Suicidal Human AI

Normally when I play I try to keep all my soldiers close enough to each other for support. If one gets too hurt they’ll pull back and I’ll try to heal them. I’ve found that several times the AI (my gripe specifically is with the humans) will run into the midst of my forces, out of cover, and suicide charge my weakened units. They’ll kill them but inevitably they’ll die the next turn.This is both annoying because my soldier dies and the human AI is essentially choosing to die by suicide. Rando marauders aren’t going to suicide charge a superior force when they’re just opportunistic looters.

I think the humans need to have some sort of life preservation put into their programming.


i saw a dev tell in anotehr post it’s a game design choice, as they have an objective in mind, being pandorian or humans, they all have their own way to fight, and sometime with a lot of passion.

Having an human sacrifice itself for the greater good of what he think is the good way, isn’t totaly false by itself. That’s ina way what a soldier do when he go to fight irl, or some policeman in cowboy country, or, in a darker way, terrorists, for exemples. Regardless thei’re true or not, it’s good or not, doesn’t import. The thing is, they truth on something, and they consider their global goal, what they trust in, is more important than their own life.

In this case, in make sense that a single of your soldier kill 3 - 4 of his brother ina rm, and he see a way to take him out, he’ll take the shot, even if it mean dying in the process ^^

That sounds like a serious cop-out, they’re just being lazy and either can’t or won’t properly design the AI.

1 Like

dunno, i’ll agree if all ennemies used the same ai but it’s definetly not the case.

Never ever i saw a triton doign silly moves for exemple. This sneaky guys move around, ever in cover, avoid most overwatch (assuming they have see your soldier at first), try to go to your soldiers back etc.

Chiron try to stay away while putting death (or slime) from the sky, while staying relatively out of view (while still being seen from afar otherwise imagine the player frustrations, some have difficulty with a t1 siren :o)

Facehuggers from witch i forgot the name ever move around corners, so unless you engage the fight first turn, they frequently sneak through your guys and give them hugs in the same turn leaving little time to react etc…

In human ia, they tend to act slightly diferently from faction to faction, while most are carefull, some others, anu first, tend to go suicidal if needed, witch make sense with their backgound and the fact thei’re somehow an hivemind.

Specific factions like the Anu I can see it. Random independent dudes who are looting should be more likely to run than suicide charge. Let alone fight to the death. I’ve never seen AI retreat off the map.

AI uses the simplest approach of eliminating one of your soldiers as fast possible by focusing on him, they do this even when they don’t suicide. With suicide runs it’s just more apparent as “kill that dude” decision has a higher weight than everything else.

If you want to test this, give your sniper an assault armor so he is seen easier by enemy. Stack him as far as possible behind your other guys, watch spectacle of how AI tries to rush to him and gets close range to your other folks.
Snipers just have a higher perceived “danger” to ai

Suppression mechanics would work great to prevent these morons.

It could even work to protect your troops, potentially. If you get suppressed, probably you retreat to cover and bunker down, basically curling up as low as possible. That’d make you a smaller target and make even low cover decent concealment.

Agree. Right now, I think, the only reason why not absolutely everyone runs to you like crabs do is because they have a high enough chance to deal damage to you from the distance. But if they are positioned such that there is no line of sight, they will try to get it regardless if they place themselves in greater danger or not.

I’m sorry but this doesn’t sound plausible. For a simple reason that if enemy looses the way to deal damage to you, it runs away from the map. Seams to be a too rational decision for someone who is suppose to sacrifice himself for a better good of the others. One that is concern with a self preservation and rationally looks at his chances, won’t bum rush into enemy group just to take a cheap shot. One that is willing so self sacrifice for others, won’t be stopped by such nuisance as not able to deal damage directly and just leave.

1 Like

heh… dying in the process of killing someone doesn’t mean thei’re totaly stupid nor lack self preservation from my point of view, just that they focus on global objective rathen than their own life. If they can kill, they try the shot, if thei’re disarmed, it’s just stupidity to stay in front and bullet sponge, so they better walk away :o especialy considering the game rely on a form of biomass to some aspect of gameplay so i guess a returning living crab is better than a crab dead for literaly no reason.

But i may just overestimate devs intentions, i just read this on another post from a developer / moderator so… dunno, but that doens’t sound totaly crazy to think this way x)

It’s a simple principle that you can’t have both. If you are rational enough to withdraw from a battle when your limbs where torn off and you are gushing blood all over the place, you might have enough brains to keep your distance and get close enough to take a shot but not expose yourself to overwhelming force.
If you are jumping into battle ignoring self preservation, then you might as well act as a meatshield and help you buddies to get close.
Pandorians hardly know about any global goals - there ain’t any meeting rooms in the lairs :smiley:
But looters, hardly have such global goals where they would sacrifice themselves to their buddies can loot more junk.

This is NOT a rare thing. If you got one or two suicide bombers, or even a class of suicide bombers, that’d be OK, especially if you can identify them. But this is not rare… it is the standard behaviour.

So can we not go to great lengths to explain away AI bugs, so we can actually analyse what the AI is doing wrong and work out solutions?

1 Like

Heh, okey i leave you in peace then, just for record, this was the official team post i refered about

So i guess before wanting to fix it you’ll have to convince the devs it’s not the way a soldier / hivemind will act, witch was proven wrong many time in real world. A soldier that take high risk for taking an important objective (Normandy battle, France, where thousands of soldiers literaly runned through gatlings, dying from bullets without chance to even ripost just so their other mates can moove, maybe one more metter. I won’t call them stupid, nor even suicidal, may be cause i’m french and live with german border, but from my point of view, their are heroes to their cause.), Kamikaze, in the World War agains warships, terrorist sacrificing their life in suicide moove (or using human bombs), etc, most of them do it for a reason, because they know they can inflict damage. This doesn’t mean they will patiently wait to take a bullet in head if they don’t think it can serve their cause ^^

You’re talking about several different goal posts, there.

Normandy, several beaches just got slaughtered to a man, like the Somme. So, by that standard, aggressive patriotic types are very likely to die about three feet from their trenches. That doesn’t happen, because the bullets are made of foam in this game.

The idea that all the soldiers in Normandy were fine with dying so long as they, “inflicted some damage,” is also complete bullshit. They didn’t want to inflict some damage, they wanted to win the war, and wouldn’t be there if they thought they couldn’t win. They didn’t want to die to accomplish that, either. They did their best to survive, and the people who took additional risks often did it to PROTECT their brothers in arms, not out of desire to hurt the enemy. IN games, it’s easy to think about how many HP you inflict vs how many you lose. In battle, the really brave guys who did impressive things just did what seemed the best idea to them, at the time. It’s often quite logical, when you analyse the case.

I do not get the point about trying to make the player move out by charging in suicidally… that just makes holing up in one building waiting for the aggressive enemy MORE effective, and it encourages you to keep doing that and wiping out the idiots who run in one by one, to their deaths. If you want to force people out of a room, throw in grenades (and have it take a turn for them to explode).

1 Like

I’d like to see a scenario where the AI is adjusted so that a stand-off becomes possible in certain situations, with the AI side taking a completely defensive stance. What I mean is, they would group loosely, then fall back to the best high cover they can find, then defend, covering each other’s angles. With them entrenched this way, using overwatch, some missions would take on a whole new flavour. At the moment though, each enemy lineup is mixed, meaning that not all have ranged weapons, and this of course wouldn’t work in that respect.

Even on lair missions, where the player’s objective is to kill the hatchery, the enemy doesn’t really actively defend that asset - they just deal with what they see, i.e. there isn’t really any intelligence. I’d like to see the last bastion falling back to the thing that they’re defending, but they don’t do that.

1 Like

Defending silly decisions made by AI, by comparing them to people who died in WW2… this is something new I haven’t seen before.
People who jumped on live grenades, wouldn’t run away from battle because they lost they rifle, trench knife and etc. They followed orders and sometimes would make a split decision, that would kill them, to try to protect others. There where others who had so much hatred for enemy that they would try to kill as many of them as possible regardless of the cost as they probably didn’t feel like they have anything left to live for, as they lost everything already.

Somehow you are mapping this to a primitive function that just goes for a line of sight to the targeted enemy. The whole self preservation thing most likely doesn’t even exist in a game and all we see is a simple function of CanAttack() if answer is False then Retreat().

1 Like

I’d love to see this from Jericho troops. So far, they seem as dumb and agressive as the monsters.

With what you describe, I think the monsters should learn to use tactics like that later in the game, so as to non-artificially increase the difficulty. They’d essentially just be getting smarter, maybe there’s a hidden intelligence or AI level stat, which the enemy team will select when building their team (so they might sometimes opt for a lot of stupid units, instead).

1 Like

You can do that already but again it’s not because it is smart, but because it is predictable.
If you are fighting tritons with short range weapons, like shotguns. Put all of your guys on overlapping overwatch. Observe how enemy tries to find some path in between your overwatch sectors and if it can’t it will just wonder around or stay in place. The thing is, they are not trying to not get shot in principal, they are just actively avoiding your overwatch cone.

Sorry sir, don’t quite follow you - you can do what already? My reading and comprehension gets a bit questionable after a few Friday after-work drinkies.

Ones in a time, I’ve shot-off hands on couple of jericho heavies. Then my assaults, unable to pen their armor with assault rifles, got pistols from the sniper and heavy and where chasing jericho around the map taking pot shots. It was Beny Hill quality material.

1 Like