How about adding Generals? - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  How about adding Generals?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   How about adding Generals?

Farkbyter posted 06-15-99 12:36 AM ET
As an improvement, how about if the game added generals -- one each for the army, navy and airforce. It would certainly help with the micromanagement part if I could have a General take care of some tasks for me. Specifically, I'd like to be able to designate a few planes (certain planes or a percent of the airforce perhaps) for attacking formers and improvements, say, or troop transports, etc. The General could be given orders to use another set of planes to defend my borders, specific bases or specific improvments. I think Generals would be useful at defining broader objectives, such as advancing sets of military units to certain destinations (conquering or failing along the way), or creating worm patrols, or probe patrols, or defending formers, etc.
In short, generals, which could be given broader objectives and more definate goals, and which can have units put at their disposal to accomplish these goals, would help remove some of the tedious micromanagement. For me, the strategy of the game -- taking territory, defending against invasion, advancing along the tech chart, etc. -- is the fun. Tedioulsy having to send individual planes aginst the enemy is a bit draining.
In closing, I see Generals as being a more refined use of automation, much better than hitting shift-A and watching my planes fly right past what should be obvious targets.

Aredhran posted 06-15-99 04:54 AM ET
Do you *really* want the A-non-I to take over your military units ? You must be joking.
No strategist in his right mind would do that. I mean, try to automate some of your units and check out the results... SCARY !
The only positive side of this is that your rovers now have the "ability" to hunt enemies hidden in fungus or out of sensor range, but that's about it.
Generals ? Thanks, but no thanks.
Aredhran
-*I* am the General !-
korn469 posted 06-15-99 04:57 AM ET
i would go for generals if a special command and control unit that acted kind of like a moving sensor...like a general unit would give a 25% attack bonus to all units within a two square distance from him or something along those lines
korn469
Farkbyter posted 06-15-99 08:56 AM ET
Of course the AI would have to be improved for this idea to be useful. In fact, my thought is that the general idea would be part of the effort to improve the AI. I simply see the gerenal idea as a way to better control actions/objectives from the macro scale instead of having to order each and every unit to do something. I certainly get bored having to personally control certain units (going after improvements, for instance) when I think these efforts could be reasonably automated.
pse
icosahedron posted 06-15-99 09:13 AM ET
This is an interesting idea, Farkbyter. I do not think it would be easy to fit into SMAC, because it would require a radical reorganization of the game in order not to seem a kludgy graft-on afterthought.
However, the general idea (heh heh) is excellent. As in the real world, the general does not need to think about the details of the fighting, only about the grand strategy and the way each unit fits into it.
Aredhran, you are laboring under the reality of a primitive AI, and with such as it is, I agree with you. However, I also think it is be possible to imagine and build a truly efficient AI, especially for battle, and use a chain of command model where the problems are efficiently factored and crunched up as doable pieces by the AI.
SMAC is very complex, decision-wise, but it does factor into smaller problems fairly well, otherwise we as humans would not be able to manage it.
For example, city terraforming is relatively straightforward decision making. How to optimize resources? This could probably be made into a good algorithm which would work most of the time.
Anyhow, I think generals is a good idea. Each distinct task such as patrolling or attacking a city can be efficiently broken down into a relatively simple decision tree.
It would be nice to just tell a general to take 10 needlejets and patrol our borders, intercepting intruders and either killing them if enemies or giving me a choice to kill if "friends".
- icosahedron

Freddz posted 06-15-99 09:20 AM ET
Interesting idea for Civ 3! Post it at Apolyton Civilization 3 List forum before it's too late(the list will be sent soon).
Wouldn't it be fun too if the generals could go power hungry if they weren't payed/supported? (probably not )
Aredhran posted 06-15-99 09:58 AM ET
icosahedron, it's just that I refuse to relinquish the command of my units to some dumbass piece of code that is not even able to pick a path along a river or to make a decent naval assault.
I don't mind micromanagements of all my invading troops, and it's amazing the results you can get by fine-tuning which pieces you move first...
Try this, a tricky attack situation, where you have let's say 5 attack rovers and a couple defensive ones: Plan A. rush, slice, dice, kill (current "AI" style). You'll probably win, but end up in a weak position. If, on the other hand, you follow plan B and prepare your attack carefully and, let's say, send one rover destroy the sensor, then move the others forward one by one, deciding to sacrifice the disciplined unit to have the Elite ones survive to fight another day, you'll also take over your target, but you'll certainly be combat-ready the next round.
Bottomline, until a quantum leap is made in the field of AI, I'll do the micromanaging myself.
Aredhran
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: How about adding Generals?
Farkbyter	posted 06-15-99 12:36 AM ET As an improvement, how about if the game added generals -- one each for the army, navy and airforce. It would certainly help with the micromanagement part if I could have a General take care of some tasks for me. Specifically, I'd like to be able to designate a few planes (certain planes or a percent of the airforce perhaps) for attacking formers and improvements, say, or troop transports, etc. The General could be given orders to use another set of planes to defend my borders, specific bases or specific improvments. I think Generals would be useful at defining broader objectives, such as advancing sets of military units to certain destinations (conquering or failing along the way), or creating worm patrols, or probe patrols, or defending formers, etc. In short, generals, which could be given broader objectives and more definate goals, and which can have units put at their disposal to accomplish these goals, would help remove some of the tedious micromanagement. For me, the strategy of the game -- taking territory, defending against invasion, advancing along the tech chart, etc. -- is the fun. Tedioulsy having to send individual planes aginst the enemy is a bit draining. In closing, I see Generals as being a more refined use of automation, much better than hitting shift-A and watching my planes fly right past what should be obvious targets.
Aredhran	posted 06-15-99 04:54 AM ET Do you really want the A-non-I to take over your military units ? You must be joking. No strategist in his right mind would do that. I mean, try to automate some of your units and check out the results... SCARY ! The only positive side of this is that your rovers now have the "ability" to hunt enemies hidden in fungus or out of sensor range, but that's about it. Generals ? Thanks, but no thanks. Aredhran -I am the General !-
korn469	posted 06-15-99 04:57 AM ET i would go for generals if a special command and control unit that acted kind of like a moving sensor...like a general unit would give a 25% attack bonus to all units within a two square distance from him or something along those lines korn469
Farkbyter	posted 06-15-99 08:56 AM ET Of course the AI would have to be improved for this idea to be useful. In fact, my thought is that the general idea would be part of the effort to improve the AI. I simply see the gerenal idea as a way to better control actions/objectives from the macro scale instead of having to order each and every unit to do something. I certainly get bored having to personally control certain units (going after improvements, for instance) when I think these efforts could be reasonably automated. pse
icosahedron	posted 06-15-99 09:13 AM ET This is an interesting idea, Farkbyter. I do not think it would be easy to fit into SMAC, because it would require a radical reorganization of the game in order not to seem a kludgy graft-on afterthought. However, the general idea (heh heh) is excellent. As in the real world, the general does not need to think about the details of the fighting, only about the grand strategy and the way each unit fits into it. Aredhran, you are laboring under the reality of a primitive AI, and with such as it is, I agree with you. However, I also think it is be possible to imagine and build a truly efficient AI, especially for battle, and use a chain of command model where the problems are efficiently factored and crunched up as doable pieces by the AI. SMAC is very complex, decision-wise, but it does factor into smaller problems fairly well, otherwise we as humans would not be able to manage it. For example, city terraforming is relatively straightforward decision making. How to optimize resources? This could probably be made into a good algorithm which would work most of the time. Anyhow, I think generals is a good idea. Each distinct task such as patrolling or attacking a city can be efficiently broken down into a relatively simple decision tree. It would be nice to just tell a general to take 10 needlejets and patrol our borders, intercepting intruders and either killing them if enemies or giving me a choice to kill if "friends". - icosahedron
Freddz	posted 06-15-99 09:20 AM ET Interesting idea for Civ 3! Post it at Apolyton Civilization 3 List forum before it's too late(the list will be sent soon). Wouldn't it be fun too if the generals could go power hungry if they weren't payed/supported? (probably not )
Aredhran	posted 06-15-99 09:58 AM ET icosahedron, it's just that I refuse to relinquish the command of my units to some dumbass piece of code that is not even able to pick a path along a river or to make a decent naval assault. I don't mind micromanagements of all my invading troops, and it's amazing the results you can get by fine-tuning which pieces you move first... Try this, a tricky attack situation, where you have let's say 5 attack rovers and a couple defensive ones: Plan A. rush, slice, dice, kill (current "AI" style). You'll probably win, but end up in a weak position. If, on the other hand, you follow plan B and prepare your attack carefully and, let's say, send one rover destroy the sensor, then move the others forward one by one, deciding to sacrifice the disciplined unit to have the Elite ones survive to fight another day, you'll also take over your target, but you'll certainly be combat-ready the next round. Bottomline, until a quantum leap is made in the field of AI, I'll do the micromanaging myself. Aredhran