Page MenuHomeFeedback Tracker

Make AI commanders use only 'target' instead of 'engage' at 100m+
Closed, ResolvedPublic


It seems that right now AI commanders give 'engage' orders no matter where the enemy is which leads to their subordinates breaking formation and chasing the enemy even 500m away despite being single or in a pair which makes ambushes all too easy.

Expected behavior:

When an enemy is further than 100m from the squad the leader should only give out TARGET orders so AIs won't break formation but still will fire at enemies when they are seen. This will make them stick together and force an enemy to come close which is a smart move.

When an enemy is within 100m from the squad the leader should give ENGAGE order as usual. That way soldiers will be able to hunt an enemy while still having a cover of their squad.

Additionally when soldiers will chase an enemy due to that order and will end up 200m+ away from the leader - the leader should immediately give them an order to fall back. This again will not let individual AIs fall easy prey to ambushers. This is especially important when AIs guard something


Legacy ID
Have Not Tried
AI Issues
Additional Information

An issue with the current behavior is that individual AIs will leave their original area all too easily making a squad way too stretched and an easy target for ambushers, especially human players exploiting an unconditional ENGAGE order of AI commanders.

Event Timeline

metalcraze edited Additional Information. (Show Details)
metalcraze set Category to AI Issues.
metalcraze set Reproducibility to Have Not Tried.
metalcraze set Severity to None.
metalcraze set Resolution to Open.
metalcraze set Legacy ID to 1844674077.May 7 2016, 3:38 PM
maturin added a subscriber: maturin.May 7 2016, 3:38 PM

Furthermore, AI commanders should order entire fireteams to engage. If there is no intact fireteam structure, no less than 1/3 of the total group should be sent off in groups.

Great ideas. The AI should use a lot more of this kind of logic, although I feel we should definitely leave room for some randomness in the numbers, so it's not too predictable.

MadDogX added a subscriber: MadDogX.May 7 2016, 3:38 PM

Mass closing ancient tickets with no activity for > 12 months; assume fixed or too trivial.

If this issue is still relevant in current dev build, please re-post.