Home » SIRTECH CLASSICS » Jagged Alliance 2 » The A.I.M. Library » Queries for Chris Camfield
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Queries for Chris Camfield[message #261858]
|
Tue, 07 September 2010 11:05
|
|
GMV |
|
Messages:79
Registered:August 2010 Location: The Netherlands |
|
|
LogistericnightOps
yes there is a limit (170 r/npcs)
Only NightOps? Too bad, along with the fact it is not 1.13 so can't be installed next to other mods (as I asked in another topic).
This 170, is this hard-coded? As said what controls this?
After all, in JA2 gold there are 174 entries according to what I read on an online publication of a file (which also showed me that I always missed rat, and that they removed 'eskimo').
I wonder what did 1.13 than do in order to 'bring back' Tex, Biggins, Stogie, and Gastion. For they do not state to have removed anyone, so what did they do in order to get this done.
Is it otherwise possible to add a second MercProfiles.xml file, in order to expand on this?
Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal
|
|
|
|
Re: Queries for Chris Camfield[message #261864]
|
Tue, 07 September 2010 11:51
|
|
GMV |
|
Messages:79
Registered:August 2010 Location: The Netherlands |
|
|
Hm... than the last questions surrounding this idea (if this is indeed a no it will be impossible I reckon).
Smeagol said that he was told that without Gabby, Bobby and Rat the Crepitus don't appear. However, in a WF_SVN_AIMNAS game the Crepitus are gone anyways, as the weapon of the Crepitus Queen was used for the flame thrower, is it not possible to replace these people with other RPC's?
Another idea I had was to create one RPC that generates are Kingpin's assassins. They probably need to loose their voice and portait, a shame I know, but they could be than more numerous, attack in groups, and it frees up 4/5 slots for other RPC's...
In total that is 7/8 slots free. Meaning that you could bring back Gumpy, Bubba, Numb, Cougar, Buns, Malice and Clifford that were cut from the WF mod, and perhaps 1 or 2 more
(leaving out Pablo's replacement (the guys does nothing for game progress or anything - or is Bobby Ray shipment coupled to him being there?) and Skipper (though he may be removed already, did not see him))
P.s. what is the link for?
Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal
|
|
|
|
Re: Queries for Chris Camfield[message #261888]
|
Tue, 07 September 2010 17:04
|
|
smeagol |
|
Messages:2705
Registered:June 2008 Location: Bremen, Germany |
|
|
GMVHm... than the last questions surrounding this idea (if this is indeed a no it will be impossible I reckon).
Smeagol said that he was told that without Gabby, Bobby and Rat the Crepitus don't appear. However, in a WF_SVN_AIMNAS game the Crepitus are gone anyways, as the weapon of the Crepitus Queen was used for the flame thrower, is it not possible to replace these people with other RPC's?
Another idea I had was to create one RPC that generates are Kingpin's assassins. They probably need to loose their voice and portait, a shame I know, but they could be than more numerous, attack in groups, and it frees up 4/5 slots for other RPC's...
In total that is 7/8 slots free. Meaning that you could bring back Gumpy, Bubba, Numb, Cougar, Buns, Malice and Clifford that were cut from the WF mod, and perhaps 1 or 2 more
(leaving out Pablo's replacement (the guys does nothing for game progress or anything - or is Bobby Ray shipment coupled to him being there?) and Skipper (though he may be removed already, did not see him))
P.s. what is the link for?
Dude... if it was that easy, to add the dumped mercs back in, I think I already would have forced someone to do it...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Queries for Chris Camfield[message #262836]
|
Fri, 17 September 2010 07:34
|
|
Chris Camfield |
|
Messages:68
Registered:February 2000 Location: Toronto, Ontario |
|
|
Improving enemy responses... I'm not sure if you mean in a round-by-round basis or to improve the AI in general.
Couple of thoughts:
1) Maybe some things could be improved with more seeded information on the map. For instance (this is just a personal opinion) I've been playing JA1:DS and noticed how pretty much every map has some sort of point of interest. And with certain maps, ones which are bases or something, maybe you could have different locations and orders depending on whether the enemy know there's any danger (green status) or not. Like, there's an enemy who patrols the outside of the base, but once there's any alert, he should go inside and take position in the hallway. Or you could have enemies resting in a barracks who should move out and set up an ambush in a hallway.
1a) Maybe an "ambush" order type would act as stationary (and facing a certain direction?) until they actually spot the player, and then are allowed to move more freely.
None of the above helps much if the enemies are attacking, though.
2) Some sort of overall strategic sense was something that was always missing. Each enemy has their own set of information and then limits based on their orders. When an alert goes out, there's not even a tendancey for the enemies to group together for safety. And certainly not much sense of how the enemy might flank the player.
As far as making the characters move in a formation, I think that was something we always wanted. It can definitely be frustrating... again, playing JA1:DS, sometimes a character stays behind after a group move order because they couldn't path at all. Grr.
To be honest I can't remember exactly how the group movement worked.
I think I would just pick the currently selected character and assume they're going to be the leader of the formation. The other characters, rather than all pathing to the target location, should all be trying to maintain a location relative to the other character's position, as that character walks their path.
So, say you wanted just a straight line perpedicular to the direction of travel, and let's assume it's going straight up a nice open road. The selected character should have a path, and walk it, and then the next character should always be trying to move to the spot 1 to the left of that character, or 1 to the left of the tile they're walking to. The next person, 1 to the right. Then the next, 2 to the right.
I hope with modern computers it wouldn't be too expensive to constantly calculate paths. Logically it should also be possible for each character to have a path, parallel to the others in the formation, and then they try to pick points in the path to get to be in the correct spot in the formation.
[Updated on: Fri, 17 September 2010 07:34] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal
|
|
|
Re: Queries for Chris Camfield[message #262877]
|
Fri, 17 September 2010 18:36
|
|
lockie |
|
Messages:3721
Registered:February 2006 Location: Scotland |
|
|
Quote:maybe you could have different locations and orders depending on whether the enemy know there's any danger (green status) or not.
I've fancied the idea of actually seeing the 'alert' status of D's troops as a visible bar with red for high alert, amber for enemy suspicious and green for safe .
Quote: think I would just pick the currently selected character and assume they're going to be the leader of the formation. The other characters, rather than all pathing to the target location, should all be trying to maintain a location relative to the other character's position, as that character walks their path.
So, say you wanted just a straight line perpedicular to the direction of travel, and let's assume it's going straight up a nice open road. The selected character should have a path, and walk it, and then the next character should always be trying to move to the spot 1 to the left of that character, or 1 to the left of the tile they're walking to. The next person, 1 to the right. Then the next, 2 to the right.
I hope with modern computers it wouldn't be too expensive to constantly calculate paths. Logically it should also be possible for each character to have a path, parallel to the others in the formation, and then they try to pick points in the path to get to be in the correct spot in the formation.
Exactly ! with skirmish formation, pathfinder and battle formations too .
Coders , get your asses in gear and make this happen ........ :rulez:
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Queries for Chris Camfield[message #262900]
|
Fri, 17 September 2010 21:55
|
|
lockie |
|
Messages:3721
Registered:February 2006 Location: Scotland |
|
|
Quote:You can walk in formation perfectly fine in turn based.
In turn based moves , why would you be walking in formation ? The battle would be on .
Quote:If you are talking about an extension of the real time mode, I am against it. If you want real-time combat, it takes training of the player by repetition under tension
Nope and nope ! Only when scouting / heading to a fight , pre - enemy contact , movement the same as now , but only , not in a straight line ! Then when enemy spotted , back , as usual , to turn based moves .
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Queries for Chris Camfield[message #262916]
|
Sat, 18 September 2010 00:02
|
|
Loucipher |
|
Messages:157
Registered:October 2009 |
|
|
Nice comments from Chris and other participants.
Re 1. I don't know how this was coded actually, but the documentation of the Map Editor mentions various "orders" you can give the A.I. soldiers placed on map. There are "alert levels" as well, in which case A.I. behaviour gets modified.
I wonder whether or not it could be possible to code certain paths (like, patrol routes, or simply a "go there and defend/ambush/whatnot that spot" type of route) with a condition that an alarm has to be sounded for the particular order to be executed - and if possible, what would be the best route to take.
Chris, if you were coding any of this, I'd appreciate your input.
Re 2. Some sort of tactical cooperation between particular A.I. troops would be always welcome, and I gather the "order" modes available in the editor were a general shot in that very direction. Maybe all it takes to "fix" A.I. behaviour is to rephrase/optimize the "call for aid" routine, and give the enemy more room in general? I remember that giving the A.I. an ability to climb roofs (one of the features enabled in 1.13) boosted the difficulty a few notches up all by itself. Headrock's Suppression fix made the A.I. use suppression fire as a valid tactic - again, this added to realism and difficulty. Why not go further down this route?
The patching fix might correct the problem above, and also give merc groups the ability to "formation move" anytime it's toggled on (but not in turn-based combat). I have an idea that such a toggle would make the "designated" merc a formation leader, the others just copying his path, only offset respective to their positions. I don't know how "predefined" formations could be coded in, however, and what would they be (line, wedge, whatever). Personally, I never missed that concept much in JA2 - with such a perspective on combat, formations simply don't matter, you go where and when you need to be.
Report message to a moderator
|
Staff Sergeant
|
|
|
Re: Queries for Chris Camfield[message #262929]
|
Sat, 18 September 2010 00:36
|
|
lockie |
|
Messages:3721
Registered:February 2006 Location: Scotland |
|
|
Quote: I don't know how "predefined" formations could be coded in, however, and what would they be (line, wedge, whatever). Personally, I never missed that concept much in JA2 - with such a perspective on combat, formations simply don't matter, you go where and when you need to be.
It's just so annoying to have 'straight line' mercs blindly following each other , single file !
At least with a wedge , skirmish line it's a tad more realistic along with easier 'spotting of enemy' for a group .
And I'd still like to be aware of the enemies alert status .
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: Queries for Chris Camfield[message #262975]
|
Sat, 18 September 2010 23:55
|
|
Loucipher |
|
Messages:157
Registered:October 2009 |
|
|
I don't think disclosing the enemy's alert status is a wise idea. Normally, you don't get such information up front - you need to draw conclusions from enemy actions and other visible/audible/obvious signs.
As for formations, I think just "keep current formation" toggle would do the trick of moving a group of mercs in a more dispersed pattern, instead of grouping them in one big fat group of targets.
Report message to a moderator
|
Staff Sergeant
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 19 03:57:25 GMT+3 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02260 seconds
|