Enemies are Smarter Than Companions

[Fkemman11]

My favorite by far is giving your companions explosives. They go nuts with that! In a narrow hallway? Lets throw a grenade. In a cramped stairwell? Lets throw 2! Melee attackers on the PC? Lets throw a grenade to help!! :D

So giving them explosives of any kind is out.

One thing I have not tried is giving them a sniper rifle and seeing what ranged targets they will shoot. Or maybe a rocket launcher while I move back behind cover....just in case.

[llamaRCA]

@Moraelin - Honestly, I don't think the devs tested their own work all that much with the companions or those same devs didn't really understand what kind of behavior they should be trying to get out of the companions. There are too many basic, fundamental design decisions and implementations that simply do not work or play well.

 

 

@Fkemman11 - Heather will sandbox in locations with the settlement or workshop keywords so yeah, if the vanilla devs added it somewhere weird (and they have) she'll sandbox wherever that is and throughout the location no matter how big (so way down by the river for Bunker Hill). Same with mods if they add those keywords to somewhere that we wouldn't consider to be a workshop or settlement.

[PoorlyAged]

I gave Curie a sniper rifle just to see if that would curb her enthusiasm for charging nasties. No such luck. I am pretty sure that she was conducting some kind of experiment to measure the density of gunner skulls or to determine the ability of ghouls to withstand a butt stroke from a rifle.

[Moksha8088]

I've enjoyed the mod Companions Can Sneak. No fun having companions give you away when you are trying to be sneaky.

 

http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/5612/?

 

 

BTW, that new companion mod Heather Casdin sure is good.

[Zzyxzz]

"For instance; A melee attacker is going to try to work around to your blind side or dodge gunfire until they are close enough to attack."

 

Companions do not act different from other A.Is, you 'expect' them to act different, in certain situations. Other A.Is would act the same way.

There are combat behavior settings, where you can set the defense and offensive behavior but in general its equally tweaked. The AIs is not intelligent and can't use tactics in certain situations, they will just randomly use defined routines, like flanking and fallback. They don't do that because its a good situation for that. Companions behave different from raiders and such, because they stay at your side and don't walk away. Otherwise you have to search your companion all the time. "Where did he now go!? *sigh*", moments would happen a lot. They run and reposition sometimes, like other AIs do, but they won't use super intelligent tactics.

[Moraelin]

@Fkemman11

If you think that's bad, give Ada a sentry torso and shoulder-mounted mini-nukes. Good grief...

 

@llamaRCA

Well, actually I DON'T expect devs to test their own work. That's what the QA team is for :tongue:

 

Of course, you have to also listen to them. Unless you're EA, I guess, in which case the notion might be shocking :wink:

 

Though I do expect devs to at least try to think it through. I mean, you do need a QA team, because whatever you already thought of you already coded for, so you need someone to try stuff you didn't or even would never think of. But the flip side is that you kinda ARE expected to at least try to think of what could go wrong, not just throw it in anyway and wait and see if someone says it doesn't work.

[Fkemman11]

"For instance; A melee attacker is going to try to work around to your blind side or dodge gunfire until they are close enough to attack."

 

Companions do not act different from other A.Is, you 'expect' them to act different, in certain situations. Other A.Is would act the same way.

There are combat behavior settings, where you can set the defense and offensive behavior but in general its equally tweaked. The AIs is not intelligent and can't use tactics in certain situations, they will just randomly use defined routines, like flanking and fallback. They don't do that because its a good situation for that. Companions behave different from raiders and such, because they stay at your side and don't walk away. Otherwise you have to search your companion all the time. "Where did he now go!? *sigh*", moments would happen a lot. They run and reposition sometimes, like other AIs do, but they won't use super intelligent tactics.

 

I get what your saying. The AI and combat AI in particular isn't sophisticated at all. So lets look at this from a raiders perspective. I am a raider in a group of six or seven others. Our group has just been attacked. My combat routines tell me to locate and identify attacker. Now once I have spotted and identified enemy do I also recognize what kind of weapons are arrayed against me? I must because one attacker is using explosives while the other is firing from a concealed position with a high caliber rifle. AI tells me to find cover opposite the direction from fire. Of course I am firing back with my weapon while I do this. What is to stop me from finding cover in the same place as another? But I don't because the voice in my head says to go here. I see that one is not wearing PA and using an automatic laser rifle. The other has been spotted and is not wearing PA either. Since the one just spotted is the bigger threat (already killed two of my friends) I will ignore the first and concentrate fire on the second. I lob a grenade at the second while moving up to get a better shot. Damn, they moved and have taken down another with a different weapon. Would I know there are only three of us left? No matter keep attacking.

 

Now a couple of questions. Does an enemy know that by attacking and defeating your PC that they "win"? Or are they just attacking the most efficient killer? And do enemies need to figure things out or does the game automatically give them pertinent info like you are two people carry these weapons not wearing PA? What do you all know and or think?

 

My guess is that I am looking at this the wrong way. In combat against a computer their is no individual AI. It is simply the computer AI moving pieces on a board (sort of) against you. These moves are calculated for the highest chance of success. Then variables kick in to calculate a hit and damage. As far as movement and positioning these are scripted "formations" that the computer chooses at random. Does that sound about right?

I mean I know there are many more variables and calculations going on. I am just trying to understand combat AI from the beginning of an engagement to the end. :geek:

[PoorlyAged]

Fkemman11, you give Bethesda WAY too much credit. The combat AI is even more rudimentary that your scenario postulates.

If you want to get a good look into the combat AI, watch the battle unfold when you get your next "defend the checkpoint". I use the checkpoints instead of settlements because settlements generally have defenses and checkpoints do not.

The aggressor's and the defender's AI is pretty much identical. Each combatant has four basic actions; attack, hide, move, and flee. And they appear to be used in that order. Attack if possible, hide if you can't attack, move if out of range your weapon, and flee if health if less than 50% and the battle is protracted. So combatants with ranged weapons will attack first or will duck for cover. Combatants with melee weapons will hide first and move to get into range of their weapons.

Now, that is the basic actions. But there are some oddities that creep into combat. Most common is a combatant with a ranged weapon who insists on using it as a club. Instead of backing away from the combat and using the bullet launcher or light flasher or gunk thrower to advantage, they move forward and eventually become melee fighters. Why? I have absolutely no idea. :confused:

In RW, you only use melee combat when your opposing combatants get too close too shoot. You never actively seek melee combat unless you are out of ammunition. Then you grab your pointed sticks and go nucking futs. :ohmy:

Edited April 18, 2017 by PoorlyAged

[Moraelin]

Actually, if I remember anything from the army (but, again, I'm not exactly officer material and it was long ago) is that basically if you can shoot at all, you shoot. I dunno where game devs get this "oops, enemy is only 3ft away, now I have to switch to melee" idea.

 

I would like to say it last worked that way in the age of muzzle loaders, but... not even then. We have reliable accounts of people trying to shoot each other with muskets at, like, point blank range. At Waterloo for example, they were in the same room, and dutifully reloading and shooting at each other. And now consider that with that kind of gun you're essentially flashbanged after the first salvo. You're completely deaf, and there's too much smoke to even breathe, much less SEE. But they kept reloading and trying to shoot the enemy anyway, instead of taking like two steps forward and finishing it with that spike bayonet they had attached.

 

Now whether THAT is good AI... well, the historians are still debating that :tongue:

 

But anyway, reasons why you'd rather shoot your assault rifle than go to meles include just off the top of my head:

 

A. shooting STILL has better range. Even if you had to just take one more step forward to bayonet the other guy, that's still a case of whoever pulls a trigger does it before the melee fellow can do that extra step.

 

B. if you look at survival rates, one thing is kinda constant since the 18'th century: guns are more lethal than blades, and in turn blades are more lethal than even flanged maces, and doubly so than using a rifle butt. You'd think that being slashed with a sabre or katana would do more damage, but nope, actually even the lowly .38 Detective Special has a better chance of taking you out of the fight. Even with military ball (FMJ) ammo, and doubly so with hollow point ammo.

 

C. It's not just a matter of chance of survival, but people tend to not die instantly from stabs. We have accounts all the way between Arthur's final fight -- where Mordred is run through with a spear but essentially pushes himself further on it and stabs Arthur in the head -- to actual historical accounts from the 19'th century, where LITERALLY the same thing happens with a bayonetted musket or rifle. Someone is stabbed with a bayonet, and actually run through even with the rifle barrel, and they still manage to deliver a final blow to the guy who stabbed them.

 

So basically if you have a choice between shooting someone and going melee, shoot the barstard. Unless you're out of ammo, and he's seen you, there is almost no conceivable situation where you should go melee.

[PoorlyAged]

 

<prune>

 

So basically if you have a choice between shooting someone and going melee, shoot the barstard. Unless you're out of ammo, and he's seen you, there is almost no conceivable situation where you should go melee.

 

In Vietnam, the VC and NVA had a tactic which was introduced by Minh to avoid artillery fire. It was called "grab them by the belt". The <racial slur removed> would swarm and get so close that you were literally breathing each others breath. They were swinging hatchets and machetes and you dared not take time to reload a empty weapon because doing so was terminal. Your skill with your KA-BAR and fists were the only thing on your side.

 

And shooting someone is no guarantee that they will go down or stay down if they do. I saw Marines and VC with four and five wounds keep fighting. Adrenalin is a wonderful thing.

 

What the military services teach has no relationship to the realities of combat. When the bullets start flying, it is a complete crap shoot. Your fight of flee response kicks in and what men do is a unpredictable. Rational thought is gone and you must rely on your skill and on reflex muscle memory to survive.

 

So yeah, shoot em if you can. But trying to shoot someone who is inside the length of your barrel is futile. It just lets them turn you into flowers.