More reactive ground units

[WelshZeCorgi]

Ground units are really passive and mindless in DCS. They never really react to anything other than scattering if a friendly nearby is hit. If they see a missile being fired at them, they won't pop smoke and reverse into cover, (or use other known countermeasures like ir dazzlers, see below) they keep attacking even if the rest of their entire battalion is destroyed, They don't find hull down positions or retreat of overrun.

 

 

Something like this, AI reacting and being proactive like player controlled ground units. Hiding behind buildings, repositioning after firing, evading incoming missiles with countermeasures and cover. Instead of what we have now, basically standing around waiting to be plonked by anti tank missiles. 

Edited April 2, 2022 by WelshZeCorgi

[Xilon_x]

 

 

even tanks use chaffs and flares as countermeasure systems.

in DCS chaff and flare for tanks I haven't seen them

[Northstar98]

On 2/18/2021 at 6:31 PM, Xilon_x said:

even tanks use chaffs and flares as countermeasure systems.

in DCS chaff and flare for tanks I haven't seen them

I've never seen tanks fire flares (as countermeasures) and chaff. Chaff would be fairly useless for tanks, as the majority of missiles fired are optical SACLOS, or are laser guided (either semi-active or beam-riding). Obviously the AGM-114L has a mmW active homing mode, but never seen a ground vehicle chaff dispenser.

Much of it is just smoke (blocking optical and IR sensors), and in some cases IR dazzlers (mostly to disrupt SACLOS missiles like TOW and HOT). Then in more modern vehicles they might employ EW (mostly against remotely operated IEDs), as well as more advanced camouflage schemes like SAAB barracuda.

Of course there's also things like active protection systems, particularly hard kill.

 

But yes +1 to the OP, it would be better to see vehicles react in a more appropriate way, instead of fanning out in the same pattern and deploying smoke (with a pretty bad effect) when hit. Among other things. 

Edited April 2, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[WelshZeCorgi]

I would also like to add to naval units, they don't change headings or submerge (if it's a submarine) No countermeasures are deployed, no decoys, just sail on to the waypoint and get picked off one by one. 

 

Once the weather system is fully implemented, ships should also be trying to use the weather and cloud cover to their advantage. 

[WelshZeCorgi]

 

Something like this. Having AI reposition after firing, hide behind buildings or terrain from threats and otherwise being proactive in their operations and survival. And having an AI capable of doing that for all AI assets, not just human controlled. 

Edited April 2, 2022 by WelshZeCorgi

[FlankerKiller]

+1000 for the Op. Ground and naval Ai is seriously lacking. If I could pick one thing for DCS 3.0 that would be it. Infantry do have some small ai. They will move to engage. But yes the whole thing. I think maybe some kind of Ai tactical comander would be a good move.  Let it make decisions, and move the individual units, set artillery strikes, pull back units that are being overrun, and halt suicidel advances. It could even send units under air attack into nearby cities, or forest. That would be a damn good place to start in my opinion. They are doing alot of work with the Ai at the moment so we can hope. 

[Callsign112]

+1 to the OP's suggestion. Ai units should be able to attack/defend real player positions with more realism. At the moment, we can give simple commands to Ai units using CA, but what is almost completely missing is the Ai ability to react to the battle field on its own.

[LooseSeal]

If stuff like this isn't implemented for the dynamic campaign, it would be brutally disappointing.

I like the idea of an 'AI tactical commander' - perhaps the map could be divided into different zones, each with its own commander behaviour set. So units in a zone on the frontline might be set to an 'aggressive' or 'stand ground' tactical mindset, depending on how the battle is going. While units further back, such as artillery or logistics, might be in zones which are set to a 'disperse' tactic.

There is so much scope for what they could do. Or... they could just stick with "Disperse Under Fire", where everything runs/drives around like a headless chicken and be done with it.

[Callsign112]

We sort of do have this in-game with the ROE logic, its just that it is sooooo limited in what it does.

And I have also seen Ai units fire when set to hold fire, so even what is there doesn't seem to work as intended 100% of the time.

But other titles/platforms that have a similar ROE logic for Ai units that the user can set are so much more capable. I think all we are dealing with here though is focus. The focus on DCS is largely spent on aircraft and it shows, the recent Apache is a good example.

I just hope they are able to add a little more focus to the Army/Navy side of things to get the DCS part working more fluidly. 

[LooseSeal]

My issue with the ROE logic is not just that it's limited - it's that it all has to be entirely set and controlled by the user. There is no spontaneity or unpredictability. If I make a mission, I know exactly how the enemy is going to react and in what way. Hell, even in a quasi-dynamic DCS Liberation mission I know that if I attack a group of vehicles they'll drive about 50 metres in a random direction, then just stop and surrender their lives to me... as if to say "well, we drove in a straight line for 15 seconds - what more could we possibly do to save ourselves?" 

I assume they're going to tell us at some point this year how the AI re-work is going, and I truly hope it's going to be more impressive than a few more ME Advanced Options settings.

[Callsign112]

Couldn't agree more, while other examples of programmed Ai logic already include the ability to fall back or even retreat without user input, we seem to still be hovering around the "can it follow a way point" step.

But again, I really think it is just a matter of time spent on task. I also think that improved ground/navy units are coming. I mean think about it,... seems to me that it would be a little bit of a waste of time to spend what must amount to literally thousands of man-hours on something like the Apache not to have a capable ground force to fight against.

I think the video the OP linked to start this thread demonstrates it perfectly.

[Mars Exulte]

On 2/18/2021 at 12:13 PM, WelshZeCorgi said:

Ground units are really passive and mindless in DCS. They never really react to anything other than scattering if a friendly nearby is hit. If they see a missile being fired at them, they won't pop smoke and reverse into cover

  Ironically, just moments ago I watched a video of a Russian column doing... exactly this. Literally driving single file into a killzone despite the ones directly in front of them getting popped. In a bizarre way, the current AI is actually not so dissimilar from a real world poorly trained force apparently. 

  It's a shame more times AI isn't actually developed along these lines, ie actually reflecting tactical acumen and reactiveness. Too many of them end up being strictly how aim botty they are, or everybody behaves in exactly the same way whether ''good'' or ''bad''. Real world militaries have a lot more variability in the range of behavior from ''tactical'' to ''imbecilic''. AI skill ''levels'' should ideally reflect that.