Jump to content

wraitii

WFG Programming Team
  • Posts

    3.395
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    75

Everything posted by wraitii

  1. Do you plan on having "wounded" units inflict less damage? It's something that as always bugged me in most RTS: while a unit is alive, it will inflict maximum damage, even if it has 1HP. It's also why it's better to focus on one unit than to "average" damage.
  2. I don't know if you've already read it, but this article might give you some insight about formation pathfinding.
  3. I can't really help you with the coding (well, I could, but I'm on a mac and unable to start the game (I really don't have the skills required), so it would'nt be fun), but here are some guidances: -It's not a bad thing to give the AI a specific to-do list early on(such as : until 2 minutes, food, until 4 minutes, food and wood, and do this and that). The human players usually do just that, and it might make it easier to code the AI. -If the AI is to build towers (and walls if there are in-game), it should know where to properly place them. For walls, it's really a matter of determining what is important and what to protect and build a nice circle around it, but towers are a more strategic matter. It should not clutter more than 2 towers in one area (2 towers are more efficient than one at keeping at bay attacks, but 3 usually is overkill). It should spread the towers so that they share less than 25% of firing range, but there is no hole in "tower coverage" (otherwise it's just too easy for the player to go through). Ultimately, it should try to learn where enemy attacks are coming from and build one or two more towers there. That's not that hard to do, I think, and it's a pretty great AI response. Some graphics to illustrate the towers issue: Bad positioning ( red is the "tower coverage", stars are towers, blue is the sea, sand is ground ) Better positioning. -Giving the ai some "soft-coded" behaviours depending on the map is pretty useful too, along with giving the AI rush/boom/turtling strategies. Some other topics that you might consider adding: -Clever AI, if a lot of space is available, could build houses scarcely. It makes it harder to destroy them all and crash the AI population cap. Or it could build small clutters of 3/4 houses. -Military buildings should be built in priority closer to the enemy position. Economic buildings should be built farther to protect them. -On the same topic, the AI could build "outlooks", that is a single tower far toward the enemy to know about attacks earlier. -For AI attacks, the shortest path is rarely the best. It is much better to alternate between "straight line" attacks and attacks from the side or even the rear if possible. -AI soldiers could be divided into categories. A "guard" section with some solid defensive units, a "raid" section that harasses the enemy (though they must have some clever attack strategies to work), etc. -Micromanagement of units during attack can be the difference between success and failure, I dunno if it already does that but it could be a good improvement far harder AIs. -Again on the "AI response to the player": if the AI attacks, and it sees the player has built numerous towers and walls, it should try to find another attack path, and if there is none, it should note that for further attacks siege engines are required. That's all I can think of right now.
  4. True that. But primary management might be a fun thing to have, such as only building farms near water holes or stuff like that.
  5. Oh, right, I forgot about that. It's not an Idea I love, but I can see why it's practical. As for the "near water", it was more of the "not in the middle of nowhere" Idea. Water is really important, but may be a lot of micromanagement. Of course, I think it would be just great to have a true water management.
  6. Regarding the "water" idea... You could make it only possible to build a city near a water spot. Or barracks, things that build units. I think it would add a nice realistic touch.
  7. Pretty good work, but I'd also suggest darker colours for the background, they look more "pro", and too light colors can be a bit hard to look at in such screens. Maybe you could differentiate winning and losing summary screens? I know some games do so ( I'm pretty sure AgeOf II did so, but It's been a long time since I lost at this game ), and it looks rather nice. You could also try adding some shades to the overall screen, or make textures a bit different, but that's just my tastes.
  8. I must say I highly second the suggestion that was made of having wolves move and act in "packs". This is the kind of thing that separate very good games from great games. Of course, it should not be on top of your priority list Also seconding the supply-cart for attrition games. This was in Rise Of Nations and made for some very interesting tactics where the cart had to be guarded, and made raiding much more interesting. Of course, I also second putting this as an optional setting, because it's not so "conventional". As far as the "clic some units, act/attack on group/formation" thing, I think it's a very good idea, that solves a lot of micromanagement and makes for a much more convenient play. Particularly, if you decide to allow "attack on a whole formation", it would be a pretty neat idea to have units automatically attack the unit they are strong against ( well, actually it would be even better if they had a chance to attack the unit they're strongest against depending on their experience. Basic would attack rather random units, advanced would be more clever, and expert would never fail to target the unit they are strongest against. But that could take some pretty time-consuming AI computing ). I'd keep a setting that would allow to attack a single unit, though. Like an alt+right click would only attack one unit, because it sometimes makes sense to attack a single target ( such as a supply cart, siege engine or particularly strong unit ). As for solving the problem WhiteTreePaladin brought up, I think it should only be activated as a feature if the player selects something like three or more units. If a single unit is selected, it should target the exact target.
  9. Hi, new poster ( French, to make things more lame ), and I just read about the last 30 pages of this topic. I must say passable forests seems like a really great idea. I even think that to normal "units", that is basic soldiers or stuff like that ( small human shaped stuff ), any forest should be passable ( or it would be so dense that you just couldn't get in at that time (0ad) by any mean, even for wood cutting purpose). I know you guys are quite far in the coding process ( and particularly the pathfinding stuff, since going through a forest would juste be a nightmare to code, if you want units to avoid trees ), but that really would make this game awesome ( it's already, get me right, but boy that would just rock ). I'm pretty sure I played a game where some units could go through forests. Must have been scouts in RoN. RoN was such an innovative RTS ( and an amazing game imo ), I'm still amazed that it has left no real legacy.
×
×
  • Create New...