project-navigation
Personal tools

Author Topic: What features are still missing for UGVs?  (Read 17710 times)

Offline Mattn

  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 4831
  • https://github.com/mgerhardy/vengi
    • View Profile
    • Vengi Voxel Tools
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2012, 08:14:42 pm »
please also check out this wiki page:

http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Talk:UGVs

Offline zapkitty

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2012, 08:40:54 am »
please also check out this wiki page:

http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Talk:UGVs

Yes, I've been going over the UGV code available. It seems that by coding for these "protobots" along the guidelines for the fullsize UGV's it would literally bridge the gaps between organic actors and mech units... even if these protobots don't get in or stay in the game.

Also, the setups I'm thinking over would have some applications to the cyborgs even if they can't match the capacities of a fully mechanized unit... with unit capabilities scaling up from human to cyborg to bot and then to UGV.

It'll be still be a jump going from the 1x1 bots to the 2x2 full-sized UGV's envisioned for the game but I can try to do a lot of the groundwork for the big units while working out the small ones.

I'll start putting it together and will check in with ideas and questions... that is, unless you think I'm starting off in the wrong direction entirely :)

... keeping the UGVs as a class of employees should work... minimum wage... mandatory time off... paid maternity leave...

Offline ShipIt

  • Project Artist
  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 906
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #17 on: February 25, 2012, 08:26:08 pm »
I wonder if there is any progress in this? I would really like to see this in game!

Offline Flying Steel

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #18 on: September 25, 2012, 09:30:47 pm »
Alright so now it looks like UGVs are no longer on the 2.5 TODO list either. So they've been pushed back to a later version for three or four major versions in a row at this point. The content for them is there, so what is the hold up?

I believe the hold up is demanding too much at once from development of UGV support. Like the ideas that UGVs must be 2x2 with the associated path-finding issues solved, must have separately rotating turrets, must have separate transport space or separate spawn locations on maps, etc. Things like this are not necessary and can be added later as desired.

All that is needed right now is a minimum feature set for UGVs to work in game, in skirmish and campaign, and then to have this minimum of features added to the 2.5 road map and then implemented before that release. Someone please correct me if there are more but I believe we only need two things:

1. The ability to buy and/or manufacture a special "soldier" that has no skills and a very simplified healing mechanic:
2. A special tag for weapons and equipment that distinguishes between infantry and UGV outfits.

Offline H-Hour

  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2012, 12:15:36 am »
1 and 2 are actually done, or nearly done, I think. In the development version you can purchase UGVs and UGV weapons. We've also got a basic 1x1 scout ugv modeled and animated, so 2x2 pathfinding isn't necessarily holding it up. Here are some of the missing components (off the top of my head -- probably lots more behind the scenes work)

3. UI changes to allow the player to select UGVs on the battlescape.
4. Changes to aircraft definitions to specify how many UGVs can be carried in a dropship (the alternative, using UGVs like a "soldier" only adds more difficult work restructing the concept of a squad in the code).
5. Changes to aircraft equipping menu to assign UGVs to aircraft.
6. Special equipping UI to select and equip UGVs (even at the bare minimum, you need a system to prevent non-UGV weapons from being equipped on a UGV -- but really you need a separate interface, because they won't have right hand, left hand, holster, belt and backpack spaces)

UGVs keep getting pushed back because they are a really big feature, because the active devs have other priorities and because it's a feature that requires different devs with different capabilities to coordinate on a single project.

Personally, UGVs are WAY down my priority list. I struggle to really understand what kind of benefit they would bring other than the "cool" factor. I'm not dismissing the "cool" factor, but I think there are plenty of other major issues to be dealt with first (campaign balance, better maps, plugging holes in weaponry/tech trees, reaching a temporary conclusion point in the story, improving game mechanics of battlescape, fixing air combat, improving the UI). That's where I am driven to spend my time. Other devs disagree and want the UGVs implemented quickly, but they have other priorities too.

Offline geever

  • Project Coder
  • PHALANX Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 2561
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2012, 12:51:00 am »
1 and 2 are actually done, or nearly done, I think.

I wouldn't even say "nearly done". When I rebuilt the market UI logic I tried to make it UGV compatible but failed. The UGV datastructure is not well designed, it (and how the code handles it) have conflicted parts. First we should sit down and decide how UGV should work including if the UGV should have replacable turret and which tag should be used for it and other things also.

-geever

Offline Flying Steel

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2012, 02:16:45 am »
First we should sit down and decide how UGV should work including if the UGV should have replaceable turret and which tag should be used for it and other things also.

Well this is just as good of a place as any to sit down and flesh this stuff out.

Would it help to put together a preliminary specification and then pass it around to everyone so they can propose changes?


(the alternative, using UGVs like a "soldier" only adds more difficult work restructuring the concept of a squad in the code).

Why is that? Because of the eventual unusual space requirement of 2x2 units? For most of the issues you bring up it seems like piggy-backing the UGVs off the existing functionality for soldiers would be the way to start.

Quote
6. Special equipping UI to select and equip UGVs (even at the bare minimum, you need a system to prevent non-UGV weapons from being equipped on a UGV -- but really you need a separate interface, because they won't have right hand, left hand, holster, belt and backpack spaces)

Good point.

Quote
I struggle to really understand what kind of benefit they would bring other than the "cool" factor.

What fighting machines offer as far as game play is a way to add more specialized and diverse units to the playable "earth" faction in the battlescape. The alien opponents can come in any shape and size and have most any special abilities and disadvantages, and it all makes sense. But with strictly human infantry you might have some variety with powered armor or jump jet suits, but can't get away with nearly as much.

Vehicle types things are also interesting in that they are generally good at doing just one or two things really well, whereas infantry can more easily shift roles but suffer more trying to do any particular one. For examples, a tank can dominate open ground, but does poorly in tight cluttered areas and can't enter most structures at all. A small scout vehicle on the other hand might be the best at exploring or hiding within a building but is too slow and has too poor of standoff fighting ability to survive long outdoors.

Offline H-Hour

  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #22 on: September 26, 2012, 11:32:19 am »
Vehicle types things are also interesting in that they are generally good at doing just one or two things really well, whereas infantry can more easily shift roles but suffer more trying to do any particular one. For examples, a tank can dominate open ground, but does poorly in tight cluttered areas and can't enter most structures at all. A small scout vehicle on the other hand might be the best at exploring or hiding within a building but is too slow and has too poor of standoff fighting ability to survive long outdoors.

How would you suggest tanks dominate open ground? How do you envision accomplishing this? By giving them excellent long-range accuracy? How do we do this without imbalancing the battlescape (alien AI sucks at long-range encounters -- can't find cover, fires away at unrealistic distances)? How do we make the tank perform poorly in tightly cluttered areas? I can't think of a game mechanic that can be used to achieve this (2x2 may keep them out of the cluttered areas, but it doesn't effect their performance), but there may be one I'm missing.

More issues to be worked out for the scout vehicle. A slow scout vehicle would be little more than a kamikaze machine for checking indoor areas. It's not adding a very interesting game mechanic and could really slow down and narrow battlescape play. I see an incentive for players to spend their time moving the scout UGV around while the soldiers just cluster behind it.

Offline Sandro

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 240
  • Maintenance guy for UFO:AI 3D engine
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2012, 12:17:07 pm »
Personally, in the original X-Com I've used early (i.e. non-hovering) tanks as a kamikaze scout machines. Of course, rocket tank packs quite a punch, but in about 20% of missions it just was killed by some plasma blaster alien waiting for my troops to disembark, with my dropship in its sights. Before my tank could even have a chance of firing a shot.

Offline Flying Steel

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #24 on: September 26, 2012, 04:30:26 pm »
How would you suggest tanks dominate open ground? How do you envision accomplishing this? By giving them excellent long-range accuracy?

Yes that, combined with better armor that allows them to survive sometime in the open.

Quote
How do we make the tank perform poorly in tightly cluttered areas? I can't think of a game mechanic that can be used to achieve this (2x2 may keep them out of the cluttered areas, but it doesn't effect their performance), but there may be one I'm missing.

There are many possible ways. The 2x2 is of course one of them. Or having a special map tile tag for "rough terrain" that doesn't affect infantry but slows down "vehicles". Those are examples of hindering mobility. Another approach is to make them vulnerable to cluttered environments where they can be ambushed from many directions. Directional armor is used by many games for this purpose, which makes the vehicle more easily penetrated by attacks not against it's frontal armor. Requiring additional TUs for turning the vehicle or turret relative to infantry further limits it when enemies can come from many angles.

But those would need to be down the road implementations, I highly recommend not hinging UGV implementation on the development of further features like those above. That's been a recipe for indefinite postponement.

Quote
How do we do this without imbalancing the battlescape (alien AI sucks at long-range encounters -- can't find cover, fires away at unrealistic distances)?

That's a tangential problem. It is countered by giving human technology used at the same stage of the game, poorer stats overall.

Quote
A slow scout vehicle would be little more than a kamikaze machine for checking indoor areas. It's not adding a very interesting game mechanic and could really slow down and narrow battlescape play.

If it is slow but armed and with fairly heavy survivability, that is one option. It would be like a modern bomb disposal robot in design, but useful for making the initial break-through into a concentrated alien ambush. Another option is a fast vehicle, lightly armed or armored, that truly is a low cost scout. Or a true kamikaze weapon that runs in and blows itself up / launches grenades in every direction.

It is my humble opinion that a unit like one of these suggestions could actually speed up play by making the "clear the crashed harvester of camping aliens" type missions much less tedious.

Quote
I see an incentive for players to spend their time moving the scout UGV around while the soldiers just cluster behind it.

Only when you know all the aliens are hiding in that one room, in front of you. Otherwise you might deploy the scout behind you to make sure you don't get ambushed from behind. Or deploy it near the aliens' backdoor in case they try to make a run for it.

Offline H-Hour

  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #25 on: September 27, 2012, 12:34:00 pm »
I think if we create a UGV with better armor and excellent long-range accuracy, then nerf the human tech weapons, we'll just end up turning the UGV into a super-soldier, making other soldiers less relevant. This is the balancing problem I was asking about.

Your ideas around the scout UGV are interesting -- particularly the remotely piloted bomb. We'd have to get the economics right on that one so it wasn't too easy to just buy 1 or 2 UGVs to blow up each mission. But it could be an interesting piece of equipment to deploy in special circumstances. The main difficulty will be figuring out how to keep it from rendering Close specialists obsolete.

My main consideration when I consider "balancing" issues is: how do I add to the arsenal of options without making any existing options obsolete? Close specialists are a difficult breed to keep useful, because they necessarily run higher risks and have more narrow utility. The return on investment needs to be higher than, say, an explosives expert who can do alright in the open or indoors or even indirectly.

Offline ShipIt

  • Project Artist
  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 906
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #26 on: September 27, 2012, 04:36:29 pm »
... The main difficulty will be figuring out how to keep it from rendering Close specialists obsolete...

Once the humans introduce the UGVs, the aliens will develop some ECM-device to counter this, no?

Offline Flying Steel

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #27 on: September 27, 2012, 05:40:53 pm »
I think if we create a UGV with better armor and excellent long-range accuracy, then nerf the human tech weapons, we'll just end up turning the UGV into a super-soldier, making other soldiers less relevant. This is the balancing problem I was asking about.

Sorry I wasn't very clear. What I mean is in general the rule is, you have to make the player's options less effective to make up for the AI's dumbness. So if you add a human heavy UGV "tank", then you have to give it 75% or the armor and 75% of the firepower it would have if the AI was competent or this was a multiplayer only game. Or give the aliens more powerful weapons, like an early game tank and anti-armor weapon of their own.

Then later on, when the AI becomes more smart and modern, using heat maps and such, you must rebalance the arsenal's stats more in favor of earth weaponry. But whatever you do, UGVs don't make any special difference, you just have to balance them up or down for the AI, like you would any infantry weapon or equipment.

Quote
Your ideas around the scout UGV are interesting -- particularly the remotely piloted bomb. We'd have to get the economics right on that one so it wasn't too easy to just buy 1 or 2 UGVs to blow up each mission. But it could be an interesting piece of equipment to deploy in special circumstances. The main difficulty will be figuring out how to keep it from rendering Close specialists obsolete.

Because it takes up an entire soldier slot, can only be used once and has no ranged ability whatsoever (versus CQC specialists who can carry a laser sidearm for example).

Quote
My main consideration when I consider "balancing" issues is: how do I add to the arsenal of options without making any existing options obsolete? Close specialists are a difficult breed to keep useful, because they necessarily run higher risks and have more narrow utility. The return on investment needs to be higher than, say, an explosives expert who can do alright in the open or indoors or even indirectly.

Well that's where a "breacher" UGV comes in. It goes on point during room clearing and takes the brunt of the alien ambush, possibly sacrificing it's nonliving self, and then the CQC specialist(s) follow immediately behind and do a lot of lower risk killing. That would help one big problem with using CQC specialists, that they don't survive well.

The other problems they have are not directly related to UGVs. Probably hand grenades and grenade launchers are too effective, and thus effectively replace CQC weapons. Or that CQC weapons cost too much TU and do too little damage to make up for such limited range. Or that there aren't any good long range side arms besides the laser pistol. Having UGVs can't help or hurt any of these potential imbalances.


In general terms UGVs are semi-expendable super-specialists. When they die you only lose money, not experience. And while they generally can have a better something than a human soldier can carry, they are also bound to it. A CQC or fire support guy can have a rifle, a sidearm, a knife, several hand grenades, and can pick up other weapons/ammo from fallen comrades and aliens, all in addition to his staple weapon. He can quickly shift from one role to another on the battlefield. But UGVs are locked into using one weapon, maybe two. They are committed to doing one thing especially well versus a non-veteran human specialist. And so they make you think more carefully about their deployment, both before you launch your dropship and while in the battlescape.

Offline Sandro

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 240
  • Maintenance guy for UFO:AI 3D engine
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #28 on: October 05, 2012, 06:32:03 pm »
First we should sit down and decide how UGV should work including if the UGV should have replacable turret and which tag should be used for it and other things also.

So why not do that? :)

Let me start:
1) Separate turret. More realistic and will not cause players to beleive that UGVs are just soldiers in disguise. "tag_turret". Implement the submodel rotation for turrets (rather easy).
2) Let gun be a separate model from turret. "tag_gun" in the turret model.
3) Anyone to continue the list?

Offline geever

  • Project Coder
  • PHALANX Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 2561
    • View Profile
Re: What features are still missing for UGVs?
« Reply #29 on: October 05, 2012, 06:46:46 pm »
Questions:

Do we buy UGV with a turret or turrets should be bought separately and installed in equip UI? (preferred separately)
Maybe we buy them with default turret which can be replaced but not removed? (more difficult to code)

-geever