Re: What ever happened to...
Posted: 15 Sep 2007, 01:41
I'd say strategy is what defeats attrition, and Warzone2100 has a lot of attrition about it. More to come later, I g2g.
Strategy by Design
* Hehe.... yes there is always that (in the spirit of K.I.S.S. design).2_Late wrote: ...................
So I'm thinking the only real tweek needed is more educated commanders ........
2_Late wrote: May I look stupid again and suggest another approach entirely?
Instead of extending the sensor network, Plan A, extend the arsenal. Don't have the SAM sites pay attention purely to the targets, and other SAM sights. Have it evaluate a target's range and damage capabilities vs if it took the target out directly or let a much faster firing AA gun do the work, taking out the chaff.
The idea being that the target (decoy) has neither the range or damage capabilities take either of the weapons out just yet. So the SAM hold it's fire for any other threats that are just out of sensor range, and lets the AA turrets do it's work. Then if it become absolutely necessary that the SAM open fire it can then, but not before. This way the cheap stuff that would be a waste of the SAM's attention is taken care of and the SAM is still ready to deal with the big guns.
Edit: Before you bring up what the AI might have to do for all of this, may I suggest you make a simple GUI that allows the user to link all the needed firepower as a group and give them a simple slider to decide what conditions the turrets should fire on. This way you've spared your self hours of tweaking, and allowed the users to create much more intelligent networks.
* Your absolutely right about that...themousemaster wrote:
Here's something I don't want to see: some uber-godly algorithm by which, if you set up your base using it, no reasonable amount of VTOL's can get anywhere close. This is a strategy game first and foremost; setting up an "impervious" defense that can only be countered by a Human Wave strategy defeats that purpose.
I was thinking of making a mod with B12 flying fortress,but wz engine has too many limitations which prevent you from making such a mod without messing with the source:Commander_Keyes wrote: Y'know, ive never played the original WZ. But a few more aviatric possibilities would be neat, and a huuge Battlecruiser fits that role well. However, naturally it must be balanced, like, traveling at the speed of a snail would be an option. O/C something smaller like a Cruiser would be neat too. But the air units you have till yet arent so great.
It's a carrier, not a destroyer, let it support it's self.Watermelon wrote: ...
3.Airfield for proper take-off
* I hear that. As facinating as this has been, I should stay focused myself on the "Trinity" project and WZ Cam scripting so I can keep making tangible progress - just not enough time for everything that is of interest in this life.Troman wrote:
I'm not working on it though, just taking part in the collaborative musing about a non-trivial problem and I think it was my last contribution, it takes too much time.
themousemaster wrote:Here's something I don't want to see: some uber-godly algorithm by which, if you set up your base using it, no reasonable amount of VTOL's can get anywhere close. This is a strategy game first and foremost; setting up an "impervious" defense that can only be countered by a Human Wave strategy defeats that purpose.
No panic! Grab the pitchfork, we will get that monster!Rman Virgil wrote: * Your absolutely right about that...
* Heh......we sure can get carried away in discussion (emphasis on that word) by our fondness for a.i. but in the end the prevailing holy grail (& final aribiter) is gameplay "Balance".
No, that would be a very bad idea.themousemaster wrote: We can't just go giving SAM sites much longer detection ranges to account for a "larger" area of "calculation for maximum effect".
I don't think it would require nearly as much CPU time, you'd be amazed if you found out how much calculations WZ does per frame.themousemaster wrote: Also, it would (I imagine) turn the necessary CPU processing power per frame up a few degrees of magnitude, based on the number of SAM's, as each one does it's calculation.
We don't want impervious defenses, do we?themousemaster wrote:Before anyone says "it will still be possible to fool this network with a suicide squad of VTOL's", yes, it technically is. However, you would have to have your main bombing force waiting outside the range of the Tower itself for it not to be calculated against... which, (if as I'm thinking in my own head as I write this is 4X the firing range of any given SAM site, though that is of course an arbitrary number), means that if you do try that strat, the SAM's may very well have reloaded before your main planes range in and drop their payload.
I don't see how this would work, you just have to make calculations, be it distance to the enemy VTOL or it's HPs or something else, because the "Commander Code" has to know what target to point at. You guys must have some magical computers if you think that with introducing some new actor to the game you can make the PC require less calculation for the same problem.2_Late wrote: The idea with that is there would be the basic static turret-only plan, and a number of sub-sets ready to go. Then have this "Commander Code" is only pointing to and using the set that's relevant. This way the only code, after everything is set, the "Commander Code" only has to execute a given plan. Any "thinking" that had to be done has already be done.
Rete was designed for different purposes and I don't think we need an algorithm with a big name to be able to deal with AA defenses, usually it is not worth it.Rman Virgil wrote: * What about Dynamic Priority Arbitration making use of "Rete" or a Rete-like algorithm ?
* As I understand it, "Rete" is just a fancy term for a network of rule nodes.Troman wrote:
Rete was designed for different purposes and I don't think we need an algorithm with a big name to be able to deal with AA defenses, usually it is not worth it.
It looks like a rule-based system capable of making inference, which one would usually use for Expert System for example, but a more efficient one. We could theoretically use something like that to deal with research in WZ (if the player has "Machinegun" and "Advanced Engineering" researched, then "Machinegun Bunker" becomes available), i'm not proposing it though, just absolutely not worth it in our case.Rman Virgil wrote: * As I understand it, "Rete" is just a fancy term for a network of rule nodes.
Sorry to be a party pooper, it sounds interesting, but I wouldn't be too excited about it now.Rman Virgil wrote: * The most cutting-edge, advanced game a.i. (well beyond the current gen of games though several major studios are deving it for commercial release in the near future) is GOAP (Goal-Oriented Action Planning) & Rete is at its heart (full implementation w/justification & rule support).....
I like the idea about having some structure that would coordinate what AA defenses and feed them with additional data, but:
this will not reduce the amount of CPU time needed for calculations. For the same amount and quality of calculation you need the same amount of CPU time. The structure itself doesn't have any additional CPU built into it.