance, but does not switch to combat behaviour when player is prone.

[CAS]

Good changes!

[ACF]

I really must learn to type faster...
It certainly seems a good idea to disassociate stance from behaviour. Will be interesting to see...

[Bouben]

As a next step to make AI control cleaner, based on this poll, rev. 60718 will contain following changes:

- AI now goes to Combat behaviour automatically only when under fire, not when player is prone.
- AI follows leader stance, but does not switch to combat behaviour when player is prone.

Cool, so will they now follow even crouch positions? I had an idea, that when leader crouch, they could be crouching too or laying but not standing. Simply, they would be lower or even with leader, but never above him (isn't that real tactics actually?)

And one more question? Will they switch to combat behaviour when taking cover, but not being under fire?

Thank you!

[lwlooz]

Hey, this is great.

I already tried to elaborate a bit on this on devheaven , but I will add a bit to the previous posts here as well and hope it helps.

I voted for "When somebody is firing on us". Of all the options available it seems to me that is the least likely one to screw up your squad control when you don't want to.

It is not fail-safe tho.
The problem is that the use of bounding overwatch depends on other variables besides behaviour like distance to leader , perceived danger , available cover and tactical situational awareness I am afraid the AI will never get.

Therefore in the near future I would suggest spending some time giving the player a mostly fail-safe way of formation control that could deal with this problem of loss of squad control while allowing for autonomous AI behaviour:

Fall Back in Formation: As I tried to explain on some dev-heaven notes , the most fail-safe way of dealing with this is simply if you just can "abort" their bounding overwatch whenever its misused or they are stuck in some cover. (Reference: Formation Keeping based on Distance (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/show/2755#note-15))

This is already one command that is there , doesn't quite work in "Combat"-Mode anymore and to me seems to be the most straightforward way to exercise control of your AI subordinates.

Personally I think the "Take Cover"-Option should have nothing to do with them using bounding overwatch or not , but a quick way of getting your AI into the next cover when you get shot at.
Same goes for "Laying Down" or "Crouching". To me there seems to be no logical connection between the two.

In the distant future it might be an idea to implement an extra way of formation control by giving the player the option to chose formation form of:

Close: AI will not stray far from leader even if little cover avaible
Loose: AI will try cover to the utmost effect , but keeping cohesion
Free: AI will use bounding overwatch and take cover themselves and will be more free in the distance to chose their cover from.

[NOTE: Even in "Free"-mode AI will temporarily come back to you if you use "Fall Back in Formation"]

In conclusion , for player lead AI I see the behaviour-modes ("Safe","Aware","Combat","Stealth") mostly as definition of AI aggressiveness and while it should play a role for how much the AI looks for cover , more control over that is needed and for autonomous AI behaviour("Bounding Overwatch") there needs to be a on/off switch in the future.

[Bouben]

Fall Back in Formation: As I tried to explain on some dev-heaven notes , the most fail-safe way of dealing with this is simply if you just can "abort" their bounding overwatch whenever its misused or they are stuck in some cover. (Reference: Formation Keeping based on Distance (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/show/2755#note-15))


Very interesting and with lot of potential! BIS should take a look at it.


Personally I think the "Take Cover"-Option should have nothing to do with them using bounding overwatch or not , but a quick way of getting your AI into the next cover when you get shot at.
Same goes for "Laying Down" or "Crouching". To me there seems to be no logical connection between the two.


In the distant future it might be an idea to implement an extra way of formation control by giving the player the option to chose formation form of:

1. Close: AI will not stray far from leader even if little cover avaible
2. Loose: AI will try cover to the utmost effect , but keeping cohesion
3. Free: AI will use bounding overwatch and take cover themselves and will be more free in the distance to chose their cover from.


Exactly!

[ACF]

I was going to go with "When somebody is firing at us"

As a group commander, I can control the overwatch/fire and movement of the group before contact: I can split them into teams or nominate groups on the fly and move them alternately over sensible bounds.

When under effective enemy fire AI should react without input from me and take cover. Units that locate the enemy could/should attempt quick suppression but not hang about in the open. You could say they should start autonomous bounding overwatch to get into cover, but they really should be bounding, not watching.

The point is that I shouldn’t have to tell them to stay alive. They should react sensibly, my job is to regain control by getting some or all of them to disengage and move where I want them. A single ‘follow me (quickly and forget everything else)’ command to do this would be a nice extra, in the same vein as a 'take cover (and then return fire if you can)' command.

As stated above, the sensible reaction is a factor of distance from the threat - is this or can this be considered?

[Heatseeker]

As a next step to make AI control cleaner, based on this poll, rev. 60718 will contain following changes:

- AI now goes to Combat behaviour automatically only when under fire, not when player is prone.
- AI follows leader stance, but does not switch to combat behaviour when player is prone.

I voted for when under fire and when i order them to take cover, its nice to see this comand finally become usefull.

[Himmelsfeuer]

Should the AI allways copy your stand? Cause my AI is actually not doing that with the new Beta..

[maturin]

Should the AI allways copy your stand? Cause my AI is actually not doing that with the new Beta..

Only when told to Keep Low.

I assume that AI-controlled units will also switch to Danger mode automatically? Because I have sniped half a unit set to move somewhere Carelessly and they remained tranquil.

[Alex72]

They remain tranquil until they get fired upon i guess? Not when you shoot someone.

I have yet to test this. Going in now.

EDIT: Definate problems with latest beta. SAFE will make my AI start walking headless away and around. COPY MY STANCE works as in 60588. They dont crouch when i crouch.

[mr.g-c]

As a next step to make AI control cleaner, based on this poll, rev. 60718 will contain following changes:

- AI now goes to Combat behaviour automatically only when under fire, not when player is prone.
- AI follows leader stance, but does not switch to combat behaviour when player is prone.

Hi i tried the latest beta and now the first of the two changes is true, however the stance change ONLY works for going prone....
It would be highly appreciated if your AI follows also crouch-stance! :D

[twisted]

this is awesome to have such discussion with devs.

take cover should be a reaction to an order or to incoming fire.

bounding overwatch should be movement default while in danger mode while moving from cover to cover (if possible).

would love to see more control over squad via context sensitive quick commands on space bar command screen. including fall back, take cover, assault <XX> with xx being any enemy, move up, etc. things really useful in combat - the closer to real commands used in military situations the better.

[nomdeplume]

Manually-commanded Combat ("Danger") mode should use bounding overwatch as it does now.
Automatic Combat mode should only occur when under (effective) fire - not when attacking the enemy.
Automatic Combat mode should be canceled (back to Aware) as soon as possible, i.e. when not under fire for even just a few seconds. By then the group leader should have come up with some kind of response and be issuing new orders, and the AI needs to be able to follow them without delay.
Find Cover command should cause all units to immediately:

Assess immediate threat to the individual unit.
Assess immediately-available targets (i.e. within LoS - things they can shoot "right now").
If they have an immediate target AND the unit isn't in immediate danger (i.e. no enemy is able to shoot them right now), they can open fire. This repeats until either there's no targets left (all dead or in cover/concealment and no longer easy targets) OR the unit is in imminent danger of being shot itself, at which point:
Unit sprints to the nearest cover. If there's concealment on the way, they should move via that; however it's more important to get to cover. If there's no cover, they should find concealment instead and at least one group member should yell something to the effect of there being no cover ("we're sitting ducks out here!"), to alert the player to the situation.
Once in a 'safe' position, the unit would then start trying to engage the enemy, absent of any other orders from the group leader, but without putting itself at too much risk.

Find Cover could then be the automatic response to coming under fire from an unexpected enemy source. Find Cover would break formation following, similar to ordering a unit to move to a location. This means a "return to formation" order is required to get units to regroup. Once this happens, the enemy would no longer be "unexpected" and therefore a regroup issued while under fire would still be obeyed.


The above should handle most combat scenarios, and also make tactical retreats more possible: order the group to Aware mode (if they're not already), and to regroup, and as you leave they'll follow you quite quickly. If they come under fire they go to Danger mode and move to cover/shoot back if they can. Either they're unsuccessful and get killed, or they kill the enemy, or they move to a position where the enemy can no longer kill them. Either way, they can be out of automatic-Combat mode in a few seconds, and resuming running/sprinting back to the formation.

Find Cover could be shortened to just steps 4 and 5 if the preceding ones are too difficult or taxing on system resources. Individual unit skill should probably factor into their response: unskilled units will be less likely to immediately return fire. However, one can argue that unskilled units should be more likely to immediately return ineffective fire rather than taking cover.

On a bit of a tangent, I think the game would really benefit from being able to order your squad (or members of it) to cover a particular area. The units would then move to a position of cover/concealment where they have LoS to the indicated area. This would be useful for setting up ambushes, defensive positions, and so on.

For example, suppose you want to ambush a convoy moving through a valley. Currently, you might walk your team up to a ridge in "line" formation, tell them to hold fire, and then walk forward until most of them are at or near the top of the ridge, then tell them to stop. Then you have to faff about moving individual soldiers to position, and finally have everything kind of reasonable-looking.

Then the enemy shows up, and everyone goes "Danger!" and starts moving to cover/concealment. This potentially results in them becoming exposed, but also means that when you give the order to open up, half the team are still relocating and unable to shoot.

Now imagine doing the same thing, but with the "Cover area" command available. You move near to the hill crest in line formation, tell the group to hold fire, then you point at the valley where you expect the enemy to be and tell everyone to "cover that area". The group moves up the hill and then finds cover/concealment, potentially goes prone (if ordered to do so or in stealth mode etc.), and waits with their weapons trained on the area.

With the above suggestions (only use 'combat' mode if under fire), when the enemy appears, they all maintain their position, reporting they have a target. When you order them to open up, everyone does so. Any incoming fire may trigger a 'combat' mode response, but your guys are already in cover/concealment so that's not so disruptive.

Additionally, you can order most of your team to cover the valley, while ordering others to cover your flanks. The command would be an incredibly powerful "tactics enabler", and I think just about everything needed to make it happen is already present in the game engine.

And best of all, the player feels like they're commanding trained soldiers!

[Inkompetent]

I voted for Crouch and Take Cover. I'm not certain if ordered Danger is the same as AI simply being in Aware mode. That is what I assumed, and I would want the AI to stay in formation if Aware unless told otherwise.

I also think that Crouch (running or walking) is a good way to tell "keep your heads down", whether fired upon or not.

A lot of the time I move, or want to move, in bounding overwatch even when not recieving fire, simply because I MAY get fired upon and don't want the entire team in the open.

If Danger is NOT the same as being Aware, then it sounds like a better option than Take Cover though.

[MadDogX]

The most natural (instinctive) reaction to incoming fire is to take cover. Bounding overwatch is the equivalent of taking cover while moving, so I feel the AI should automatically switch to bounding overwatch when under fire.

I am generally opposed to the AI changing combat modes just because I crouched or went prone.

[MQ-9 Reaper]

I voted for "when i order them take cover", I think I would like it better this way.

If I could keep the squad moving in formation and benefit the danger mode at the same time I would like that. then when i would order 'Take cover'(because contact has been made or is about to be), we would move in bounding overwatch.

[Bouben]

@<hidden>some kind of guy: Perfect reaction. I really hope that BIS will read and look into your idea. Everyone should read what some kind of guy have written. The most constructive and versatile opinion here. Great.

[Heatseeker]

I just tried it and its working the way Suma said, its much better this way.

Now how about stealth? Shouldnt the a.i. crawl around and move slowly under stealth behaviour? ;)

[nomdeplume]

I'm not certain if ordered Danger is the same as AI simply being in Aware mode. That is what I assumed, and I would want the AI to stay in formation if Aware unless told otherwise.

There's 5 movement behaviours available in the game. In the mission editor, these are referred to as Safe, Aware, Combat, and Stealth. There's also a Careless mode, but it's not something you can order in-game.

Within the game, you can order the four main behaviours, using At Ease (Safe), Stay Alert (Aware), Danger (Combat), and Stealth (Stealth).

Units that are in "Safe" mode behave in a more relaxed manner, since they're not expecting contact. Units in "Aware" mode are I suppose a bit more alert; I'm not sure on the specifics, but likely they have an increased detection range vs. units in Safe mode. Combat mode is for actual contact with the enemy, and is the mode in which bounding overwatch becomes active in Arma 2. Stealth is for sneaking, and seems very similar to Combat; presumably it has a higher emphasis on staying low.

The interesting thing is that groups will automatically transition to Combat mode whenever they detect an enemy, if they're in either Safe or Alert. Which effectively means if there are enemies detected, you have two modes available: Combat or Stealth, which are very similar.

Hopefully that clarifies the discussion. I think the devs and mission editors are more likely to refer to the "Danger" mode as "Combat", and "Stay Alert" as "Aware", since that's what they're called in the mission editor/scripting parts of the game.

Careless mode is like Safe, however there's no transition: units will completely ignore enemies, even if they're being shot. So it's not useful in normal gameplay, but can be good for scripted sequences.

Also, you will pretty much always start a mission in "Aware" mode (i.e. "Stay alert").


I also think that Crouch (running or walking) is a good way to tell "keep your heads down", whether fired upon or not.

Possibly it should be a case that stationary AI will copy the stance of their leader, while moving AI would only keep low if they're in combat/stealth mode? I just think it would look kind of strange if every time the leader crouched everyone else immediately did too, regardless of what they're doing... would make it seem quite artificial. I quite often crouch when scanning and I wouldn't want the rest of my team to go OH MY GOD HE'S CROUCHED WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!! every time I did...

[Scrub]

Typically it's the leader ordering the type of movement through a terrain and condition, unless under direct fire, right (call danger)? Or do troops choose to just do it as well?

Funny and true crouch discussion going on here. 'I don't wanna die!'

[NeMeSiS]

I do not like AI changing their behaviour depending on my stance.
The 'Take Cover' command should make them go to cover as fast as possible, so no bounding overwatch.

IMO they should only use it in the 'automatic' combat mode (Which starts when you are under fire or something) and when i order them to go into combat myself.

In stealth mode they should cover eachother, but should leave more space between eachother because priority should be being in cover, not covering other people.
EDIT: By the way, looking at the map makes you crouch, would be rather annoying when your squad goes into combat mode because you look at the map. :p

[Bouben]

I do not like AI changing their behaviour depending on my stance.
The 'Take Cover' command should make them go to cover as fast as possible, so no bounding overwatch.

IMO they should only use it in the 'automatic' combat mode (Which starts when you are under fire or something) and when i order them to go into combat myself.

In stealth mode they should cover eachother, but should leave more space between eachother because priority should be being in cover, not covering other people.
EDIT: By the way, looking at the map makes you crouch, would be rather annoying when your squad goes into combat mode because you look at the map. :p

+1 you're right :)

[BoneBoys]

When I order them Danger.

Simple reply.

[twisted]

tried out the new AI improvements and used troopmon2 to observe them.

they use cover nicely, but there are things about bounding overwatch they do not seem to do.

they should work as a team, this is very important. With a few guys moving forward together to cover/concealment while getting supporting/suppressing fire from the guys behind. then repeat with the guys in front providing support with the guys from the back moving up. right now the ai sort of stay close but do not provide cover and move sort of independently.

as an example. i watched an ai guy walk up the hill while 50m behind him his wounded buddy also tried to move up the hill. the wounded buddy should have provided covering fire or suppressed the enemy allowing the guy in front to move much more safely.

also a note about formations, each guy in the formation is supposed to keep an eye out in a direction, that way danger from many angles can be spotted. each member in the formation should serve a function.

of course you have read this, but look at page 51 for examples with pictures. http://ofp.umbr.net/Other/milpubs/Combat%20Skills%20of%20the%20Soldier%20%20%20(FM%2021-75).pdf

[franklin]

if contact is taken then, yes bounding overwatch would be used. However in order to move towards the enemies flanks, they must first be fixed by suppressive fire, and blinded by smoke. using m203s to put smoke in their faces, and smoke to cover our movements, not our machine gunners line of sight...

a little off topic, but since were in the department of AI improvements...

as far as movement, giving the "Danger" command should definetly put them into bounding overwatch.

to simplify, the traveling technique is used when no contact is expected. Traveling overwatch is used when possible contact is expected, and bounding overwatch is used when enemy contact is expected.

[fabrizio_T]

. With a few guys moving forward together to cover/concealment while getting supporting/suppressing fire from the guys behind. then repeat with the guys in front providing support with the guys from the back moving up. right now the ai sort of stay close but do not provide cover and move sort of independently.

Talking about groups friven by AI leaders: i am the only one thinking that with builds >=60890 things have gone worse in this regards? Does anybody thinks builds 60558 - 60819 got better behaviour ?
I see sensible changes, but in the wrong direction. What's your opinion?

[DayGlow]

I think stance shouldn't effect behavior, the danger command works good for me. What I would like to see in a stance is that in the aware state the AI crouches when they are waiting for an order. IE when they move they walk/run upright, but once they are still they crouch down.

[Skelt]

This is a simulation game correct?

When a Fire Team Leader orders his men to take cover = brake formation and find the nearest solid cover, ie: trees, structures, ditches, essentially get somewhere bullets don't fly. This should also be automatic, when ever you encounter an ambush you have two options, Return fire, or Take Cover, preferably both getting a few heads to duck. AI::: Just lays on the ground, regardless of cover.

A "combat state" of Danger would be to bring weapons to the ready position, as contact is Emanate. However what this means to the AI is to act like complete idiots running around and laying on the ground, where it should be::: Combat Glide, Weapon at ready, In formation, Radio chatter next to zero :::.

In real combat we never run anywhere unless bullets are flying, or there is a specific need to run, as fatigue is an enemy too. A full combat load wears on you fast. Sappy plates + needed equipment step the weight up fast.

You should never have to set your team to Aware, as on any patrol or combat op everyone is full tilt aware, its a very surreal feeling. I would have expected Bis to have interviewed some operators (people far above my skill level) regarding this.

Bounding Movements Bounding Movements could be implemented during stealth operations, or rapid fall backs - in this case it will simulate a bigger force then is actually there, as it will allow for constant rounds down range. This is also used heavily in urban combat, but the game doesn't really allow for proper implementation. More technical research will be needed, glad to see the effort though, I'm sure Bis will get it down in the future.

Copy My Stance (Stay Low) doesn't appear to function correctly at all. Real Life: While on patrol, if stopped for a prolonged period of time, automatically go to the kneeling position, if in the kneeling position for a prolonged time go prone. This is mostly common sense, however we are dealing with AI. The stay low command should position the units in the MID, or Low stance. (Kneeling or prone) So in the game, AI will be in the middle position while moving and prone once stopped for a "prolonged time" 1-5 minutes, Unless engaged, then go prone.

However I would be just as happy if they straight up Copied my stance exactly, regardless of contact.

All in all, Great game, few quarks but definitely the best simulation out there by far** Little more difficult then real life though, as I've been in combat before and made it through 13 months without a scratch. Target acquisition for the player is a bit difficult, I get killed a lot without seeing the enemy.

[maturin]

You should never have to set your team to Aware, as on any patrol or combat op everyone is full tilt aware, its a very surreal feeling. I would have expected Bis to have interviewed some operators (people far above my skill level) regarding this.

Hence it's the default setting, and you simply have the option of putting them on safe if the war spontaneously ends.

[Grizzle]

That poll is out of whack in terms of percentages.

[Suma]

That poll is out of whack in terms of percentages.

This should explain it:


Multiple Choice Poll.

[NeMeSiS]

This should explain it:

I dont think everyone understood that, unless people really dont want them to use it when you order them into combat mode yourself? ;)

[Scrub]

After playing for some time and reading this thread with the poll question in mind, I've come to these opinions:

1- The AI should be self preserving enough that when a surprise contact is made they get to cover if near, or at least return fire. (pretty much done)

2- Any command from AI or Player leader supercedes the AI's self preservation only enough to follow the order. (If I tell them they are safe in a shitstorm of bullets, they are SAFE dammit! lol) If I just say 'move to a position' and don't override their combat stance, they will retain their self preservation and keep to cover. A clear condition resets their self preserving mode.

*Sounds like a subset of conditions is needed (one for the unit's desires, and one for the leaders orders). Or maybe a simple 'move fast' setting to get them to run even in Danger mode so they bound, return fire and run to cover.* I'm up, the see, me I'm down. While running.

3- The AI leader needs to be generally aware of troop strengths. What is present, what can be called, what is known opposing strength. This is to decide whether to attack, hold, or retreat.

That about covers my limited knowledge and hopes. :D

[Helmut_AUT]

The problem with the choice of "when somebody is firing at us" for me is that on occasion you might want to get the hell out of dodge (break contact). If enemy bullets keep the AI to slow bounding overwatch they will never run away as fast as the human team leader.

[cm.]

The problem with the choice of "when somebody is firing at us" for me is that on occasion you might want to get the hell out of dodge (break contact). If enemy bullets keep the AI to slow bounding overwatch they will never run away as fast as the human team leader.

This.

When you are getting shot at and trying to gtfo of there ASAP there is no time to be bounding.

[rundll.exe]

Agreed, with the last 2 post, but then is the question: how to tell the AI?

My best solution would be: IF the AI is more then x meters away from its desired position (formation position), it should not engage or track new enemies but sprint back to its desired position. This way they would not take endlessly to get back as they do now.

[cm.]

maybe make a command "run fast" or something?

[jasonnoguchi]

The thing is that in RL military, bounding is used from COVER TO COVER, not run a few steps and then suddenly stop and get shot at. If bounding is modelled properly, it should work perfect with AI running from cover to cover quickly and covering each other and will also be useful under fire. What the AI is doing now isn't really bounding and definitely not totally useful when in "danger". As such, we don't need extra commands. we only need bounding to be made the way it is meant to be.

[Helmut_AUT]

Agreed, with the last 2 post, but then is the question: how to tell the AI?

My best solution would be: IF the AI is more then x meters away from its desired position (formation position), it should not engage or track new enemies but sprint back to its desired position. This way they would not take endlessly to get back as they do now.

Sounds good, but what happens when you send four guys off to a waypoint. What is then their "desired formation position"? Relative to each other maybe?

It may be counterintuitive (by name), but I think that AWARE or SAFE should totally remove any bounding movement. At least thats how I always used it in earlier versions, and that seemed to work - DANGER for combat or move to contact, AWARE and SAFE for moving around quickly.

[Bouben]

The thing is that in RL military, bounding is used from COVER TO COVER, not run a few steps and then suddenly stop and get shot at. If bounding is modelled properly, it should work perfect with AI running from cover to cover quickly and covering each other and will also be useful under fire. What the AI is doing now isn't really bounding and definitely not totally useful when in "danger". As such, we don't need extra commands. we only need bounding to be made the way it is meant to be.

+1 I agree

[Grizzle]

This should explain it:

That it does. ;) Didn't see that.

[ruebe]

Please make sure, that at least assigned teams of one group (re-)act independent! While team red comes under heavy fire, team blue might need to keep a fast pace to help team red out. But if the danger-status of team red also set's team blue to danger, they won't arrive in time.

It would be even better, if there would be a check for each unit, maybe checking the distance to the danger-zone, and consider not switching to danger.

Sure, in a lot of missions, you aren't supposed to split up. But for gamemodes like warefare this is pretty important.

--

2nd: if a vehicles get's under fire and the cargo or even the crew has to bail out, make them run! It's sad to see a whole squad die, because they are jerking around the vehicle beeing under fire, doing the slow danger-dance instead of immediately heading for a safer spot and then they may go to danger-mode. (such a behaviour is needed for indirect fire too, as already mentioned, which are (hand-)grenades, artillery and the like)

[Bouben]

2nd: if a vehicles get's under fire and the cargo or even the crew has to bail out, make them run! It's sad to see a whole squad die, because they are jerking around the vehicle beeing under fire, doing the slow danger-dance instead of immediately heading for a safer spot and then they may go to danger-mode. (such a behaviour is needed for indirect fire too, as already mentioned, which are (hand-)grenades, artillery and the like)

Yes, this is totally must have behaviour. + 1

[froggyluv]

--
2nd: if a vehicles get's under fire and the cargo or even the crew has to bail out, make them run! It's sad to see a whole squad die, because they are jerking around the vehicle beeing under fire, doing the slow danger-dance instead of immediately heading for a safer spot and then they may go to danger-mode. (such a behaviour is needed for indirect fire too, as already mentioned, which are (hand-)grenades, artillery and the like)

+1

There needs to be a general haul-a$$ element to the AI that overrides all else in some situations such as the aforementioned exploding vehicle; artillery; overwhelming armor/air and player's command.

[cm.]

Excellent suggestions, it would definitely be more realistic if they ran anywhere as soon as they got out of a vehicle that it critically damaged.

[stun]

Any chance of having a "use bounding overwatch" option added to the movement menu? It seems to me that it would be useful if it could explicitly be requested when advancing rather than automatically kicking in when under fire or when the danger order is given. I would rather that units kept low i.e jogging hunched over if I give the danger order and they know an enemy is nearby.

It would also be cool if there was a "sprint" movement order to get the AI to haul ass when crossing exposed ground.

[sprayer_faust]

I voted "danger", because the leader doesn't always want their squad to move slow when "under fire". I agree with froggyluv here. There should be another option in the same submenu, where your team mates would try to follow you as close and quick as possible no matter how fast you run.

I've had frustrating moments in the campaign, because the AI team didn't follow me as fast as I wanted them and we got pinned down - when this happens your whole tactic is ruined, the game turns to babysitting and annoyance kicks in while you save/load every 20 seconds because you do not want to restart the whole mission.

[nomdeplume]

Agree that fast movement is often needed. Maybe it could be added as an engagement option (combat mode)? The current "hold fire" isn't quite strong enough for stealth missions (your guys like to stop holding fire, seemingly at random), but also is a bit too strong for patrolling under (you probably want them to take shots if they're sure of getting a kill).

So maybe three options could work:

Open fire - works as present, units shoot at anyone they see
Restrain fire - units report contacts, engage if they have a really good shot, but otherwise try to stick with the leader
Hold fire - units never fire unless they're actually under fire


The middle option could then also serve for when you want your team to get out of a bad situation without trying to engage the enemy. They'll still shoot if they happen to get a good clear target, but they won't hang around trying to get it. It would also be useful while on patrols and such: if you spot enemies at some distance and nobody has a good shot, they'll just call it in and you can decide what to do. But if you stumble on them and are already in a good firing position, your guys can start shooting right away.

Having an in-between mode like this also means that you can make the "hold fire" stronger, as the player can then decide how much risk they want their guys to take.

Alternatively: the "open fire" mode (yellow) could be changed to make the AI less interested in pointing their gun at their target, thus creating a greater distinction between it and "open fire, engage at will" mode (red), but this might have negative ramifications for a lot of gameplay.

[jasonnoguchi]

What's with all the "crouch walking" under danger thing??? That's not what real military do, at least not what I did with my 8 years in SF. You only crouch walk or stealth walk or what we call ghost walk under stealth. When under danger, you run like lightning and shout like thunder, thats the way we were trained. So, please keep the "crouch walking" thing to stealth and let soldiers behave properly under danger. Its stupid to see soldiers crouch walk under fire! In fact, I don't use the DANGER command anymore and just stick to stay alert where they still run after the leader! That stupid crouch walk thing was what made me always put my squad mate somewhere safe and do all the missions alone in ArmA1! PLEASE for God sake GET RID OF CROUCH WALK or keep it to stealth mode. Crouch walk is STUPID and is not what real soldiers do in the field!

[4 IN 1]

I personally thinks it is better to have different moving command for different pace, for example, move/move fast/sneak, move fast means dont do overwatch and get from point A to point B ASAP, move means squad move at normal speed and will sometime do overwatch and will say "Go! I will cover", and sneak means squad will always do overwatch but remain silent. Combat mode should have any of these move command pre-set but should also
be able to overrid when ordered to

[stun]

@<hidden>
I wasn't referring to walking around in a crouch while aiming. I meant the anim new to A2that lets you jog while hunched over to lower your profile. My fault I have edited my post accordingly. If bullets were flying about and I was moving - unless I was in a dead sprint - I sure wouldn't want to be standing as tall as possible.

[jasonnoguchi]

@<hidden>, oh the low running. Yes, that one is very realistic. :) That's what we mean by keeping your head low under fire, yes, the AI don't use it much, they should be running that way more under fire but when to sprint or low run is really subjective. I am personally against having crouch walk in danger mode. It should belong only in the stealth mode and only when there is no enemies at sight. When enemies are in sight, stealth = prone. No other options.

[stun]

Yeah, I am surprised that the AI never seems to use the crouching run. I would love to see BI get the AI automatically doing this when moving under fire. The only exception would be if the squad leader starts sprinting - they should do likewise. This is why I would like it if bounding overwatch could be a separate command. basically units should follow what the leader is doing unless explicitly ordered. i.e. sprint if the leader is sprinting, keep low if not sprinting etc....

@<hidden>
How was bounding overwatch used when you were in SF. I assume that whoever was commanding the unit would let them know that they were to advance in this fashion rather than just legging it?

[jasonnoguchi]

@<hidden>, in the SF, our team leader almost never have to tell us to do anything. Everything's in the drills. We usually go into bounding overwatch when contact is imminent. When assaulting in built up areas or when approaching our target area. In fact, our team leader don't even have to tell us to do it, its really a mood thing. We get into that mood when we know danger is imminent and from the way our team leader starts getting into more cover, behaving more cautiously and talking lesser. That's why we train together all the time as a team so that all of these coordination becomes automatic.

I guess this could translate into "Danger" in the game as the team leader seems to shout out "Get Ready For Contact" when that order is given. Yes, we would go into bounding overwatch when contact is imminent, so that would fit in nicely. Apart from that, the fact remains that bounding overwatch in ArmA2 is BROKEN. We bound from cover to cover, not stop halfway between covers for nothing.

Those who voted for "Take Cover", I really don't understand why. When ordered to "Take Cover", units really find a safe place and dig in. This is usually preparation for a defensive, dug in, fighting where you don't expect to move around much or at all.

When units come under surprise fire, all behavior should default automatically to DANGER and then let the bounding overwatch in the DANGER mode take over. So, the conclusion is, this bounding overwatch, if FIXED (COVER to COVER, no CROUCH WALK!), should just belong in the DANGER mode.

[bhaz]

Voted for danger & when under fire.

If I order "find cover", I don't want them spending 30+ seconds moving to it, I want them there asap, and with bounding behavior this just won't happen. I guess switching to bounding after they found cover wouldn't be a bad thing, but taking their time moving to it is just gonna get them mowed down.

Also, you could take a completely different look at it, danger in my opinion just means if you're not moving, stay in cover or concealment. Bounding overwatch should be something toggled by the squad leader, usable with any behavior excluding 'safe'.

[jasonnoguchi]

I think the difficulty in making very generalised combat behavior also lies in the fact that the combat drills used by a normal infantry soldier fighting in a platoon or squad is very different from what is used by a specops. However, in the game, every kind of soldier shares the same behavior. so, yes, in future versions, BIS may want to make every aspect of the game even more detailed; detailed movement orders and maybe even different ones for different soldier type, detailed weapons customisaton and clothing customization.

[ruebe]

... different ones [behaviour] for different soldier types ...

Totally! Though I wonder what the best approach to get "there" is.

special expert books (AI)
A first idea would be different "expert books" or rules for different soldier classes/types. But I think this would still be too simple. I think some basic and completely different "expert books" would be nice, mostly depending on the capabilities of the weapons at hand (rifleman vs. sniper -> completely other movement and attack behaviour is needed; special AT/AA behaviours, ...)

So this is more a hidden and automatically assigned behaviour, thus non-scriptable, because the given weapons define the behaviour (parts of it).

Speaking of special expert books, of course, Dslyecxi's guide comes to my mind. Though to pull this trick, the AI probably needs a more elaborated and extensive means of awareness (which is probably one of the core problems poor BIS-devs have to deal with).

elaborated rpg system
I guess a lot could be done with this simple approach alone. What's still missing is personality or reflection of the given class. Eg. Speznaz are better trained than a simple soldier. To fill this gap, more RPG-elements are needed, with default and slightly randomized values for each classes.

Thus "skill" has to be replaced with a lot more different traits/characteristics (which need to be set/get-able of course). I think this could induce a lot of depth into the game at low cost.

Imagine we had the following traits instead of skill only:

driving skills
aviation skills
shooting skills pistols and guns
shooting skills sniper rifles
shooting skills rockets


Nothing too fancy yet, but think about it: you couldn't just assign anyone to pilot your helicopter anymore, thus any pilot would gain real importance instead of being only another model. No aviation skills at all would lead to you not beeing able to fly anything at all. And if you don't care - e.g. for a mp mission - you could still give all the players all the skills.

Of course, nobody wants to see AI driving even poorer than now, so the effects of this should be carefully considered.

Beeing able to get and set skills makes things probably interessting for types like domination. SP missions too could profit from this, by modeling the learning process/training of the player (think at campaigns! Think at the resistance campaign with the awesome soldier-pool-function! Now loose your best tank-gunner, the best sniper or pilot again :eek:).

Of course, most of this is for AI. Though I could imagine some effects of skills/traits on the player too! Speznaz player should be able to run slightly faster, non-sniper-classes have way more weapons-sway than those with sniper-skills, etc... This would be way better system to prevent circumventing a class-system, for it wouldn't simply remove weapons from you which you're not allowed to have...

I guess I should make a point here. Maybe this even deserves it's own topic. Anyway, as a homework for all of you guys: think about it and come up with your own skills/traits you wanna see and what their effects would be. The first who's about to return his thoughs may open a new thread for it in the suggestions forum :D

[Bouben]

@<hidden>, in the SF, our team leader almost never have to tell us to do anything. Everything's in the drills. We usually go into bounding overwatch when contact is imminent. When assaulting in built up areas or when approaching our target area. In fact, our team leader don't even have to tell us to do it, its really a mood thing. We get into that mood when we know danger is imminent and from the way our team leader starts getting into more cover, behaving more cautiously and talking lesser. That's why we train together all the time as a team so that all of these coordination becomes automatic.

I guess this could translate into "Danger" in the game as the team leader seems to shout out "Get Ready For Contact" when that order is given. Yes, we would go into bounding overwatch when contact is imminent, so that would fit in nicely. Apart from that, the fact remains that bounding overwatch in ArmA2 is BROKEN. We bound from cover to cover, not stop halfway between covers for nothing.

Those who voted for "Take Cover", I really don't understand why. When ordered to "Take Cover", units really find a safe place and dig in. This is usually preparation for a defensive, dug in, fighting where you don't expect to move around much or at all.

When units come under surprise fire, all behavior should default automatically to DANGER and then let the bounding overwatch in the DANGER mode take over. So, the conclusion is, this bounding overwatch, if FIXED (COVER to COVER, no CROUCH WALK!), should just belong in the DANGER mode.

great points! I wish BIS would do it like that.

[bhaz]

As an addition, with the latest beta (61974) I was trying to evac an AI squad that was under fire, all automatically switched to combat mode and took over 5 minutes to board the vehicle.
Suggestion? Embark order = forced aware when less that 15 metres from the vehicle.

[Mysteryman5150]

No matter when the AI goes into bounding overwatch or combat mode, they need to respond to the squad/team leader when told to return to formation or when given any other order. Failure to do so would be rank insubordination and should not exist in a mil-sim game. Like bhaz said above...
all automatically switched to combat mode and took over 5 minutes to board the vehicle.... That should never happen. The AI needs to respond to the commands given by the leader, that is what makes the military function.

Alot of people play this game in SP mode and it is very difficult with the AI being unresponsive at times.

That's my nickles worth of knowledge;)

[Wolfrug]

As an addition, with the latest beta (61974) I was trying to evac an AI squad that was under fire, all automatically switched to combat mode and took over 5 minutes to board the vehicle.
Suggestion? Embark order = forced aware when less that 15 metres from the vehicle.

That is annoying, but I think there're been suggestions elsewhere for a "haul ass" command which would cover this as well. Remember that the AI uses the exact same commands as the player, but the AI does not have the same situational awareness as the player, and never will. If the 'get in' command did indeed do that (force the AI to move it), then we'd probably be filling threads like this with complaints over why the damned AI gets up and runs to their certain deaths as soon as they're ordered to board something :) This would be solved, BY THE PLAYER, by simply making sure the Mount command is given in staggers (one/two at a time, the rest covering) or for instance waiting until the perfect moment. The AI, however, can't do this - the AI squad leader will give the command the moment the game commands him to, no matter the situation.

Ahem. But yes. "Haul ass" would still be useful...

Regards,
Wolfrug

[TJ72]

I guess that people could complain (laughing out loud) that the AI are somehow too responsive but that would not be a reasonable or legitimate complaint to make. Especially in the face of the annoyances with the faulty 1.05 AI superglue shoes they have now.

Having the AI stick where they are just because they know about enemies in the area is alot worse then a human squad leader who doesnt know how to order the group around properly. Its the squad leaders job to decide if its safe to move or not.

When I order my AI to do something I want them to react quickly. If they are scared or unskilled or wounded, THEN maybe they might freeze up.
If they died because I ordered them across the line of fire then its my fault not the AI or BIS's. If they are well trained and competent soldiers then they should follow orders.

[=KCT=BlackMamba]

i like to see when i give them order to copy my stance they actualy "copy" my stance
so they wont give away our position.

when i give order to hold fire they actualy holding fire, like himmelsfeuer says.
cause sometimes i like to be able to let my enemy pass my position, now my team m8 opens fire any way and gives away our position....

and when i got shot and ask for medic (when im not in line of fire) they actualy give me first aid, while the rest of the team provides cover....

oow also i like to see my team m8's a little more responsive while being shot at

[MacScottie]

The "When the enemy is shooting at us" option could potentially be bad, because sometimes you specifically want your guys to move fast with no regard to their safety for various reasons. The top two I can think of is incoming arty or bombing run and when you're trying to do a fullscale retreat.


and when i got shot and ask for medic (when im not in line of fire) they actualy give me first aid, while the rest of the team provides cover....

God yes this would be nice.

[=KCT=BlackMamba]

yes i figured didnt realy understand bounding overwatch thats why i clarified my overal issues with current AI

and i responded on a reaction from page one, after i posted i figured there where allready 5 pages...pfffff

[Heatseeker]

Is there a way to shutdown this bounding overwatch?
The a.i. is much better without it.

[Scrub]

It seems the continuous enemy fire gets medics to forget about you, I usually keep shouting to remind them. Seems to work pretty well. Would be nice if I didn't have to.

[=KCT=BlackMamba]

i think when u look at the "realism" factor, in real life i assume with a few bullits in your stomach u are realy lucky to shout medic!!! once.... and cross fingers he actualy get to u ASAP.

i can imagine he has to overlook the situation bevore he gets to u.
he has to take caution to not get shot himself, but his job is actualy safe your ass.

the rest have to open fire and take the attention of the opfor while u receive first aid

right now the medic keeps engaging untill the last nearby enemy is killed

[King Nothing]

I just finished playing a mission I failed because my AI subordinates didn't board an extraction vehicle 10-15 meters away because enemies was present nearby in a forest. My subordinates just used this combat movement by moving only few meters at a time and then scan the surroundings as if we weren't in a hurry. I took 3 minutes to get 3 of my 6 men aboard until the vehicle was knocked out by an rpg. Needless to say, I was ranting a bit at the AI. :rolleyes: Anyway, my two cents for this thread:

When I order "return to formation" my AI subordinates' first priority must be returning to formation as fast as possible.
When I change the behaviour to "aware" and order them to do something (like board a vehicle) my subordinates should stop hiding in bushes and scanning the surroundings and do what I tell them to. Alternatively there could be an order for them to hurry up and get moving.
Sometimes the auto-combat mode is a good feature for saving few seconds from manually telling them to go in combat mode. But most of the time it prevents/slows down the AI from doing what they are supposed to do for no proper reason.


I hope you BIS could do something about this.:o

[Jakerod]

when i give order to hold fire they actualy holding fire, like himmelsfeuer says.
cause sometimes i like to be able to let my enemy pass my position, now my team m8 opens fire any way and gives away our position....

Your man did hold fire. He held fire until he was spotted by an enemy soldier and decided that "Hm.. that guy saw me maybe I should kill him before he shoots me." To the player this isn't apparent but to the AI they know if they were spotted or not. He chose to shoot because he knew he had been seen and wanted to kill the other guy before he got shot.

In Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis and Resistance they held fire no matter what. A lot of people complained about this because your men would just sit there and let themselves die 1 by 1 even if the enemy was right on top of them. They changed it to the present system so that the AI would have some sort of self-preservation. They wouldn't just let themselves be hacked apart by a single guy walking up to each one of them at point blank and shooting them.

Perhaps the guy should call out SPOTTED! or something as he fires but they will hold fire until they are detected by the enemy.

All information found in this post was written according to what my present knowledge actually is. I take no responsibility if any of it is false. I believe all of it to be true at the moment of writing.

[=KCT=BlackMamba]

i cant say your wrong... its comon sense to shoot first when u suspect being detected.
think its me misunderstanding the several commands.:)

[Cyclone83]

Personally I hate it when I'm in combat action / under fire to give my team mates orders how to behave. Mostly me and / or my team mates get killed at those times. The AI should be clever enough to take cover when getting under fire and run with me when I start to. When enemies are descried, my mates shall change behavior to combat automatically, until I order 'em something else.

[=KCT=BlackMamba]

i think it should be when moving while under attack 3 out of six need to move and cover so the other 3 can move in front of u and cover u, untill u are there where your going,
even when under fire so u can get out of the hot zone and maybe counter the attack.

right now the AI wil dig in and return fire, not realy responding to any given command.

[metalcraze]

This should only happen when I order them to - just like in OFP and ArmA. Sometimes you just need to run away from combat especially when you control a small team and have too much to handle coming it you. But instead they chose to die in a silly way when under fire or seeing an enemy.

[7-75 Callaghan]

I thought it was implemented correctly, I assume that 90% of people simply don't know how to command the AI correctly, instead of making major changes to a system so many people are probably used to, why not add a tutorial mission that covers all aspects of AI command. Perhaps I assume incorrectly, but the AI should only use bounding overwatch when in Danger or Stealth modes. Perhaps a whole new command set should be added to control speed as in the editor, where slow would signify bounding in both stealth and danger, normal would use bounding only in stealth and fast would remove bounding altogether but they would still use cover and prone as normal in those modes.

[=KCT=BlackMamba]

its just when a marine gets the order to move they move, even when under attack.

ingame when i order to move they stay put ignoring my command.
when i keep moving im taking a risk to be overwhelmed by the enemy without my team supporting me.
when i stay we get surrounded by the enemy,
but my team wont listen to my orders.
so i cant attack and reposition, cause they keep engaging...

[MrXToTheN]

its just when a marine gets the order to move they move, even when under attack.

ingame when i order to move they stay put ignoring my command.
when i keep moving im taking a risk to be overwhelmed by the enemy without my team supporting me.
when i stay we get surrounded by the enemy,
but my team wont listen to my orders.
so i cant attack and reposition, cause they keep engaging...

that's my problem too. The best in my eyes would be to only let them do bounding overwatch on danger mode or to make an addtional command for it.

[nomdeplume]

Maybe it would be possible for the AI to know where they're "supposed" to be? Then they can leg it if they find themselves somewhere else. For most cases, they're supposed to be in formation, so once the squad leader gets far enough away, they'll make it their life's goal to catch up to them.

Alternatively, they could base their "supposed to be" location off of whoever they're next to in the formation, so if you move off, the guys who are meant to be near you will notice and start moving first, then the guys next to them will decide they're too far away from their position and start moving, and so on. This could effectively mimic a bounding overwatch type of movement, especially if the leader moves in bounds.

When ordered to get in a vehicle or heal someone or move somewhere, the location of their target would become their "supposed to be" location and they'll hustle to get there.

But I think there still needs to be a way to determine when you want them to move cautiously and when not, and this needs to be independent of whether they've detected enemies.

Assuming the "automatic danger mode" is in fact tracked separately to a leader-ordered "danger" mode, then that shouldn't be a problem: if an AI is supposed to be somewhere else, it'll ignore its automatic danger mode and run straight there, then resume "danger" behaviour once it's where it's meant to be. If it's been explicitly ordered into danger mode, it'll use bounding overwatch/hide under the bushes movement.

[=KCT=BlackMamba]

simply make shure bounding overwatch is working properly

the direction of attack shouldnt make a difference they should do bounding overwatch when attacked from any direction.

i agree with "some kind of guy" abouth determining the bounding speed.
depends on the situation maybe u want to engage or retreat, do u want to keep the element of suprice and go slow? or overwhelm the enemy and go in fast.
maybe u need to get out of the hot zone, it realy depends on the situation.

but we never leave a fallen soldier behind, and we shure wont stay to be cannonfodder..

[4 IN 1]

I think it is a matter of AI fail most of the time to follow the order player gave them

[DeZzErX]

It would be nice if you could put your AI subordinates into 3 'mindsets'.

For instance "Agressive", "Defensive" and "Break Contact"(couldn't come up with a better one).

When they are in
- Agressive mode and you order danger or get shot at they use bounding overwatch and advance.

- Defensive mode and you order danger or get shot at look for the nearest cover and hold their ground.

- Break contact mode and you order danger or get shot at the use a reverse bounding overwatch and retreat.

Ofcourse any command given by the player (to board a vehicle for instance) should overwrite their behaviour.

[=KCT=BlackMamba]

when boarding vehicles solution would be first go's to vehicle and covers, second person who's moving towards the vehicle also piks an angle to provide cover and so on untill the last one can enter the vehicle safely so the rest can get in one at a time untill every one has boarded

[maturin]

No need for an example mission, here is how it stands.

While driving back to FOB Manhattan in Bitter Chill, I take fire from a Chedaki jeep. I escape to the base and go through the cutscene with Simmons from Team Saber. Cutscene over, I order my team to get in the humvee.

Well, they're still in automatic Danger mode. It takes a good thirty seconds for them to load up. They drop on their stomachs, stare at the jeep, then take turns running tactical circles around it and scanning the horizon. The machinegunner is dead to the world, preparing to suppress the enemies a mile away who shot at him five minutes ago. After an interminable period of ducking and weaving or doing plain nothing, after spamming "It's SAFE, it's SAFE, LOAD UP DAMNIT!" commands, they manage, with herculean effort, to get in the car.

This is unplayable, BIS.

By all means, make the AI act realistically as they can when under someone else's control (although so far that means moving at the speed of a large slug), but when I'm in charge, I want them to be drones.

[froggyluv]

I have to agree with Maturin. Although maybe not unplayable, there hasn't been a SP mission I've played since the AI was changed some 3 months ago, where the mission doesn't come grinding to a standstill over one of these "freezes".

Please BI, take the steps needed to either turn the AI back to it's previous state or add some meat behind the "disengage" command so that we can once again have some control over the pace of the mission.

[Eclipse4349]

Bounding overwatch would probably be ok if it was only when in a firefight or when ordered into "danger" mode, as long as they can be ordered out of it, and as long as when they are in bounding overwatch, the one doing the bounding MOVES, as in, runs, not walks slowly while out in the open. Bounding overwatch with slow, careful movement is only really useful in a CQB environment. In other situations, out in the field, being out in the open and moving slowly while not behind cover just get you targetted.

Glad to see you guys at BIS taking our opinion into account. The current bounding overwatch, especially the fact that the AI never stop doing it once you make contact, is a game breaking issue when you have subordinates to command!

[CarlGustaffa]

AI should react better to being put in aware or safe modes, and break overwatch procedure. That should be fairly easy to implement, if it isn't already. But what I often experience when I'm assuming command over units after leader is killed after an engagement, is complete lack of formation. Something is severely broken here.

The other night I spent an insane amount of time waiting for my units to return to formation. I put them at safe and stand up, but nothing seemed to happen. I finally gave them a "move to" order, right in front of me. Then they came running. Now, doing a new return to formation order, they would walk like morons around me never being able to find their spot.

Question: Are the (assumed) "problems with overwatch" related to (or caused by) the problems with units not being able to find their formation location?

[Eclipse4349]

In my experience, the AI rarely line up in formation properly. They start out ok, but at some point they just lose their minds. After that, they never line up oriented in the direction the leader is facing, they line up in a column when you put them in a line, stay in a column when you subsequently put them in a column trying to get the line, form a wedge that is facing 90 degrees to the side of where the leader is oriented, etc etc. I have found nothing to fix it, and it seems to be a totally separate issue than the neverending bounding overwatch.

Even with all the bugs that are still around, the AI is much better than other games that I have played that put you in control of AI squadmates. Good luck fixing the issues, BIS!

[mchide]

If i crouch and only if i raise my weapon

[Protegimus]

This clearly needs some thought, as consideration must be given to the circumstances when bounding overwatch is used. fabrizio_T gave very good recommendations, so I'll use them as a reference and try to expand:

- When somebody is firing at us:
If the fire is effective (i.e. people are being injured/dying) or anything but small arms, then don't fanny about making pretty formations - get behind any available cover as fast as possible and start returning fire if appropriate

If just suppressive fire from small arms, then use short, quick bounds to counter or withdraw according to orders, with the caveat that if under control of a human player, take cover, return fire and only move to where the human player has ordered.
If under suppressive fire from a heavy calibre weapon or any kind of artillery, then the priority should be to get in hard cover.

- When we see an enemy (being not too far!):
Maybe 600m or less, so that it will be only area suppression from small arms
Longer bounds to be used, only when not under fire

- When I order them "Danger"

- When I order them "Take cover":
If under fire, then as above.
If not engaged then larger 15-20m, quicker bounds should be used, especially on open ground.

When i lay down or crouch i wish my squaddies simply doing the same:
perhaps this can be controlled to when the squaddies are within 20m of their section leader, avoiding the problem of having guys changing stance at inappropriate times or places.

Another extremely important factor is that AI are currently using compact column formation during their bounds, presumably to avoid the hold up caused by them using concealment when moving in any other formation - this needs to change to a compact line formation as AI are killing each other when the rear covering party fires (the advancing front party is directly in their arc):

^
|

^
|



^ ^
| |

and also because it makes them very vulnerable to enemy fire.

Slow movement in urban, except when crossing open ground.
There's probably more, please feel free to expand where necessary.

Protegimus

[Eclipse4349]

Bounding overwatch has little usefulness in open ground, and most of the time is only a hindrance. Unless you have the enemy pinned and are in relatively close quarters, it is largely useless unless the bounds are much, much longer. Short, slow bounds in open ground just make you a target. The AI either need to SPRINT from cover to cover over much longer distances while in bounding overwatch, or need to not use it at all unless the leader orders them to do so.

[NkEnNy]

Simple Solution:
:: AI should at all times try to maintain squad cohesion with teamleader.
:: AI should only attempt ot utilize bounding overwatch when ordered to MOVE or ATTACK independently of the squad.

This way you avoid the nasty 'suicide squad leader' tendency and the sheer frustration of having to wait on your squad. Ideally this should keep them moving on open ground as well.

-k

[fabrizio_T]

After having played quite a bit with ArmA2 AI here is my compromise solution for AI movement, case by case:

1. GROUP COMMANDED IN DANGER MODE, NO THREATS IN SIGHT

When a leader (player) arbitrarily puts its group in DANGER mode with no enemy in sight, any single unit should:

a) case leader not moving or slightly moving:

Unit should completely ignore leader's "micro" movements. No need for constant formation adaptation in absence of some sensible leader movement;
Unit should step into nearby cover/concealement, loosely respecting formation, when leader is stopping;
Unit should go prone or crouch when in cover or mimic player stance;
Unit should scan horizon and be ready to open fire;

b) case leader moving quickly:

case leader "near" (*): Unit should follow the leader, crouched, through default "bounding overwatch" movement, loosely respecting formation; it should prefer "crouched" stance to "standing" stance when moving.
case leader "far" (*): Unit should catch up individually with the leader, sprinting if necessary, loosely respecting formation, ignoring "bounding overwatch" rules; it should move the same way as in "AWARE" state, but it should prefer "crouched" stance to "standing" stance when moving. "Standing" stance should be used for sprinting only.


(*) "far" mean individual unit distance from leader exceeds a predefined distance threshold, viceversa for "near".


2. GROUP NOT IN DANGER MODE, SPOTTED NEARBY THREAT

When a threat is spotted and it's close enough, automatically group should go in "DANGER" mode while still being able to react to leader's movement.
When a threat comes into sight while the group is still undetected, units should act as above ("GROUP COMMANDED IN DANGER MODE, NO THREATS IN SIGHT"), except that units should avoid sprinting and should prefer crouched position when moving, prone position when stopping;


Unit should initially move to cover in prone position, to avoid detection;
Unit should move slowly;
Unit should not initially open fire unless ordered by the player or detected/threatened;


3. GROUP DETECTED BY NEARBY THREAT AND/OR UNDER FIRE

When detected and/or under fire, group should automatically go in "DANGER" mode while still being able to react to leader's movement.
Units should act as above ("GROUP COMMANDED IN DANGER MODE, NO THREATS IN SIGHT"), except that they may not care at all about formation when (initially) looking for cover;


Unit wounded or suppressed should be able to throw smoke grenades as a countermeasure;
Unit in cover may move to different cover if heavily threatened by enemy fire;
Unit being fired upon should temporarily switch to prone "stance" for some time;


When a group is caught into fire its units may or may not be in cover, depending on situation!
Below is my a all-around suggestion for units behaviour in this case:


Let some kind of units (eg. machinegunners, grenadiers, ..) having enemy in line-of-sight lay counter-suppressive fire from where they are (even if not in cover). In the meantime:
other units quickly move into cover, stick to it and prepare to give suppressive fire themselves; finally:
units in cover provide suppressive fire to allow machinegunners, grenadiers, ... to step into cover;


PLAYER COMMANDS

Player commands should always have higher priority thant default AI mechanics and should be able to override them.
For example you should be able to change AI behaviour to "AWARE" even if in "DANGER" mode, if really needed.

SOME MISC SIDENOTES


AI units will benefit from getting faster animation transitions, as Solus already showed with SLX mod;
AI units will benefit from getting faster movement speeds;
AI units still show very weak behaviour in CQB, they react, aim and fire slowy. Things seems to be worse with 1.06 betas;
AI overall aiming precision should be lessened, at least for low-to-medium skill units, or AI tactical movement routines will remain useless.





Another extremely important factor is that AI are currently using compact column formation during their bounds, presumably to avoid the hold up caused by them using concealment when moving in any other formation - this needs to change to a compact line formation as AI are killing each other when the rear covering party fires (the advancing front party is directly in their arc):



Hi Protegimus,
no cheap solution here, i fear: a moving group may flank or be threatened by the flank for example. In this case "compact column" would be better than "compact line" ...

[nikita320106]

why no one of you guys don't tried switch to "aware" mode
instead post here long ? instructions ?
how to make from arma another one COD-like-shooter????

[Fireball]

why no one of you guys don't tried switch to "aware" mode
instead post here long ? instructions ?
how to make from arma another one COD-like-shooter????

The problem is, if above in the poll stated "additional reasons" come to pull, you can (still) not override the "Danger Mode" (bounding overwatch) using the Aware/Safe Mode order.

IMO it should be kind of "reset" with the Aware Mode order and only (permanently) overridden with "Safe Mode" though.

EDIT:

Another problem, which the poll does not address, is that if you're getting under fire or order "Take Cover", the whole crew starts the bounding overwatch and might be pinned with slow (bad!) tactics in the middle of a large field without any cover and you can't get them to MOVE THE HELL OUT!

[nikita320106]

in the middle of a large field without any cover and you can't get them to MOVE THE HELL OUT!
shouldn't think like cs player) think tactical))
~-7-8, ~-3-5,
or
WW, Z, ~-7-3, ~-1-1, ~-7-8, ~7-2, ~-3-5

[fabrizio_T]

3-5 means CS player to me :)
What's tactical in engage at will?

Your are basically telling AI "do it on your own" and on open terrain the result will be: team slaughtered.

[NkEnNy]

@<hidden>
Setting your squad to prone and engage-at-will is all well and good -- and not really the end all of tactics... But all the Bounding Overwatch in the world isn't going to save your squad if engaged on open ground in front of a Heavy MG or Static Grenade Launcher.

You'll also note that both myself and fabrizio argue that an AI in 'danger' mode should avoid raising stance above crouched. Automagically out of preference.

-k

[nikita320106]

3-5 means CS player to me :)
so what?? fusk my tactic:cool: think yourself) nothing here for share long instructions instead of share simple solutions)) all of us here already get alot combination with alot behaviours/positions/speeds/combatmodes
any combinations already available for players by ~123 and any of them is available by scrinting//
nothing for complining but alot for some free creative tactics art) or just simple scripting lessons))


if engaged on open ground in front of a Heavy MG or Static Grenade Launcher shure:confused: sprint under mg fire is really good idea) try to play some mp)) skilled bots at least)

You'll also note that both myself and fabrizio argue that an AI in 'danger' mode should avoid raising stance above crouched yea) I'm think is really good time for some scripting magic))

[fabrizio_T]

Sorry nikita, i can't understand whether you're just trolling or simply missing the whole point ;).
I'll try to explain it short and easy:


Some issues, such as the inability to override AI settings, are not fixable by script;
Trying to solve by script some other core AI inconsistencies will lead at best to unneeeded overhead. Way better to fix them into core / native fsm functions;

[nikita320106]

sorry I was a bit rude
but I believe that the current AI is a near best possible
and after some polishing can be near perfect
moreover
I see too many claims related to the submission
that the player should be a center of run-n-gun-game universe, somethin like uber soldiers commander
I do not think so
and I think yours motives can make wrong turn in game progress
sorry if I broke yours long list of complaints/ but all what I whant to say is
who wants - seeking opportunities
who doesn't - seeking reasons

--
this thread would be more interest in A&D DISCUSSION section

[Protegimus]

1. GROUP COMMANDED IN DANGER MODE, NO THREATS IN SIGHT
2. GROUP NOT IN DANGER MODE, SPOTTED NEARBY THREAT
Agreed



3. GROUP DETECTED BY NEARBY THREAT AND/OR UNDER FIRE

When detected and/or under fire, group should automatically go in "DANGER" mode while still being able to react to leader's movement.
Units should act as above ("GROUP COMMANDED IN DANGER MODE, NO THREATS IN SIGHT"), except that they may not care at all about formation when (initially) looking for cover;


Unit wounded or suppressed should be able to throw smoke grenades as a countermeasure;
Unit in cover may move to different cover if heavily threatened by enemy fire;
Unit being fired upon should temporarily switch to prone "stance" for some time;



With the addition that if under small arms fire, AI should aggressively return fire to suppress and usually when not under a human players command, seek an opportunity to withdraw and regroup.



When a group is caught into fire its units may or may not be in cover, depending on situation!
Below is my a all-around suggestion for units behaviour in this case:


Let some kind of units (eg. machinegunners, grenadiers, ..) having enemy in line-of-sight lay counter-suppressive fire from where they are (even if not in cover). In the meantime:
other units quickly move into cover, stick to it and prepare to give suppressive fire themselves; finally:
units in cover provide suppressive fire to allow machinegunners, grenadiers, ... to step into cover;


Line of sight was mentioned but this shouldn't be a requirement. AI have enough weapons that can be used to provide indirect fire, such as GL, frag, RPG/LAW and MG and they should be used more frequently in this manner.



Hi Protegimus,
no cheap solution here, i fear: a moving group may flank or be threatened by the flank for example. In this case "compact column" would be better than "compact line" ...

To avoid any misunderstanding, I was referring to when AI were putting in a deliberate attack using overwatch, or reacting to fire, i.e. they have a good idea of where the main threat lies. Currently in these situations the risk of AI shooting their own troops in the back is far higher than the possible risk of putting an enemy on their flank while advancing or retreating and this needs to change.
What the formation is doesn't matter as much as making sure the advancing section isn't advancing in the arc of fire of the covering section - which is currently definitely the case.
Ideally formations arent' cast in stone, so the section can fluidly adjust/peel to a more appropriate formation to counter any developing threat or ambush.

Protegimus

[fabrizio_T]

@<hidden>:
Agree with your observations.
Sorry about misunderstandment on bounding overwatch.

@<hidden>
No problem.

Just consider i'm not really "complaining" here, instead i'm trying to politely give my "personal" hints to solve some precise issues, as well as considering everyone's else suggestions.
Many issues in ArmA2 were fixed within the last 10-12 months due ALSO to a handful of people taking their time to discuss problems here and posting tickets on the ArmA2 bugtracker.
So i see no reason to be overly negative on this.

Hope this clarifies, take care.

BTW: i agree this thread is probably in the wrong section.

[victim913]

This isn't the exact topic but it's the most recent dealing with squads. I tried searching but either couldn't find the answer or searched other words.

I have noticed at least the last couple betas that my squads keep lining up in front of me. ALWAYS. whenever i stop they keep moving until they are lined up exactly in front of me instead of behind me. When I don't use the beta they work fine.

Anyone have any idea why?

[R.Flagg]

No need for an example mission, here is how it stands.

While driving back to FOB Manhattan in Bitter Chill, I take fire from a Chedaki jeep. I escape to the base and go through the cutscene with Simmons from Team Saber. Cutscene over, I order my team to get in the humvee.

Well, they're still in automatic Danger mode. It takes a good thirty seconds for them to load up. They drop on their stomachs, stare at the jeep, then take turns running tactical circles around it and scanning the horizon. The machinegunner is dead to the world, preparing to suppress the enemies a mile away who shot at him five minutes ago. After an interminable period of ducking and weaving or doing plain nothing, after spamming "It's SAFE, it's SAFE, LOAD UP DAMNIT!" commands, they manage, with herculean effort, to get in the car.

This is unplayable, BIS.

By all means, make the AI act realistically as they can when under someone else's control (although so far that means moving at the speed of a large slug), but when I'm in charge, I want them to be drones.

I used to play a lot of A2 offline with my own squad of AI, and this type of behaviour is why I don't play anymore.

I would love to purchase OA and get back to enjoying it all, but I'm afraid that the AI will pretty much be the same. Fair assumption? I mean, I kept checking back to threads on this topic, to see if folks mention that it's been fixed, but it never was.

Frustrating too, since I love(d) the game. I just feel strongly that if I'm all alone, playing offline with bots, they should do what I tell them - no matter what. I don't even care if I say something like 'line up and march off of this cliff', that's exactly what they should do, and without delay.

[Bouben]

Yes, I also can't understand the fact, that this behaviour is still not fixed. I don't enjoy laggy multiplayer so I wanna play with my AI in my custom missions.

[Baff1]

I'd be more intrested in having a command that stops them from being tactical and just makes them run in a straight line to wherever than I would be having a new way of asking them to do their clever stuff.

Ireally appreciate their clever stuff, but when it's time to disengage...to melt away through the forests.... or load into a vehicle...

They won't do it.
They start buggering around covering each other no matter what I say or do.

This can easily add about 30 minutes of just waiting around time into my game.
Frustrating battling the AI time not battling the game.

So my answer to the original question is not included. I would not like another option to turn this behaviour on, I would seek an option of how to turn it off.

[subfigura]

Speed of automatic(aiRateOfFire) shooting decreases if to depart from shooting on 20 metres.

autoFire = 1;
aiRateOfFireDistance = 200;
soundBurst = 0;
aiRateOfFire = 0;
ffFrequency = "reloadTime";
ffMagnitude = "reloadTime";
ffCount = 5;
burst = 1;

Help!!!!!!!

I wish to hear all sounds, especially when there is a near fight