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 )

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.