Infantry behaviour

[Para_Bellum]

Yesterday we were playing an MP mission where Hueys dropped off infantry that was to clear out a town. The problem is that currently infantry often stops every movement once an enemy is spotted to return fire. This leads to a lot of micro-management switching states to green/auto to force them to advance.

 

I'd love to see infantry still advance when under fire, although maybe at a reduced speed.

[RagnarDa]

+1

 

They don't need to make new animations, the infantry could just move, stop, shoot, move again. Also they should do this individually, not the whole group together.

[Bushmanni]

Infantry should advance if there's no enemies in sight but otherwise they should shoot the enemy until it's dead. Infantry should also move more as individuals and keep moving until in contact instead of stopping if front guy makes contact and stops. Even better would be if the individual soldier could retreat in cover (retreat along the route of advance until no LOS to the enemy) if the enemy starts shooting back and then randomly peek, shoot (or wait the enemy to reappear for a while) and then get in cover again until the enemy is dead.

[Flagrum]

For air units one can set a "Reaction to Thread" option, for example to "No reaction", "passive defense" or "evade fire". We would need this for ground units, too, perhaps a bit adjusted for the specifics of ground combat.

[Para_Bellum]

For air units one can set a "Reaction to Thread" option, for example to "No reaction", "passive defense" or "evade fire". We would need this for ground units, too, perhaps a bit adjusted for the specifics of ground combat.

 

You can do this for ground units, using the red/green/auto states.

 

The problem is that you then have to babysit your units to prevent them from getting slaughtered once they get closer to a threat. It's doable if you have a dedicated ground commander but if you're busy piloting an aircraft it just becomes tedious.

 

A simple change to infantry behaviour that would let them advance while firing/under fire at slower movement rate would easily fix this problem.

[Flagrum]

A simple change to infantry behaviour that would let them advance while firing/under fire at slower movement rate would easily fix this problem.

Uhm, that was exactly the idea behind my proposal. But to make that new behaviour optional (for the mission designer) - maybe it is not always wanted, maybe sometimes the troops should rather dig in and keep the enemy suppressed.

 

This sort of different behaviours when engaged/engaging is already implemented - for air units. Now it "only" needs to be adopted for ground units, too.

[Para_Bellum]

Ah, Ok. My bad.

 

:doh:

[Darkwolf]

/me dream of combat mission game mechanics in DCS.....

[Slazi]

Soldiers need to do... something. Right now they are horrible. They need to use buildings and cover. Not just stand out in the open.

[ARM505]

I actually the whole situation rather frustrating - here we have sims like ARMA, Steel Beasts, DCS, Combat Mission, IL2 CLOD, BOS etc etc etc all trying to duplicate a lot of effort in so many common areas, and one of the biggest is plausible, intelligent infantry behaviour. With so many fails along the way.

 

I've just been scratching my head while playing the ARMA 3 campaign at some of the occasional AI oddities, although for sandbox infantry it's still the leader, as it should be given it's focus, with the individual soldier as it's core unit.

 

It's funny really - each sim treats the AI mechanics along the lines of it's original 'theme': In DCS, AI unit pathing and behavior was built around aircraft (an aircraft could never stop and engage), in Steel Beasts, the logic is built around armoured vehicles (infantry are retarded but can function), and in ARMA it's built around individual people (witness the truly abysmal attempts when vehicles were trying to follow roads in the beginning, thankfully a lot better now!)

 

It's almost like we need some kind of common AI OS or plugin, something like PhysX for AI. But right now, ARMA infantry in DCS would be EPIC - and impossible really, given how long BIS has been working on them I doubt DCS infantry would ever be comparable. And it's a pity really, because CAS units really need plausible infantry.

Edited July 17, 2014 by ARM505

[Abburo]

Indeed, DCS, Steal Beasts, Arma, the newly Spintires and maybe few more can be all together THE ONE.

Not easy to be done, but also not imposible either... to write a something like a HUB server for all those and integrate them together. They can use same map adapted to their own engine for rendering while the output/export capabilities can be used as northbridge for intercommunications. In DCS is not needed to see the ARMA details, so viceversa... don't need in ARMA to see 60 km away... This is the main reason they have such different engines.

 

I really don't know how complicated could be, if it worth to do such integrations or it might be far easier to extend DCS for covering missing areas. One think I am pretty sure, the terrain deformation as Spintires shows will not be possible to be reproduced in something like DCS, Steel beasts or even Arma.

 

Anyhow, this is just thinking outloud... :D

[Para_Bellum]

Let's not go overboard here with features.

 

All that's needed in DCS for some believable infantry behaviour without the need to micro-manage every unit is a simple command to advance while still returning fire.

[SDsc0rch]

Indeed, DCS, Steal Beasts, Arma, the newly Spintires and maybe few more can be all together THE ONE.

Not easy to be done, but also not imposible either... to write a something like a HUB server for all those and integrate them together. They can use same map adapted to their own engine for rendering while the output/export capabilities can be used as northbridge for intercommunications. In DCS is not needed to see the ARMA details, so viceversa... don't need in ARMA to see 60 km away... This is the main reason they have such different engines.

 

I really don't know how complicated could be, if it worth to do such integrations or it might be far easier to extend DCS for covering missing areas. One think I am pretty sure, the terrain deformation as Spintires shows will not be possible to be reproduced in something like DCS, Steel beasts or even Arma.

 

Anyhow, this is just thinking outloud... :D

 

i *love* this idea!

[Slazi]

Let's not go overboard here with features.

 

All that's needed in DCS for some believable infantry behaviour without the need to micro-manage every unit is a simple command to advance while still returning fire.

 

Yup, one step at a time.

 

But I still really think infantry should be able to 'occupy' a building. This would be great for ambushing armour and helos.

[ARM505]

Funnily enough, Steel Beasts was made to work in combination with VBS, the professional version of ARMA. The infantry dudes saw VBS, the tank guys saw Steel Beasts. So it is possible. But yes, we can only dream.

 

I'm glad somebody mentioned Spintires, that has epic mobility challenges - really makes just driving around a challenge, and is surprisingly good! Wish we could match that one up with SB or ARMA.