A few scattered replies:
6 - There should be designated cover position (Forests, Rocks, Bushes), so that in combat eminence, the AI moves stealthily along those concealments - in order to increase realism.
Here is an easy way to do this: this setbehaviour "COMBAT" or this setbehaviour "STEALTH". Those commands make the AI stick to covered positions, such as trees and bushes.
Unfortunately, (AFAIK) there is no way to find rocks, bushes, trees, et. al with the "nearestobject" command. That is what has stopped me from doing some various AI scripts. The only form of cover that I could refer to was stuff that the editor placed. If somebody knows a way to get around this, I would
love to hear it, because it sure would open up some doors.
7 - When facing tanks and APC's, the AI runs away to a safer point (special designated cover positions - Forests and between rocks) and the AntiAromor weapon specialist gets in position to engage the enemy. If there's no AA specialist, then run away and join a stronger force should be the solution.
I believe there are some scripts out there already that will do this, such as Toadlife's group link script or Bremmer's AI script.
8 - When contacting snipers, the AI shall move quicly to a safe point, get covered, deny engagement and proceed with a clever trap for the sniper by moving stealthily towards him, if they know his position. The snipers never stay at the same position.
Now this is something that a lot of missions could use. Way too often when playing a mission I can just sit back and take out a whole base with my m21 without anyone going after me. This problem can, of course, be fixed if the mission maker would just take some time to put a few triggers and waypoints down, but unfortunately most do not.
Another problem is the interference from the standard OFP AI. In general one should exploit standard OFP AI wherever possible and only interfere where necessary.
Actually you can get rid of most of the AI with this command: this disableAI "TARGET". This basically eliminates the AI's programmed response to enemy fire. If you use this command, instead of running out and engaging the enemy, the AI will stay where they are, unless otherwise ordered to move (with a domove command).
got somin like AI coverin while da oders move (nd in teams ) nd things like dat
but i gave up after i noticed dat wen deytried 2 flank enemy wat dey realy did was 2 draw fire while da leader nd his MG took all da enemies down (so all team members dead xept da leader nd MGunner )
The biggest problem with OFP (and the biggest thing keeping it from becoming realistic) is the lack of micro-terrain. By this I mean the small little dips and bumps in the ground, and the little bushes or tall grass, and so on. Basically, the terrain is too flat and barren. I know OFP does a good job handling lots of bushes and trees at once, and the terrain often looks pretty well vegitated. But take a look outside and you will see all sorts of little places to lay down and hide in here and there.
Basically, the reason why "covering fire" is of very limited use in OFP is because there is so very little cover. There is no way for a unit who is prone in OFP's land to get any more covered and protected. In real life, however, unless you are in the most flat and barren of landscapes, you can always lay down a little lower, or move a short distance first, and take better cover. But in OFP, since there is nowhere to take cover, there is no reason to take cover. And if no one takes cover, there can be no such thing as "covering fire" (bullets which are meant to get the enemy to hunker down, not to kill him): it's the same thing as shooting to kill.
Of course there can be exceptions to this, but usually that only will occur when a mission designer specifically places units in defensive positions. That calls for it's own script, IMHO.
It would be good to bring all the AI scripts together.
Okay, now my main reply:
There seems to be this desire to create a "one-size fits all" AI script. I guess the goal is to make one script that can be implemented in only a couple lines that will completely overhaul the AI, and will work in every situation for every mission. I don't see this as the way to go. It should be up to the mission maker to tailor the enemy's "AI" to suit his specific mission.
For example, in a 'Nam mission I am currently making, I wanted to improve the enemy AI, so I thought I would use Bremmer's AI script. It is an impressive script, but I found many problems that made it unsuitable for my mission. First off, it makes the enemies "talk" to each other using the ingame voices, which are russian, and my baddies are Vietnamese. That doesn't sound right, and so I proceeded to try to edit out that part of the script. Okay, no big deal though. Next, I didn't want most of my enemy's calling for support groups to come help them, since I didn't think that my Vietcong guerillas really would have the ability to call backup to their position like that. And even for times they could, the only American group anyone would encouter was going to be the player squad, so I could just as easily use a simple "detected" trigger and have a support group move to the player's location.
I really wanted the enemies to call artillery on the player's group, like Bremmer's script does. However, I didn't like the specifics of his artillery barrage (shell type, impact area, amount of shells, etc), so I found myself editing that part of the script to suit my needs. But there were so many things I wanted to change, it ended up being easier to write my own script.
I also liked how the enemies will try to retreat with Bremmer's script, but I also wanted them to surrender at times instead of retreating. Again, it ended up being easier to write my own script for this.
Instead of trying to make the script that always works for everybody, we should focus on making AI scripts that fulfill one specific function, such as a script to call for backup, one to engage enemy snipers, etc. Then it should be up to the mission designer to "plug in" which script(s) fit best within his mission, and to toggle the parameters of the script to suit his needs. The main thing to watch out for in this model, though, is to make sure multiple scripts don't interfere with each other. I think a sort of open-ended AI script standard would be nice. Basically, scripters could create small AI "snippets" to fulfull one specific need, and the standards would make sure that nobody's AI script interferes with the operation of another persons AI script.
Whew! Sorry, that was longer than expected. Anyway, I hope you get my gist. I like AI scripts, but I think it should be up to the mission designer to get the "best fit" for his mission, not the scripter.
Topic: Scripting: Advanced AI skill improvement (Read 12836 times)