project-navigation
Personal tools

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - DexCisco

Pages: 1 [2] 3
16
Newbie Coding / Re: Artificial Intelligence
« on: November 17, 2012, 09:18:59 pm »
The whole pre-processing thing is complicated by the fact that maps are built from smaller pieces, so map-wide visibility and pathing is not really possible.   Waypoints could still be determined for each sub-map component and then linked when the map is assembled in game.  Determining visibility into adjacent map components could not be done during map compiling.  Depending on how long it takes it may be done after the map is assembled pre-mission.

17
Newbie Coding / Re: Artificial Intelligence
« on: November 17, 2012, 06:55:06 pm »
To answer the skill testing question:  If you can see the sky, you are outside.

The AI really has 3 levels:  Team tactics, individual tactics, and pathfinding.

To address the simplest, pathfinding, there are two types of pathing: physical pathing (moving from A to B) and visual pathing (I need to see/shoot what is over there).  Perhaps some of the heavy lifting could be done beforehand during the compilation of the map.  For instance, for visual pathing, for every given space, store the coords of every space that can be seen from there.  Then when the AI decides that it needs to see a given unseen coord, it can select physical pathing destinations from the list of coords that can see the target.

For physical pathing, perhaps some pre-processing could identify pathing wayponts.  Large, open areas could be identified by selecting points and testing pathfinding to all nearby spaces.  The lowest overall pathing score gets chosen as a waypoint.  Then test pathing out from those points to a pre-determined max waypoint distance.  Anywhere that the pathing score exceeds a threshold amount are identified as further waypoints.  Pathing tests that find other waypoints within their radius record a connection between those two waypoints.  The network of waypoints is stored with the map and can then be used for larger scale pathing choices (like finding your way out of a building or Harvester).

Individual tactical AI is a bit more tricky, but might be helped by the visual data mentioned earlier.  It would involve at least four steps:  exploration to find targets, choosing a target, moving to a valid attack position, and then the TU usage in a given turn to move before attacking, attack, and return to cover if possible.  This whole system might be aided by some sort of aggression variable used to determine how concerned with cover it is, etc.
Exploration would involve keeping track of everywhere the team can see and then choosing pathing destinations that can see the maximum number of unseen coords with the minimum move time.
Once one or more targets are available, the unit could either opt to continue exploring (e.g. if the target is too far away to be reasonably targeted), or to move to a firing position.  Firing position would of course be limited to coords within the maximum effective range of the weapon.  Negative modifiers would be given to positions exposed to enemy fire (determined by the visibility data attached to the map).  Higher aggression units would weight these modifiers as less of an issue.  Prime firing positions are determined as adjacent, pathable coords where one (cover) has low visibility of enemy units and the other (firing) has visibility of the target at an acceptable range.  Turn-by-turn pathing destinations are chosen from the reachable coords based on distance to the next pathing waypoint, visibility of enemies and aggression.  If there is no way to get to a good firing position, either the aggression is raised, a new target is chosen, or the unit goes back into explore mode to find another target or another way around.
Once the unit arrives at its firing position, its next turn can be used to move from the cover position to the firing position, fire, and return to cover if possible.

Team tactics could be very tricky, but perhaps it should be limited to concentration of fire (more than one unit choosing the same target), and spreading out (minimum distance between chosen firing positions).  Perhaps coordinated fire (synchronizing attack to the same turn).  The rest might just happen naturally as a result of using good cover and scouting tactics.

18
Windows / Re: make_UfoAI_win32 (all in one win32 build script)
« on: November 17, 2012, 04:58:04 am »
Tried running the EXE.  It set off my antivirus several times.  I finally got around that and then I got this error:

Error 48
Unable to find a free Drive slot

19
Tactics / Re: I <3 Smoke Grenades
« on: November 17, 2012, 04:18:37 am »
OK, I reinstalled Git and TortiseGit, got the source, and ran the Python script to download the maps.

20
Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Re: Weight penalties
« on: November 16, 2012, 12:42:34 am »
Is the posted weight for a weapon that of a loaded weapon or empty?  Does loading it increase the weight?  I'm assuming that it is loaded weight and you don't actually drop weight until you reload.

21
Tactics / Re: I <3 Smoke Grenades
« on: November 16, 2012, 12:36:25 am »
I'd like to help, but my computer sucks.  I tried building from the source and it would have taken days to compile the maps with my single core.

22
Tactics / Re: Can't weaken crashed UFOs?
« on: November 13, 2012, 10:09:59 pm »
Sounds like you guys are on the ball.  :D

23
Tactics / Re: I <3 Smoke Grenades
« on: November 13, 2012, 10:08:26 pm »
In looking at the grenades I noticed that frag grenades don't have a bounce attenuation property while the rest do.  Is this a deprecated property or just an oversight?  Does it make any difference?

I added the bouncefraction to all the materials in my terrain.ufo.  Usually about 0.5 for hard surfaces like concrete and pavement, 0.4 for wood or hard dirt, 0.3 or less for grass and dirt, and 0.1 for snow and sand.  Some may prefer the top end being higher, but grenades can still bounce a fair bit.  These values seem to be OK to me, at least for now.

24
Tactics / Re: Can't weaken crashed UFOs?
« on: November 13, 2012, 09:59:38 pm »
Another thing that might be considered is to have the aliens that have crashed be less than full health, or potentially even dead, depending on the condition of their ship.  It makes sense and would make crash missions play differently than landings.

25
Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Re: Wounded soldiers bog the game
« on: November 13, 2012, 09:51:42 pm »
I haven't noticed it recently, so I think it is good now.  I have noticed a similar flooding of the console log when you use Gas Grenades, complaining about not being able to spawn child particles, but it doesn't seem to bring the game down.  Maybe the fix is similar.

26
Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Re: Weight penalties
« on: November 13, 2012, 09:48:30 pm »
Another way of dealing with the weight penalty is to make it a linear function rather than a flat rate.  e.g.  -2% TUs for every % over 50% weight capacity.  So at 60% weight (10% over), you would lose 20% of your TUs, at 80% (30% over) you lose 60% of your TUs, at 100% capacity you have no TUs left.  It eases into the expected result of 100% weight immobilizing you and allows for some finer tuning.  The same could be done for a bonus below a certain weight.  Maybe something logarithmic would be more "realistic", but linear is easy to explain and figure out in your head.

Of course, being able to see the actual TU value on the equip soldiers screen as a progress bar like it does in combat would be ideal, with the bonus shown as extra TUs on the end of the bar or the penalty as a red overlay cancelling out TUs.  Visual is good.

I'm sure you guys will make it work.

27
Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Re: Weight penalties
« on: November 13, 2012, 03:41:54 am »
Now I was looking at military carry load documentation: http://thedonovan.com/archives/modernwarriorload/ModernWarriorsCombatLoadReport.pdf

Note that this doc lists a fighting weight of about 30kg, marching weights around 40kg, and emergency loads exceeding 50kg.  Assuming a fighting soldier is well equipped without being too encumbered, that would assume a strength of 60 under the current system.  Drop the rations, extra clothes, maps, canteens, etc. and put that into body armor and you're there.

28
Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Re: Weight penalties
« on: November 13, 2012, 02:49:07 am »
I agree that strike troops delivered by dropship don't have to carry nearly what field deployed troops have to to live.  I think the real game changer here is armor.  It's all well and good to say that fighting weight is 16.7 kg, but when Power Armor weighs 15 kg, you're talking about your ideal weight being almost completely taken up by armor alone.  Real soldiers and SWAT troops don't run around in 7-15 kg of full body armor.  Bomb techs might, but not SWAT troopers.  Probably because they aren't dealing with aliens with plasma rifles.  The analogy starts to break down there.

Regardless of what real soldiers can and can't do, the question that needs to be answered is, what should a rookie be able to carry into battle without penalty, and how experienced does one have to be before more can be carried?  Is it ever going to be possible to wear Power Armor and carry an MG and be able to fire full auto (25 TU)?

I'm all for a more graduated scale of bonuses/penalties, like <20% weight = +20% TU, <30% weight = +10% TUs, >50% weight = -20%TUs, > 70% weight = -40% TUs.  Losing 1/3 of your TUs at the magic 50% number now is a little binary.

If the idea is that not everyone should necessarily have a medkit, I'm also all for a heavier version of the medkit that does a much better job of fixing wounds and healing, and perhaps making the existing medkit have 2-3 uses instead of 5 and remove the drugs.

29
Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Re: Weight penalties
« on: November 12, 2012, 04:18:16 pm »
FYP

Nice.

As I pointed out above, at 40 strength a soldier can carry the average weapon and a clip with Nano armor.  That means that there are some that they cannot carry without a penalty.  Some loadouts require you to have at least 50 strength to use without penalty, and the lightest possible loadout require at least 50 strength to be under the 20% threshold.  If that is how the system works, then you tell me what the strength values should be.

30
Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Re: Weight penalties
« on: November 12, 2012, 05:08:04 am »
You can disable compression in config, make save, edit it, enable compression and load save in game to play and save in compressed form. ;)
I did so once to repair broken save.

Thanks.  I added 30 to the initial strength of all soldiers and changed the template.ufo to put initial strength at 40-55.  Seems fine now and my soldiers can carry a reasonable load and still be under 50%.

Pages: 1 [2] 3