It is currently Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:38 am

All times are UTC + 9:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Unit Priorities
PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:01 am
Posts: 1191
Location: Burning stuff on your lawn
The AI is going to need to have a strategy for purchasing units. Purchasing whatever it can get will result in having a crapload of cheap units that get plowed down by the single neotank you save for. Here's a few of my thoughts on how the AI should think:

First off, #of infantry should be determined by the number of available properties and how many vulnerable units in need of meatshields. There should be a cap, however, depending on the size of their army. We don't want an AI that infantry spams.

It'll need a balanced army, of course, so a list of each unit should be programmed to show how many of that unit should be built. Tanks and artillery would have the highest percentage, while megatanks, carriers, and spyplanes will have the lowest. These percentages should fluctuate, depending on what their enemy has built. (The player builds a dozen infantry. The need for an Anti-Air unit rises, while the persentage for other units will drop. After the infantry are gone, the rate for Anti-Air falls and other units will be more likely to be built)

Lastly, a large factor will be the amount of money spent each turn. An intelligent player will save part of his money to but better units, and so should the AI. This could be a difficult area to program well. It'll be easy to tell it to save x% of thier money, but much more to tell it when it's supposed to splurge on expensive units. It shouldn't have enough to buy that bomber that would screw you over, then think "I can't buy that, I need to save x% of my money!" and then buys a fighter instead. If the priority for a unit exceeds a certain amount, then saving money instead of buying that unit should be ignored.

Those are a few of my thoughts on the AI...yay?

_________________
sup


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:33 am
Posts: 10286
Location: TF2
:/ How are we going to have the AI act accordingly to his/her abilities?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:01 am
Posts: 1191
Location: Burning stuff on your lawn
I think that for specialized COs, the unit proportions would be set differently. Max's need for tanks would be higher than artillery, and would build them more often.

How certain COs will act, I have no idea.

_________________
sup


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:43 am
Posts: 678
well, it seems to me that the first thing we should do for this is come up with a set of proportions for a completely average CO. Then, from there we can modify the CO's AI to suit their strengths and weaknesses.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:38 am
Posts: 6693
xflamemaster wrote:
well, it seems to me that the first thing we should do for this is come up with a set of proportions for a completely average CO. Then, from there we can modify the CO's AI to suit their strengths and weaknesses.

That's pretty much what I was going to say.

_________________
Advance Wars


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:43 am
Posts: 678
Another thing i just thought of is that we should break the game into maybe 2-3 different stages, and have proportions set for each different stage.

A quick example (in terms of # of units, not cost):

Stage 1: Deployment/Capture
60% Infantry
20% APC and transports
20% Recons and other weaker attack units

Stage 2: Mid-Game
20% Infantry/Mechs/weaker units
60% Tanks/Artillery/Other medium-priced units
20% Neotanks/Fighters/other expensive units

Stage 3: Late Game
10% Infantry/Mechs/Weaker units
35% Tanks/Artillery/other medium-priced units
55% Neotanks/Fighters/other expensivve units

Weaker units = units that cost < 5000G
Medium units = units that cost > 5000G but < 18000G
Expensive units = units that cost > 18000G


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:08 am
Posts: 11049
Location: I'd put something clever here, but you'd expect that
Stage 2 and 3 is flawed, such a low priority on infantry is a bad idea

capturing is important 100% of the game

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:43 am
Posts: 678
yeah, you're probably right. i didn't actually figure out exact values. it was more of just a starting point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:43 am
Posts: 678
I've come up with a set of numbers for the first 2 stages of gameplay. Of course, numbers like this vary, but the goal here is to set an amount for a completely average map. Each map will need to affect these ratios differently. The % is the target number of units, so the AI will build units tin a way that brings them as close to the ratio as possible. NOTE: I AM NOT A MASTER OF ALL THINGS AW, AND THESE VALUES WILL NEED REVISION AND PLAYTESTNG (once we get an AI). DON'T FLAME BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THE VALUES. JUST STATE YOUR DISAGREEMENT AND WHY, AND I WILL EDIT THEM (or you can if you want to in your post). This was really just to kinda get the ball rolling. Anyways, here's my first draft:

Stage 1: Deployment; Non FoW; No Airports/Seaports

Infantry: 55%
Mech: 10%
APC: 35%

Enter Stage 2 when 33% of all total properties are captured or when infantry/property ratio is 2/3.


Stage 2: Capture; Non FoW; No Airports/Seaports

Infantry: 40%
Mech: 10%
APC: 25%
Recon: 5%
Tank: 10%
Artillery: 10%

Enter Stage 3 when 45% of all total properties are captured.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:12 am
Posts: 1317
Location: The Universe
Frankly, I believe APC's to be map dependent, and if the AI builds too many, it automatically puts them at a disadvantage. We'd have to be able to put something in the AI to determine map size when building them, and we'd also have to make it so it cycles its APC(s) back and forth to maximize transportation potential.

Still, I think the APC ratio should be lower, no matter what. I usually only build 1-2, and that's on a larger map too.

I also don't think they need to build that many mechs, as they're only necessary in high mountain/river areas where it'd actually behoove the AI to use them. Otherwise, infantry should suffice.

With the Infantry nerf, recons suddenly become much more attractive, as they can pry infantry off buildings much easier.

Just my 2 cents

_________________
Image
Image
Thanks to Croik from the Court Records site for avvy, Kosh for userbars.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:43 am
Posts: 678
hm. interesting points. i forgot about the infantry nerf. Idk, though. I usually build a good number of APC's, especially on medium to large maps where getting the middle ground is a huge advanatage. It should be lower than 35, though.

What do you think about these?:

Stage 1: Deployment; Non FoW; No Airports/Seaports

Infantry: 60%
Mech: 5%
APC: 25%
Recons: 10%

Enter Stage 2 when 33% of all total properties are captured or when infantry/property ratio is 2/3.


Stage 2: Capture; Non FoW; No Airports/Seaports

Infantry: 45%
Mech: 6%
APC: 19%
Recon: 10%
Tank: 10%
Artillery: 10%


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:11 am
Posts: 3547
BUMP because I will need to do something like this soon or later <_<;.

Anyway, some thoughts:

- I am completely against "jumping from a stage to other", since it would be kinda weird to be an AI spamming infantries and suddenly start ignoring them. The transition needs to be done more...smoothly, IMO. So I'd propose we use a parameter to serve as basis for the transition and some modifiers if certainly stuff happen. For example:

0% properties captured (Please note that this situation is impossible >_>;. But we need this extreme to serve as basis)

Infantry- Very High
Transports- High
Recon- High
Artillery- Low
Tank- Medium
Others- Null

And then, as the AI starts to capture stuff, the priorities start to change, in order to become like this when it gets 1/3 of the maps:

Infantry- High
Tank- High
Artillery- High
Recon - Low
Transports - Low
Rockets - Medium
AA - Low
Mdtanks - Medium
Missiles- Null
Others- Null

Please note that this is just an example, I am not really thinking on the exact priorities.

So, for example, when the AI gets 1/6 of the total number of properties, It will be on the exact middle of the two checkpoints, so, for example, The recon that is going from High to Low should be on "medium" and such.

So basically, my suggestion is that the..err...core of the bulding priorites will be done through checkpoints. Starting from the 0% priorites and then slowly changing to the next checkpoint and from that to the next, etc etc etc. I don't know if thats possible to do, though <_<;.

And, to be...."sure" that the AI will be able to adapt to the different situations, we will add some modifiers. Examples:

- If 20% of the opponent's army is composed by infantries, the priority for the recons will raise.
- If the closest neutral base is more than 6 spaces away from the closest AI infantry/base, the priorities for the transports will raise.
- After an opponent builds a recon, the priorites for tanks raise.

etc etc etc.

Then, when the next checkpoint is reach, we could change some modifiers. So we won't have capture phase (as in, lets expand. I didn't mean to stop captures) modifiers after all properties are captured.

Of course, It will be very complicated to work out the ground modifiers and such, but the result will be better IMO.

For ports, I believe the building partern will be easy, since it is all based on counters. We could have 3 checkpoints (Transport stuff->Build cheap units, the hovercrafts->Build the proper naval units), since I don't find any need for more than that, and the modifiers will actually be kinda easy if compared to the ground's modifiers, IMO. Examples:

- When the opponent builds a sub, the priority of cruisers raises and of transports, bships and destroyers is reduced.
- When the opponent builds a Destroyer, the priority of subs and bships raise, while the priority of hovercrafts and cruisers is reduced.

etc etc etc.

Sure, we can adjust the actual reduction, so, when destroyers are produced, the priorities for cruisers will be reduced more than the hovercraft's priorities.


So, what do you think? It will probably need tons and tons of work and testing to be pulled out nicely, and I have no freaking idea if it is even possible. But, hey, at least it is a suggestion >_>;.

_________________
I am just a product of your imagination. I am not really here.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 9:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Blue Moon by Trent © 2007
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group