Read Op 1st Addition Of Supplemental Assistive AI's For HumanvComp Matches and/or Human v Human?

I detailed customization briefly in the OP and i believe uber has the capabilities to implement such a system in a manner that is assistive and not half-assed. Having an AI programed to slaughter us is easier to make then an AI programed to assist but it can and should be done.. This should be an option for the game i believe.

Hell I want players to be able to set up Sub commander "policy" in-game Per planet.. Each planet in a system or base in smaller systems will serve a Distinctly different function. So why not customize each built "Base Commander" to suit the needs of each particular base.

Reminder: I support a hard cap limit to this unit, as determined by factors detailed in the OP.

Problem is that you want it to be half-assed from the start. You want it to be limited and you want it to be less efficient than the AI you are playing against.

that doesn't mean half-assed... By that logic and Ant is a half assed leveler...
This is incorrect
The distinct difference between "half-assed" and behavioral scalability is that It would do it's job as intended while not compromising the integrity of the game. This AI should do menial tasks that you set it to do. Say manage fabber assisting, production management, economic management, basic warfare capabilities.

Based on Statements by the developers relating to Adjacency bonuses they dont want this game to be base builder management simulator. That being said it's a part of the game that has vital importance but the later part of EVERY game should focus on warfare otherwise the game will not play as intended...

With an assistive AI this allows players of all types to rapidly progress to the warefront and having to spend less time on the home-front. A player should still have to spend time monitoring bases and executing certain orders but the war-front and Strategy is of more importance. The AI should not contribute or dictate strategy in any manner for any player, it should be a tool for the player's strategy.

The war front is already getting a major boost in this next patch as unit and factory costs of most types are being reduced dramatically.. Orbital drops a tier level allowing rapid expansion progression and with a T1 "Uber-gate" more fronts can open up anywhere quicker then any patch previous to this one. Players need to be able to make the transition to war-front strategy from Initial base strategy quicker to keep up with the pace of war production. which is undoubtedly going to be ramped up next patch.

This sounds pretty half-assed to me.

Why are you demanding that the player should manage his economy at maximum potential when the AI will only do a half-assed job about it?

I know that the intention of the AI is to be helpful but if the AI is only doing a half-assed job about it, how helpful will it actually be?

What exactly compromises the integrity of the game?
How are those menial tasks?
What you assist, what you produce and how much resources you use to expand your economy are strategic decisions and that is hardly menial tasks.

It is rather the opposite. Adjacency forced people to build their bases in very specific ways and Neutrino did not like that.

I like your intention and that is why I support iron420s idea. It is more about automation and controlling unit behaviour than an AI though.

It can be An AI it can be Advanced unit behavior, whatever, My biggest point is that the Sub-Commander is the Focal point of this "advanced Behavior"... I dont want SupCom Sub-commanders where they DO NOTHING.. but be strong engineers....

The AI is only there to do what the player wants it to do not to be an Computer ally that is as functional as primary AI's are... My problem is with your use of "half-assed" which is out of context.. If i have homework and only did half the of the 10 assigned Problems that is half-assed If I only have to do 5 out of the 10 it is not half-assed see where i'm going?


What Compromises the Integrity of the game is the ability to build a fully-function AI partner unit that contributes strategy as a substitute to a player formulated strategy. The Unit I propose MUST BE A TOOL,. Nothing more

As far as Iron's idea goes it's pretty nice, but my caveat as stated above is that i want the sub-commander to be the focal point of such advanced behaviors so it doesn't become a useless unit.

I dont want Adjacency bonuses either i may have muddled up what i was trying to convey in that statement so allow me to rephrase.

... winning the game requires strategy and an arm to execute that strategy, the arm is your army and you CAN'T win without some form of military......my proof....I have yet to see somebody try to halley-smash-eco-victory against an opponent AI or Human. (with no army presence)

Now that being said, you must build production and Eco so you may fabricate the army of your choosing, and as the game progresses you must continue to expand eco and production. manage fabber assists etc.. These tasks while important take focus away from the formulation and execution of military strategy at the moment we don't see this problem. After the next patch i Guarantee we all will... army production and IP expansion gets brought to the early phase of the game, This is great i love getting armies faster, but between possibly fighting 4 humans or AI's across 3 other planets while managing production, expansion, eco and warfare on three planets will begin to be a burden on players and things like production and fabber efficiency (idle vs. not idle) can be considered menial when compared to map control and warfare.

I think an AI commander is a must, when the enemy can pop down a teleporter on your planet in seconds. There needs to be some automated response, as I can not observe all my planets at one time. Further more war on many different planets at the same time is impossible as the enemy can hold fire walk in to the middle of your base then open up, all while your army sits idle. There needs to be some sort of defensive mechanism. Perhaps you could order a group of units to defend an area. In fact most of the need for AI assistance comes from the need to defend planets/ bases that you cannot observer at the same time. As it stands know AI for eco is a non issue.

Area defense commands ftw!

No.

Well I don't think sub-commanders are necessary. I'd rather have the tools independently and not tied to an ingame cost of producing a sub-commander so that all players can use them equally and at all stages of the game.

Production and economy is an important part of strategy in PA. It is not only about using your army but finding a balance between economic growth and army production.
The choice of units is also important as you need to change your unit composition depending on what kind of army your enemy deploy. If the assisting AI is managing all your production and economy it is also making strategic decisions for you. I support automation of basebuilding with templates and better UI to support you to change your production of army on a global scale as this still gives the player full control of the important strategic decisions.

Godde, Never had i said i want the AI/Unit/Tool to take any strategic decisions from the control of the player.
Automation of base building is not different then what i suggest. And templates are not automation that is a que.. The Sub com will do whatever you want it to.. You are comparing it to a primary computer opponent and that is not what i want to see implement and i agree 100% with you. Read my OP and please see how i want these units to behave... I dont want it to be such an advantage it is necessary when playing against humans. You make it seem as if i want this to be mandatory for human v human matches and i dont. I primarily want this for H v C matches and 20+ player human battles.. realistically if 40+ people can play team armies whats stopping a 40+ FFA? Then what will you do when you have a potential 39 fronts to fight on per planetary surface?

Yea I like the idea of automation and the idea of sub commanders but not necessarily together. If I need to have 1 to get the other, so be it, but I'd rather not have them tied together if I can help it.

While I think the idea described in the OP is interesting, I don't think it would fit well in PA. IMO, the game would need to be designed from the ground up with sub-commanders in mind if you want them to be that complicated and sophisticated. You would need new UI screens for selecting the different personalities and customizing your sub-commanders all of which doesn't exist yet. You'd also need a customized AI to control this sub-commander since it functions differently from a normal AI player. There's too much to be added to support this at this stage in development, and the design of other units/balance would have to change radically to incorporate this new unit, since it touches all aspects of gameplay.

I think a much simpler, and more reasonable, request would be to have sub-commanders which are extremely limited. Once constructed, you'd give it an area patrol command over some location. The sub-com would save a snapshot of all buildings currently in that location (or being constructed) and replace/repair any that get lost. He would not, however, build new ones that didn't exist before, but he would support any newly added buildings in the same way. He would also have limited control over fabbers in the area, using idle ones to assist in the repair/rebuild process as needed. Finally, the sub-com would use any idle combat units in the area to attack any enemy units which intrude into the area he is assigned to. The sub-com would have no control over factory production (this can already be automated with infinite build queues).

I think the idea I posited above is a much better alternative, it is a simple and predictable AI and does not make any decisions other than the one you gave it, which is essentially a "maintain this base" order. The underlined part is critical. Any assisting AI should be just that, an assistant, it should not be making decisions for you. The sub-com I suggested does not say "Oh, the econ is bad right now, I shouldn't try to rebuild x structure". That is too advanced.

This would allow players to somewhat maintain bases that are far out or aren't currently under threat of attack. It also adds the interesting dynamic of sniping other players sub-commanders (like sniping the officer in a platoon) before an attack to make it easier.

Then we come back to the suggestion that iron420 put forth. We need an interface in which we can tell how the AI act or automation should work. IMHO the line between AI and automation starts to blurr somewhere here.

Well it really do sounds like you want it to be mandatory when there are 39 fronts as you don't think a human will be capable of handling that.
I think that with proper automation you are basically allowing the players to perform strategic decisions on higher levels which might make it possible to handle 39 fronts. I think that such automation should strive to perform the optimal solutions as well and not be "dumbed down" meaning; that where automation ends, strategy begins.

I agree with you 100% and thats what I'm trying to convey... The player should be able to set orders of priority for that sub com like defense > eco repair > production repair etc....

A person that has one task.. say monitor power consumption at a power plant is not "dumbed down" even in comparison to the grand scheme everything going on in the world however they are incredibly proficient at what they do. Division of labor .. Krakanu's post 2 above yours is a much better representation of what im looking for then i was able to convey.

"Well it really do sounds like you want it to be mandatory when there are 39 fronts as you don't think a human will be capable of handling that."

I'm not making it madatory.. the physical and mental limitations that come with being human make it mandatory.. Can You say you can handle a 39 front war in real time with success..? if you are saying that is what you are capable of then you are not being realistic nor humble...

Economy management isn't menial that's half of any rts. You're making it so the first player to your unit wins. All I have to do is plop him down on an unoccupied planet and that's the game especially if I'm the first to do this. Let it go ham on said planet and I'm free to spam a military wherever I want and never have to worry about crashing. Make another on my eco planet set him you defense and its a wrap. You aren't getting my eco and I can just fawk your butt with my army. The game was meant to be played by people.
Like I said this is extremely viable vs ai for the reasons your described, but player vs player it Iisn't. Only if everyone started with them already, even then you just put him on go and then just build military. It erases so much of the game that I love.

If you casual guys want this for human vs ai matches, sure i guess, but i certainly did not back the game for what is explained in the op

It could be simple in my idea. I was just thinking of a toggle to give it to the AI like it was it's own. You know how if it has a fabber it builds eco? How if it has a factory it produces endlessly with it? How if it has a factory it will use whatever metal and energy it has in it's production power? So, it reasons that if you could let the AI believe it controlled your factories and so many of your mexes, it would use just that in order to build your armies for you and even possibly amass them and use them in raids and such. You could remove control from the AI at any time you instead want to borrow said factories or army. You could give it the mexes and pgens and the UI could act like you no longer have that power or metal but the AI does and the AI can use that power and metal like it was all it had.

That alone is neat. With fine tuned AI instructions like Sorian currently programs set for certain tasks, you could get more complicated as to what the AI is supposed to do with what you give it, but that just leaves room to build something to start with and improve over time.

This is talking about it as a player mod oneday to come. Also, it could be turned on or off server side, and it could be allowed even agaist players not using it if that player takes responsibility ahead of time to not cry like a baby that it was unfair if he loses. It really is just a micromanagement tool, I can see some players not wanting it and I could see it helping new players a lot to see how the game is played and I can see a lot of high end players not caring one way or another, but either way it is a worthy idea.

read Krakanu's post it better describes what I'm looking for. Gunshin, will you ever play a 40+ person game? if so on how many planets? how many teams?

I wouldn't even go that far. Customizing your sub-com gets into adding more advanced AI and a more complicated UI to support the customization, which is too much for one unit IMO. The sub-com should only have one behavior, and it should be very simple and limited. The unit I suggested would easily be the single most complicated unit out of all the others added to the game, don't make it worse by adding customization options. You should try to keep your suggestion realistic and set it within the context of the other units that already exist within the game. Why should this one unit (the sub-com) be customizable and unique when no other unit is like that?