Target Selection

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 18 Jun 2005, 23:43

How do units in combat currently select their targets? For example, if I send 20 Brawlers into the middle of the enemy's base, how do they decide what to fire at?

I'd propose that IF you give a unit or group of units a specific target to attack - for example, say I tell my Brawlers to attack the enemy's AA turrets - the group of units moves on to other targets of the same type (in this case, AA turrets) after the current ones are destroyed, and then on to similar units (mobile AA, then missile turrets, then mobile missile launchers, and so on) after all of the first type of target are destroyed. Why? Well, say I have a force of 50 planes, and for whatever reason I choose to build 20 gunships, 20 fighters, and 10 bombers. I'd like to be able to send in my gunships in to take out the enemy's AA systems and the fighters to destroy the enemy's fighters, before I send in my vulnerable bombers to bomb the hell out of the enemy's base. It doesn't help if my gunships scatter and start attacking solar collectors left over from the start of the game after they're done with the first AA turret, and the fighters start attacking the Kbot Lab - that's what the bombers are for!

This may belong in the AI section but it barely scratches the surface of AI-ness; more of a simple algorithim.

I'd also like to be able to tell my group of Brawlers to all attack the same target the entire time so they eliminate the enemy AA faster and take fewer losses...

Of course, theoretically, I could just queue up all of the enemy's AA turrets in the group of Brawlers' queue. But what if the enemy's built more? What if there's mobile units that appear? This sort of target selection algorithim would be nice to have.

Buggi · Post by **Buggi** » 19 Jun 2005, 00:01

It's open source man, check the code!!

-Buggi

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 19 Jun 2005, 00:49

Sorry, I don't know C++ well enough to make sense of the code, let along change it.

Gnomre · Post by **Gnomre** » 19 Jun 2005, 00:57

Ugh, not this again. No. YOU play the game, not the computer. Where is the strategy in telling units "move over here" and having them attack everything in a prioritized order automatically? If you want to prioritize targets, do it yourself!

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 19 Jun 2005, 01:13

If I specifically tell my units to attack, say, an AA tower, then I'd like them to continue attacking AA towers until they're all gone.

This could actually add to strategy; now you can focus on more than one group instead of babying around your gunships (or whatever) through their entire raid. Now I can order my gunships to attack an AA tower and then go and order my fighters to attack an enemy fighter, and then go and order my bombers to attack the enemy's fusion plant. There's really no way I could do this as effectively now: my gunships would start attacking random stuff (things that are firing at them?) once they're done with the AA tower; same with the fighters; when the bombers get there, they will be torn to pieces by the enemy's remaining AA/fighters because apparently my gunship/fighter pilots have no clue.

Where is the strategy in having to do a lot of clicking to get your gunships to attack all of the enemy's AA towers? There isn't much strategy to that. It's pure micromanagement. In my opinion, pure micromanagement takes away from gameplay.

Gnomre · Post by **Gnomre** » 19 Jun 2005, 01:30

Micromanagement isn't the great satan everyone on this forum seems to think it is. It's not going to kill your children, rape your wife, and pillage your village (yes, I just had to make that rhyme

). Anyway, my last post already made my argument completely clear: YOU are playing, NOT your computer. It's not strategy if the COMPUTER tells the units to automagically attack things, it's the game running pre programmed routines. Part of making a well orchestrated attack like you mentioned is, well, orchestrating it...

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 19 Jun 2005, 02:07

wait... did you just say "atoumagicaly?" or automaticaly?

Gnomre · Post by **Gnomre** » 19 Jun 2005, 02:34

Automagically, because it's MAGIC!

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 19 Jun 2005, 02:40

<twiddle's fingers>

Doomweaver · Post by **Doomweaver** » 19 Jun 2005, 04:50

I actually think Felix has a good point, because if you tell all your units to attack all units of a specific type, then you could have done it manually just as well, except during a battle you don't have this time.

Not sure if this feature is worth implementing because it wouldn't be useful in many situations, but I strongly disagree with anyone who says this is the computer playing for you. As long as the rules for determining which units to attack are simple, I think that's fair enough.

Still can't see myself using this much, though.

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 19 Jun 2005, 05:14

Gnome wrote:Automagically, because it's MAGIC!

Not really.

This is just a different way for units to decide which enemy to attack next.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 19 Jun 2005, 07:56

I think it should go like this....

Player presses Shift and clicks on a radar tower. The bombers serch for ONLY radar towers and blast them! Only problem is they ignore the flack towers next to the Radar Towers!!!!!! Also i think we should borrow something from an old game called Dark Regin...

There are three dials, Weapons, Moral and Independence.

Weapons: Free fire, Defencive Fire and Hold Fire (sound familear?)
Moral: 75%, 50%, 25% and Never
Independence: 100, 50, 25 and Never

Moral and Independence are less obvious to Weapons, whitch is simply how the unit decides to fire and stuff.

Independence is how well... independent a unit is. If it is at 100 then it will ALWAYS decide to follow and kill any unit it sees. The unit will act as a maruder, moveing freely. This is great for HK units, quick and deadly, but a bitch to micromanage. the %'s is simply how indempedit it isent and how much of a threat a unit has to represent to be attacked. Only at None will a unit stand still and take fire. At 25% the enemy has to get pretty close before the Unit will go after it.

Moral is how much damage a unit will take before it will retreate. At 75 the unit will run at 75 percent damage to the nerest repairing unit. And so forth. This will allow you to set how much micromanagement you have to take!

If a unit is at 100 percent independence, Fire at will and 50% Moral, then it will hunt the map for enemys, blast them indescriminatly untill the unit is half dead then it will flee back to base and get repaired. Cool eh?

Also it has already been done, so it IS possible!!!!!

mongus · Post by **mongus** » 19 Jun 2005, 08:35

playing the game... i can tell.. that units... fire.

er.. fire to the weakest unit in sight AND radar... wich makes building new stuff in the frontline while being attacked a pain in the 4$$.
in building process buildings should be excluded!

not really... but its disturbing.
e: storm is so dramatic

that thing the guy proposed is more related to the AI player i think, and its not the worst idea in this world, but... not for Human players, only for AI players.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 19 Jun 2005, 08:44

I demand what i said!

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 19 Jun 2005, 09:08

Micro is needed. its not hard to learn and fun to do. now that we have a autorepair function morale would be a useful feature, so if a units HP go below 50% it will move (in a straight line) towards the biggest concentration of enemy troops. having 75% 50% 25% 0% would be great. i would really like to see this ingame. (or set it to 99% and a soon as a weasel hits your goliath it will retreat! LOL :D

Storm · Post by **Storm** » 19 Jun 2005, 11:13

God, the retards, the RETARDS!!

Stop reducing the game to a fucking fruitcake. Please, I beg you on my bare knees... Why do you people constantly seeking new ways to let over more control to the AI?

Torrasque · Post by **Torrasque** » 19 Jun 2005, 11:58

Yeah, if IA take decision at your place, it's not fun..and often annoying.

P.S. I was sure that double click on enemi said to attaque all same units . (But I never tested it)

HellToupee · Post by **HellToupee** » 19 Jun 2005, 12:58

whats wrong with having intelligent units? its about easyer more effient management of your stuff, you cant be in 10 places at once.

Doomweaver · Post by **Doomweaver** » 19 Jun 2005, 13:37

I must say, half the skill in TA is being in ten places at once :) Not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it certainly makes the game fun!

Kixxe · Post by **Kixxe** » 19 Jun 2005, 15:01

Maybe we should add something to the ai...
But not right now, and we dont need all those fancy unit behivor buttons!

The only thing i want is that evry action should be able to be used on a area. Move on a area, so the unit spread out INSIDE the cirkel. Patrool area (may sound stupid, but basicly defend evrything inside a cirkel) or attack area (or area attack) for ground units. Search and destroy options, relly-.-*

Spring RTS Engine

Target Selection

Target Selection