This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: AI now goes after bases
- From: Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>
- To: Peter Garrone <pgarrone at acay dot com dot au>
- Cc: xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 19:27:25 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: AI now goes after bases
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Peter Garrone wrote:
> I suppose its mutual support really. The ai takes little account of one unit
> supporting another unit.
Practically no account. That is part of why I was considering the
tactical coordinator objects that I mentioned yesterday.
> Also the combat model does not really support
> this either. I mean that generally for an attack the user selects a
> single attacking unit, when usually in these sorts of games the idea is
> to cordinate your side spatially so that simultaneous attacks with
> multiple units have advantage over individual uncoordinated attacks.
I did notice in doc/PROJECTS, when reading it awhile back ago,
that someone (Stan?) had proposed creating a battle container
object. It had a bunch of thoughts on commitement levels, but I
think it also mentioned the ability to bind multiple units from a
single side into a battle.
> Generally, for an adjacent enemy, no movement is necessary. So if an AA
> unit were not adjacent to an aircraft, usually it should not be assigned
> to move to the aircraft and attack it. But if it were adjacent, it
> should be attacked. That is the concept I was struggling for.
Fair enough. Can't really argue with that.
Eric