17 replies to this topic

[thudo]

Instead of having the AI build a turret at main base why not have it build a squad since it determines if an enemy is so close by? So if an enemy is considered too close it will build an extra squad. I also added one squad to the initial buildorder. I never understood why the AI always builds the Commander first and almost always sends it in alone. It needs backup hence the reason for one medium-hevay squad first to be built just before the commander.

So.. buildorder is:

1) 2 Capturing squads
2) Builder
3) One more capturing squad
4) Barracks
5) 1 main attack squad
6) Commander
7) Generator (which normally gets built after barracks anyway).

And.. in the dynamic order if the AI detects an enemy is close to the main base at gamestart, the AI will build an extra squad of the same type of 5). Good? Better than a static turret I gather (as much as I wish we could have 2-3 turrets at main base not necessarily at gamestart but another point).

If not.. I'll scrap it and then we're done. The above is super easy to test.

Edited by thudo, 19 July 2005 - 05:16 PM.

[thudo]

I was thinking for Eldar using Rangers at the start, both in the initial build order and in the close enemy detection script. Rangers are buffed since v1.30 so they don't suck as bad as they did. Or should I use Guardians? I will quickly test this when I get home to ensure its all viable. If so... I'll send it up then package the sucka ready for release!

[LarkinVB]

I wouldn't change the static buildorder for orks and eldar. Rangers still suck as a main fighting force. Eldar should build early aspect squads according to this code :

function BuildOrderStrategy:AddToTable()

    --save my player stats pointer
	self.player_stats = cpu_manager.stats:GetPlayerStatsFromID( cpu_manager.player_id )
	dbAssert( self.player_stats ~= nil )

	if self.player_stats:GetPlayerRaceName() == "eldar_race" then
    
    local enemy = cpu_manager:FindCommonEnemyPlayer()
    dbAssert( enemy ~= nil )

    if enemy:GetPlayerRaceName() == "ork_race" then
    
    table.insert( self.info, {"addon", "eldar_aspect_stone_warp_spider", true} )
    table.insert( self.info, {"squad", "eldar_squad_warp_spider", true} )
    elseif enemy:GetPlayerRaceName() == "chaos_marine_race" or
    enemy:GetPlayerRaceName() == "space_marine_race" then
    
    table.insert( self.info, {"addon", "eldar_aspect_stone_dark_reapers", true} )
    table.insert( self.info, {"squad", "eldar_squad_dark_reapers", true} )
    end
    
	end
end

Not 100% sure its working as expected.

[thudo]

That only works 3-5mins into the game not within the first minute (which can be so critical to Eldar's survival and map dominance).

I'm at home and quickly testing new changes.

[Markoso]

Well, as was said, rangers still suck, and are outshined by aspect warriors and guardians in every respect. Unless you have a fully reinforced squad of rangers, who tend to zap morale (which is useless against SMs anyways).

Edited by Markoso, 20 July 2005 - 11:55 PM.

[thudo]

I beg to differ. Not many are reporting major issues with Eldar early game. Remember, as witnessed, if you try to rush Eldar he'll not only have 1 Farseer and up to 2 Ranger squads, but 2 Guardian squads that were previously capturing will likely at that point be free to defend/rush you. I've seen this happen countless time but, of course, its map-dependant. More time than not you'll see those extra 2 guardian squads come in for the first fight.

[LarkinVB]

I did send you a replay were eldars are totally screwed. Perhaps it will change your mind.

Last post was mine too. The two ranger squads push back hard counter build into nonexistance.

Edited by LarkinVB, 25 July 2005 - 09:49 PM.

[thudo]

Just checked the replay:

1) Until we can get DR or WS out real fast the Eldar are in troops early game.
2) If the Eldar had just 10-20 more seconds to get that support portal fully running the SM would have been in big trouble.
3) Notice how the AI does not respond to his base being attacked with the utmost extreme prejudice - we need to work on this as its mentioned in our Readme.txt
4) AI always has an issue with pushing further into the main base of the enemy.
5) Did I mention Eldar need DR or WS real early instead of Rangers?

Eldar was actually doing decent there and got the support portal up in record time (note the SM human player did not create any vehicles as his machine pit wasn't there). If Eldar just had those extra seconds it would have been different.

Still.. we all knew the Eldar AI needs early game improvements. They're physically the weakest factions but excel in agility and devious tactics.

[thudo]

I'll try Guardians only then. Rangers in my 1vs1 games were useful because the AI would use the Farseer and, as mentioned, once capturing Guardian squads to help out in early rushes.

[LarkinVB]

Note that Flensers skirmish plan seems to kick in though the eldars base was under attack. This shouldn't happen. The skirmish vehicles did also pass a turret protected LP under fire instead of jumping. Guess skirmish plan can need some adjustments.

[Flenser]

Note that Flensers skirmish plan seems to kick in though the eldars base was under attack. This shouldn't happen. The skirmish vehicles did also pass a turret protected LP under fire instead of jumping. Guess skirmish plan can need some adjustments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is a question of balance. If the AI attacks your base while you are attacking his base, you might be tempted to peel-off and defend yourself. On the other hand you might have time to complete the victory. Perhaps the AI should not skirmish when defending at or near its own base - ie it can skirmish while defending at other locations?

Or perhaps it could calculate the value of its army without the skirmish units included, and if the value is close enough to the enemy attacking army value, then it can allow the skirmish to proceed.

Jumping is an art, rather than a science I have made some improvements to jumping with v2 of the skirmish plan. The units stop more often when under fire, but they jump more often also. It seems you have to trade one for the other.

Also, units will not jump if they are near the objective (to avoid wasting a good jump), but I cannot remember if that is a v1 feature or a v2 feature.

Flenser

Edited by Flenser, 26 July 2005 - 01:31 PM.

[LarkinVB]

I will send you a replay showing your skirmish AI vrs a player from the relic forum. Request for your email is send by PM.

The replay is a good example on eldar weaknesses in our code. From build order to skirmish plan.

Please check out the guardian squad advancing alone against a fortified LP with turret. Each advance did cost them one squad member. They retreat and advance again until the complete squad is killed. I don't have the slightest idea which plan is responsible for this madness.

[Flenser]

Please check out the guardian squad advancing alone against a fortified LP with turret. Each advance did cost them one squad member. They retreat and advance again until the complete squad is killed. I don't have the slightest idea which plan is responsible for this madness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL - sounds pretty warped! I guess it is either Attackplan or something in Infantrytactic - can't think what else it might be. Could well be the dancing code - you were going to look into that anyway I believe. Do squads dance before LPs?

I wonder why they were advancing alone - the AI shouldn't attack with fewer than 2 squads, and I doubt they were trying to cap the point. Curious.

Flenser

[LarkinVB]

Dance is disabled with v1.2 ! Only allowed for jumpers and guardians can't do this AFAIK :-)

Must be some plan IMO. Stupid plan, of course.

[Flenser]

Dance is disabled with v1.2 ! Only allowed for jumpers and guardians can't do this AFAIK :-)

Must be some plan IMO. Stupid plan, of course.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have watched the replay up to 6 mins. I saw one group of Guardians do what you described, beginning at about the 5 min mark.

The AI was gathering its forces at the south-western Critical Point and I believe that lone squad of Guardians was simply trying to join them, but were going via the enemy half of the map Stupid, but not our coding to blame I am glad to say.

I am not sure why they back off when attacked, though. Attackplan will make gathering forces back off, but that code does not seem to be to blame here.

Flenser