Subordonnate AI in games

[SolkaTruesilver]

I remember a game called Conquest : Frontier War. It was quite entertaining, if memory serves right. I don't think it ever became a really popular game.

However, there was a feature that I loved more than any other in Conquest : subordonnate AI. You could form Admirals, assign them fleet, give them a general purpose (defend, attack), and they would quite effeciently go around with the fleet you gave them, micro-managing it's super-abilities quite well, while you could focus on the base development, expending of supply lines, etc..

Do you know other games where you get subordonnate AI that can micro-manage your troops effiecently? On Shamusyoung's site, he said some ranting about having to micro-manage your force in Starcraft to be a true badass, saying how he hated to have to click on every ghost to make them Lock-down.

Think of it of the change in Star Craft if you could have assigned some of your units (all your choice) to an AI, and those would have micro-managed everything for you.

I think the potential of subordonnate AI is un-developed in the strategic gaming industry. What do you think of it?

[warty goblin]

I have this dream that one day we will see a game where that's all you can do- set AI priorities and manage logistics. Idealy you would not even be able to get involved in individual battles, and could only set doctrinal orders and force levels for your AI generals, then tell 'em what their orders are in very general terms and let them have at it. Generals would then have certain personality traits and abilities, and you could assign them to different armies/fleets/whatevers. And of course all of your generals would be yammering at you for new orders, and more ships/soldiers/whatevers.

This would 'free' you up to oversee new unit production and weapon research. Research would also idealy work somewhat differently, with various corporations giving you technology proposals, which would be chosen by the game based on its perceptions of your needs and your current body of research. To add even more worry to your life, most of the researches would only have a probability of succeeding, so you might invest a lot of time and money into Improved Crotch-Rockets, but fail to produce meaningful results. What is more, instead of the usual X4 type "one research active at a time" perspective, you would simply have a budget for research, which you could divide up how you saw fit between any number of projects. Throwing more money at a project would raise its chance of success and speed it up, but only to a point, after that additional funding wouldn't help much.

Call it Logistical Commander, on the cover would be a quote from IGN saying "...Gives you grey hairs, and you'll like it!"

[SolkaTruesilver]

When GalCiv2 was developped, I also proposed the idea that when you develop a new unit with technology, you have to reseach the developpment of the new [put starship class here], and some random element would affect the final product.

"Good news, Mr President! Out technicians managed to retour the excess engine power to give our plasma weapons a 10% boost on our new fighter class"

"Lord Vader, our technician reported that the New TIE Fighter would have a 20% loss of manoeuvrability because of the new sensor inp... arg... can't breath..."

That way, you would keep an old design that managed to be more lucky than newer one, and you would not re-draw a new starship/whatever everytime you develop LaserWeapon 3.4.2. To put together technologies on an effective combat machine cost time and money.


Back to the original topic: AI that works for you! :-)

[blackout]

It would be a nice option, but I wouldn't want the whole game centering around you telling AI to do this and that; I want direct command over some battles.

[Maxymiuk]

Not exactly what the OP described perhaps, but Rise of Nations gives you the option to share control over your nation with a computer (or heck, even another player in net games). The computer, I find, is a lot more efficient at managing the economy, while I handle the battles. Though it still tries to get involved every now and then, which may result in the army splitting up, charging madly, or doing generally stupid things. So I tend to avoid playing with an AI partner.

[Cainen]

Globulation 2. (http://www.globulation2.org/wiki/Main_Page)

[Shovah]

Cainen, it might be nice of you to provide a brief description of that game rather than just posting a link.

"Globulation 2 is an innovative Real-Time Strategy (RTS) game which reduces micro-management by automatically assigning tasks to units."

"Globulation 2 brings a new type of gameplay to RTS games. The player chooses the number of units to assign to various tasks, and the units do their best to satisfy the requests. This allows players to manage more units and focus on strategy rather than on micro-management. Globulation 2 also features AI, allowing single-player games or any possible combination of human-computer teams."

That's taken from the website. Looks like fun.

[Were-Sandwich]

Lack of subordinate AI is probably my biggest criticism of most RTS games. Should I really have to tell my sergeant to use his rally ability when his squyad's morale breaks? Or my Harlequin to use Dance of Death when she gets into melee?

[Shovah]

Okay, having just tried out Globulation 2, I highly recommend it. It's free, and the download is small, so even if you don't like it there's no harm in trying.

I'm not quite sure how to even describe why I like it, it's just... fun. If I can think of any other reasons to try it, I'll edit them in.

[Cainen]

So, how many people would be up for multiplayer Globulation? It'd be something new, for once.

[SilentNight]

It's not an RTS but Republic Commando had some incredible friendly AI.

[Leper_Kahn]

Think of it of the change in Star Craft if you could have assigned some of your units (all your choice) to an AI, and those would have micro-managed everything for you.

:smallfurious: I'm not really angry. I just did that face as a tribute to those crazy people on the Starcraft2 forums who think that changing anything about Starcraft (Especially the number of clicks to do anything) would ruin the game. And I'm sorry to say I do agree with them here, but not to the same crazy level as they do.

Starcraft has a particular feel to it, and I really like that feel. Having limited unit and building selection all the while having to micro your units makes Starcraft unlike other RTSs. There's a reason that Starcraft has a huge pro scene, and that's because Blizzard has tapped something that other RTSs have failed to.

Anyway, interesting idea, and I'm sure it would fit in well in some games. I just thought I'd throw in my two cents about Starcraft. :smallsmile:

If you really like just dealing with the big picture I recommend the Civilization games to you. War can play a role, but it isn't as intensive, and nothing is gained from microing your units.

[Cainen]

And? What about the people who DON'T like that feel? They certainly aren't being pandered to, especially with Blizzard pretty much all but dominating the RTS market. Besides that, if that's what you're claiming SC as superior for, remember that there are games that require an absolutely ridiculous amount of micromanagement that could ALSO be balanced like Starcraft was. Limiting what you can do is not going to make your game any more strategic; it's going to subtract from it at best, and at worst it's going to make it something other than a strategy game.

[Hazkali]

I would say that good AI, both on your side and the enemy's, is key to a good game. Everyone at some point has been annoyed by the "Idle Worker" icon in the Age of Empires (and their derivative) games. Especially when that worker is surrounded by jobs to do, but can't think of anything to do except twiddle his thumbs.

However, moving whole sections and battalions under AI control would only be useful in huge games, in which case the more sensible option would be for the game designers to smooth out the level of detail to managable proportions. If you need to assign the AI to make decisions on your behalf, then there's possibly something fundamentally wrong with the game.

That being said, a game focussed around choosing different AIs (say, your lieutenants and so forth) for different tasks would be interesting- so long as there was the option to take direct control of some units at a time, so you're not left just watching a poorly-rendered war film.

[warty goblin]

However, moving whole sections and battalions under AI control would only be useful in huge games, in which case the more sensible option would be for the game designers to smooth out the level of detail to managable proportions. If you need to assign the AI to make decisions on your behalf, then there's possibly something fundamentally wrong with the game.

That being said, a game focussed around choosing different AIs (say, your lieutenants and so forth) for different tasks would be interesting- so long as there was the option to take direct control of some units at a time, so you're not left just watching a poorly-rendered war film.

This is apparently where me and the rest of gamerdom differ. I would love a game like that. I've got buckets of games where I take direct control over the action, from RPGs and FPSs to RTSs and TBSs, but nothing scratching my high level management and logistics itch. Put another way there's lots of games that make me feel like a field general at best, and often a devision commander or somebody even less important, but very few that really let me wage war as the head of an entire military. Amateurs worry about tactics and strategy, generals about logistics, and I want a game where I'm no longer an amateur (this is nothing against smaller scale games, they are terriffic fun, and I love them, but I don't see them as exactly shutting the door on what management type games can do). I'm thinking a sort of galactic scale conquest game, where you take on the role of the commander of a star empire's military and order broad goals for your commanders in the field.

Imagine analyzing the global map for sites of importance, then choosing AI generals to attack them for you, and issuing them very general orders "Take this position by Time X" or "Destroy this enemy force concentration" all while managing new force deployment, the unruly personalities of your field commanders, and trying to make the best plans you can based on the intel your spy networks bring you. Your commander would have traits and ranks they develop over time, and always have a chance of getting killed or captured in an engagement (depending on how dangerous it was), so you have to think carefully about where to deploy them, since losing your best leaders can cripple the entire war effort. Also, if the leader AIs were smart, it would be a blast, at least for me. I find I become disturbingly attached to smart AIs in games, far more than is rational. The ending of Republic Commando for example was one of the most emotional gaming moments like, ever for me, simply because the characters never frustrated me. Same thing for Company of Heroes, I hate it when my soldiers get killed, even if they manage to accomplish what I wanted them to, just because they are smart and have some personality. The prospect of a game where after every action I get a list of all of the officers who died, particularly when I would have watched them mature up from Midshipmen and 2nd Lieutenants all the way to Captain and Admiral is, frankly, pretty wild.

Then toss in things like settin doctrine for your military, and what technologies to take advantage of, and I'm in nerd heaven.

[MeklorIlavator]

warty goblin, there's at least one more guy out there sharing your dream. Especially if it was done right, I think it would be excellent(of course, there just may be something wrong with me. I've always enjoyed the scenes in books where the characters running a major military operation are discussing options and ways to circumvent there limited logistical supply.)