ARMA series - Great Soldier Sim, not so great Tactical Shooter ?

[Tijai]

I think the ArmA engine certainly gives you more control over your AI than the other games you mentioned.

The trick is finding the unpredictabilities (is that a real word?) and working with or around them.

There are alot of posts and tutorials on AI and mods which improve some aspects.

For example I use the zp_at fix mod and have it signed on our server as I hate the fact that the ai will use their longest range weapon to engage far enemies which is usually the AT launcher.
This of course waste that vital resource unecessarily.

Up to now it seems to work.

There are many other little tweaks around like this to customise the game to your requirements.

Dont think any other game has this expandability.

[metalcraze]

ZP_at fix needs more customization itself.

Since rockets being fired at infantry is something I began to notice in OA most of all I take it it was BIS trying to let takistani insurgents use RPGs against infantry (which is what insurgents in Asia/Africa do actually). The problem is that BIS made all sides act like that not just insurgents. And zipper's fix makes everyone not act like that.

I don't mind some BlackHawkDown-style RPG hell once in a while you know.

[CameronMcDonald]

There were a lot of times when I shot a guy less than 5-15m away from me. Likewise I was shot by a guy less than 5-15m away from me.

If that's still not CQB to you then what is?

I would suggest there is a lot more to CQB than simply expending rounds at 5 - 15m, and also that I said CQB is one of the facets that the ArmA series doesn't do well, not that it isn't done at all.

To further detail my statement, where the ArmA series falls down in CQB is in the movement of units in close terrain, particularly AI (who often refuse to participate at all where buildings are involved, whether mounted or on foot) and a lack of responsiveness/interruptibility in avatar animations which, at the ranges you describe, become fatal errors.

[batto]

I think what OP means isn't CQB exclusive. In ArmA you can give single order at a time to units. In real life you could say "go to that hill, cover us till we apporach LZ, then regroup". I'm not sure how it's done in real military but I think it's better to tell short but a little bit more complex plan in cover before going to danger than issuing order while under fire (and you know the sequence of orders you'll issue before you advance).

In R6 (Rouge Spear) "wait till we do something complex that you stupid AI can't understand" would translate to "wait for code alpha/beta/gama/delta".

Yeah, something like this would be cool. Going to ArmA3 wishlist thread soon =).

EDIT: You can argue that I should wait till my units get to the hill before advancing but I may be changing my position with rest of my group in cover in the meantime (eg. being busy).

[NielsS]

If it's not scripted than what is it? Surely you aren't suggesting that it's real "AI" that BIS has in their game. I mean, if private and public universities with their millions in grants can't create AI, what makes you think BIS could? Hell, it took them 10 years to finally fix warping, but you want me to believe they have "AI" that's not "scripted"?

"Scripted AI" means that NPC's use predefined pathways to move around and perform actions with triggers and scripts. For example a soldier is in a room, the predefined pathways tell him to move around the room and he will always use the same route. A trigger like the player opening the door to the room tells the NPC to move to a certain location like a desk and fire at the player from behind the desk. The NPC does not think for itself but is guided by scripts. The term Intelligence is therefore a bit misguided.
"Unscripted AI" does not use predefined pathways and scripts to move around and perform actions. In the same example an unscripted NPC roams the room choosing it's own path wich means it will not be at the exact same place everytime you play that mission. One time it might engage you from behind the desk, the other time it might be laying on the floor in a corner.
Now like you said it is not real AI but it does have a wide variaty of paramaters to choose from to determine what action to take, for instance when i order a fireteam to move through a village , they are not all going to use the exact same route to get through it. Also when you play that mission multiple times it can happen that the fireteam uses a different route each time you play it. With scripted AI they all would choose the same route everytime you play it.

[batto]

Those games you mentioned all have scripted AI...

I still don't get why better (non-scripted) AI justifies lack of tactical functionalities.



http://www.generation5.org/content/2001/images/rs02.jpg (146 kB)

It may look very old-school and little bit arcadish. Imagine you could make such plans on ArmA map. The plan is controlled by issuing codes.

[maturin]

It's two dimensional with a bunch of dots...

And from the looks of it, they can dedicate 80% of their resources to the AI.

[Max Power]

If ArmA had a preplanning phase like Rainbow six, I would not use it.

[batto]

It's two dimensional with a bunch of dots...

And from the looks of it, they can dedicate 80% of their resources to the AI.

It's 13 years old game =). Rainbow 6: Rogue Spear it is. The thing is that you can make plan from orders. In ArmA you can do just issue single order at time. Here's example of planned first mission: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB_cqUzM1eg (Alpha go is issued alpha code). IMO it could really benefit ArmA. Consider village sweep vanilla single mission (the one in Takistan with NV and lasers). Currently everything is setup by mission makers (eg. landing, two teams, ...). It would be more fun if you could plan it by yourself (eg. choose LZ, create teams, equipment, plan, ...). Or consider big attack on some town with several tanks, helis, ... much more fun coming up with good attack plan (including extraction of Spetnaz from Hind =)). Of course it's possible to do it in editor to some degree, but in-game planning would be better.

If ArmA had a preplanning phase like Rainbow six, I would not use it.

Not pre-planning. Just planning in real-time.

[Celery]

The problem with Rainbow Six's planning is that you can't change it mid-operation. The planning phase is basically scripting the AI teammates to do exactly what is says on the map, minus the autonomous shooting.