Re: AI now goes after bases

[Peter Garrone <pgarrone at acay dot com dot au>]

On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 12:11:05AM -0500, Eric McDonald wrote:
> Hi Peter, others,
> 
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Peter Garrone wrote:
> 
> >and the different ai-controlled sides
> > tend to lose spatial organization.
> 
> Hmmm.... Not sure that I follow you here.
> If anything, the increased number of rejection criteria have the 
> benefit of spatially concentrating attackers on the fewer number 
> of victims considered worthwhile.

Sorry. think of world war one, with one lot on one side and the
other lot on the other. Thats spatially organised. 

I suppose its mutual support really. The ai takes little account of one unit
supporting another unit. 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.

> 
> > Adjacent enemy units should always be attacked. 
> 
> Why?

I disagree with myself. Indeed why. I was having a problem in the
roman game where legions were disposed to attack the enemy on the
other side of the adriatic rather than immediately adjacent units,
hence the hyperbole. This problem appeared to be present with the
pre-pathfinding code as well.

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.

Peter