Smart Combat, Unit AI - Why not?

I havent tried said "smart combat code for zero-k".

But i doubt that it would be superior to a humans own micro (as i said, i havent tryed it so i cant realy know for sure), and if it isent superior (or as good) it wont work as intended (since anyone thats good at the game wont use it over his/her own micro).

If im wrong then feel free to correct me. (The reason im doubting it is that i havent seen a AI being better then a human at micro, ever).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... BS8Mbqbnmk
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/01/s ... mpetition/

plenty videos of mathematically perfect AI micro demolishing people

unit AI doesn't need to replace micromanagement though, it can supplement it and decrease APM barriers for larger scale battle

well said

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKVFZ28ybQs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrbYd4OFrWE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EYH-csTttw

as much as i am on your side here, and also as much as i would like the performance boost, this would mean to get rid off simulated projectiles. I think thats a no go for the most of us.

i didn't mean to imply that. google gives a good justification for why replacing simulation with special damages and probability is not as powerful. however some mechanics that encourage micromanagement should be examined and if necessary cut, e.g. building adjacency. i feel uber has a good grasp on cutting superfluous mechanics.

So what encourages micro?

Different range? check. ->staying out of range
Splash damage? check. ->spread units
speed? check ->run by

an example of redundant micromanagement would be capture. if you can ctrl+k before an opponent captures your units then it renders capture redundant and encourages micro

in FA capture was relegated to mostly MEXs, i liked it in FA so I'm indifferent, but from a design perspective it may need reevaluation. nothing major though, perhaps disallowing ctrl+k when being captured, replacing ctrl+k with a "deactivation" (as kills no longer feed veterancy) or adding a "resurrect" ability that would render spiting your opponent with ctrl+k useless.

this is getting off topic though

It doesn't need to be better, humans have very limited attention and apm, so automation could always helps a lot when the scale gets a little big, I can dodge projectiles better than the Zero-K unit AI when I'm controlling a single unit, but there is no way to do so when I'm controlling 30 of them.

I would just like the ability to give a group of units a command in the form of an if-else statement.

if (enemy-group >= ally-group1)
{
retreat to waypoint2
}
else
{
defend waypoint1
}

You need a way to define the enemy group as well.

Yes, you do need a way for units to understand the commands you give them. That would be part of the A.I. if they allow us to give orders in advance.

All I would like is the ability to define the RoE for my troops in battlefield.

That way if I am busy doing something important and my defending group of units is attacked by an overwhelming force, I don't pointlessly lose my units because I was not watching that group of units the whole game.

What wrong with giving RoE commands to your units? It already been done in every RTS, Attack, Defend, Stand-Ground. It would be awesome if there a few more options than those.

Rules of Engagement (ROE)?

Rules of Engagement are how war should be conducted on the individual level among soldiers and officers to avoid collateral damage and civilian deaths.
For example you may only return fire to defend yourself rather than opening fire on any suspected targets.

Rules of Engagement could be useful if you are playing FFA or if intel is highly limited where unit ranges far supersede their visual range to identify enemy targets.

I wouldn't exactly call what you are proposing Rules of Engagement.

Anyway. It's not as simple as you make it. When you want your army to retreat or stand ground is highly situational. You might be able to judge in blink of an eye if you need to retreat or not but I think such an algorithm would be very complex from a technical point of view.
How does the algorithm determine the size of the enemy group?
How does it determine the size of your combat units?
How does it determine the strength of a mixed group of units vs an enemy group of mixed units?

I believe this is a pretty good idea, but instead of simply letting the A.I choose whatever it thinks is best to do, allow us to set up certain ways units will interact. Which priorities should units have? Highest health, farthest away? Also, some A.I unique to some units such as engineers would be nice. Set them to repair nearby buildings and units, or attempt to aggressively capture enemies. That kind of thing.

I actually think something similar (although not exactly) exists in other games.

In StarCraft idle units will return fire and even pursue enemies if their local group is attacked. This holds true even for units that do not take damage, those units will also return fire and pursue. You can still set units to hold position however (or hold area if Uber adds a painted hold area command). If a unit cannot return fire, e.g. a battlecruiser attacking a zergling, then that unit will flee. This was not the case in Supreme Commander and perhaps it should be in PA. I think it would work synergistically with a Fight command as this could allow you to position your units and then focus on other concerns before checking back in.

As far as retreating is concerned, Zero-K employs a user friendly automated retreat mechanic which could be set up if you're hoping not to baby sit a position. Admittedly this is not exactly what you wanted but I think it would suit your purposes?

Really, the only thing I want in the way of unit AI is callouts. "Hey Commander! We're getting our asses handed to us, could ya help out?"

From the gameplay livestreams I have seen, it seems the most projectiles are undodgable in PA, so the auto-jink will not be needed, but I think Uber could still implement a simpler form of smart combat: auto-kite and auto-approaching depend on whether the unit could outrange its opponent.

It might be because the server was lagging but when I played dodging wasn't too hard.

That's great, hope that means we will see more non-generic units in the future.

Bear in mind that nearly everything in the alpha is a placeholder; mechanics should be expected to change.

I think Neutrino has stated he doesn't like this. After all, giving commands in advance is essentially what energy priority boils down to and he doesn't like that, saying that he doesn't like people being able to pre-program their responses.

I know I'm a bit late to this discussion but as there's still a lot to be done I don't think it's to late to get my opinion heard. I'm certainly not an experienced RTS player and don't expect to do terribly well in PA on the long run.

I've been playing Zero-K on and off for quite some time and when I first saw PA I imagined it being quite similar, just on a much grander scale. And it's exactly that scale that makes PA a game where Smart Unit AI should have an important place in. I expect leading massive battles against different opponents on maybe dozens of fronts spread across celestial bodies. While I've seen amazing feats of management and coordination I don't think any but the best players could handle massive wars efficiently without decent Unit AI.

In PA I want to play the role of a battle field commander, looking for the best places to set up bases, ensuring economy is stable and safe, deciding how best to compose my armies, keeping an overview of enemy movements, and choosing the best tactics in order to ensure victory while keeping losses to a minimum. I want to defend valuable assets if feasible, abandon them if pressed too tightly and reclaiming them when my enemies shift their focus elsewhere. I want to decide whether my armies form a spearhead in pursuit of an important target, whether they should flank an approaching enemy or harass his rear.

What I don't want to do is to tell each and every unit what to do all the time. I expect my units not to walk into static defenses or enemies out of their reach unless I explicitly tell them to. I expect my units to avoid incoming fire if they have means to do so. Basically, I expect my units to do what a sensible human soldier would do as well. They don't have to make large-scale strategic and tactical decisions on their own, that's what I'm here for. They should be smart enough to fight a battle and make decisions according to parameters of my choosing. Every second I don't need to babysit my units I can spend on making tactical decisions that might decide the outcome of a game.

I play this game in order to win a war. I want to be rewarded for keeping a cool head, for making reasoned decisions and for directing my armies to where they are needed. I don't want to be rewarded for mechanical skills like dodging enemy fire, otherwise I'd go play a shooter.

TL;DR
I want to be a battle field commander, not a puppeteer. +1 for Smart Unit AI