.....Of Lieutenants and Learning Agents (RTS)

Sandman · 2002-03-15T14:51:31

I was doing more thinking about control and unit coordination the other day, when I was struck by this stunning idea.... What if the commander could train his army himself? My first thought, was to have a computer controlled lieutenant in charge of your army, but subordinate to the player. However, rather than being a mere management agent for the player, this lieutenant actually learns the players tactics. This means that the player can concentrate on strategy without the need to micromanage his army. Of course, you still have complete control over everything, but micromanagement is massively reduced. It also gives rise to some more interesting ideas.... 1. Training missions: Of course, you have to actually train your lieutenant. You could set up war games, in which the army fights drones under your control. They also allow you to teach your tactics... 2. Set pieces/manouevres: You could associate certain signals to certain manouevres. Signals could be sent by hitting a key or icon, and could thus trigger a complete redeployment of your army or a drastic change of tactics. You could teach the computer to retreat when you hit R for example, and the Lieutenant would make sure your units all get out safely, while long ranged units give covering fire, for example. 3. Story: What if your Lieutenant defects halfway through the game? Not only do you have to teach your tricks to his replacement, but you have to learn to combat your own tactics.... Of course, the technical issues are great, but I dont think it is out of reach - Black and White showed us this. I think this might result in a very different game from a conventional RTS. Your thoughts, as ever, are welcome.

Game Design and Theory Game Design

Started by Sandman October 22, 2001 06:58 AM

21 comments, last by Sandman 22 years, 9 months ago

DaJoostMan

122

March 15, 2002 07:53 AM

Seems like fun but i think there might be a few problems if not implemented correctly.

The map the game is played on has to be very random to avoid most effective build order scripts/ai''s which have proven to be the most effective in any situation.

Dont take to much control from the player to the point it basically becomes a game where the smartness of the commander decides the outcome. A press "W" to win sorta thing.

Sandman

Author

2,211

March 15, 2002 08:41 AM

quote: Original post by DaJoostMan
Seems like fun but i think there might be a few problems if not implemented correctly.

The map the game is played on has to be very random to avoid most effective build order scripts/ai''s which have proven to be the most effective in any situation.

Dont take to much control from the player to the point it basically becomes a game where the smartness of the commander decides the outcome. A press "W" to win sorta thing.

I think that is very unlikely. The objective is not to teach the AI to win a war, but to teach it tactics which the player can use to win a war. And if an AI can exploit an unbeatable tactic than so can a human player, and if you have unbeatable tactics in your game then it is seriously flawed.

Anonymous

March 15, 2002 02:51 PM

The point of this would be to reduce the amount of clicking a player had to do to execute various tactics- not to make them a better player. Maybe if it was a scripting language you could be limited to 10 if..then..else statements or something. If everytime you retreat you select the group of units move them to the retreat point and leave X number of units to fight a rear-guard action that''s at least 5 or 6 clicks depending on how big the retreated group should be. With this you could just press R and then shift your attention.

.....Of Lieutenants and Learning Agents (RTS)

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

.....Of Lieutenants and Learning Agents (RTS)

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines