most real time strategy games have no strategy in them. i think its one of the reasons the game genre is kind of niche/dead now because the later command and conquer games and starcraft are all about micro and tactics and you dont have to think strategically at all. there is no alternative path to victory, there is pretty much only one way of winning. there aren't multiple goals and paths you can strive for to win. and i don't mean that just because you have to win by destroying the enemy team, i mean that because there is no give or take in the middle of a game. an early game rush will win you the game unless you counter it early so its pretty much just rock paper scissors
i unironically think Command and Conquer Generals had the perfect mix of long term planning and short term execution because your entire plan could go breasts up at the last moment due to unforseen decisions by the other team but you can still pull through in the end with map objectives and timely execution of special abilities. map intel and secondary bases were critical to victory. not just the superweapons but there were so many trump cards and force multipliers that you could pull out that changed how powerful certain units were and generals abilities that could wreck an army without any consequence, and the same went for the enemy team to you. you had to think strategically to win and you couldn't just micro a bunch of dune buggies to victory
There is plenty of strategy in Starcraft, you're just bad at it. It's in the fricking name. If it's "real-time" then there has to be some element of micro involved or TIME is not a factor. If you want to play a strategy game, play a strategy game like civilization or whatever.
RTS died because of World of Warcraft. WoW is a million times more profitable so Warcraft 4 never became a thing. most people prefer MMO or shooters
yeah this, good AI makes tons of mistakes and forgets to macro shit.
It's why I don't like fighting against Sorian AI in Supcom. It's good, but there's no way any human would play like that.
AOE2's definitive edition AI has the same problem but it at least makes mistakes unintentionally.
The Rust programming language has become widely used in the programming community, mostly because the community knows how to develop applications with it and it's highly modular, but there's also a great deal of controversy and a large amount of handwaving when it comes to the pros and cons of programming in Rust. Let's take a look at the basics of writing programs in Rust, and what that means for you.
It's now a well-known fact that quantum computing is faster than computers at classical problems (some would call this "approximations to quantum efficiency"), but as this is hard to prove empirically one shouldn't put too much stock into it. By looking at the performance of a lot of different programs, including quantum computing applications, it is possible to draw inferences about the quantum computer problem space.
We've found that the A* to A solution for the Fermat program solver contains many solutions of the form
o(1^n)
where the A* is an approximation to the classical A* (n being the size of the hash function)
code a simple set of rules for it to follow >gather resources >destroy enemy base/units >avoid having your own base/units destroyed
then set different values to dictate priority of different units/structures. That way the machine could learn to trade effectively, like if it has to throw away 3 cheap units to destroy 1 expensive enemy unit.
Some kind of goal system
Probably in a rule engine with a bunch of interesting/fun behaviours, and some randomness.
throw a huge neural network at it cuz thats what every cool kid does nowadays
If it works, it just leads to AI that are too strong in some of the optimized regards. Extreme bullet dodging unit spam, and so on.
You handicap it
This. Perfect gameplay is the opposite of fun, AI should be making a lot of mistakes
That's a fault of the game then. If the AI can win just by perfect micro and APM, then there isn't much strategy to be found.
most real time strategy games have no strategy in them. i think its one of the reasons the game genre is kind of niche/dead now because the later command and conquer games and starcraft are all about micro and tactics and you dont have to think strategically at all. there is no alternative path to victory, there is pretty much only one way of winning. there aren't multiple goals and paths you can strive for to win. and i don't mean that just because you have to win by destroying the enemy team, i mean that because there is no give or take in the middle of a game. an early game rush will win you the game unless you counter it early so its pretty much just rock paper scissors
i unironically think Command and Conquer Generals had the perfect mix of long term planning and short term execution because your entire plan could go breasts up at the last moment due to unforseen decisions by the other team but you can still pull through in the end with map objectives and timely execution of special abilities. map intel and secondary bases were critical to victory. not just the superweapons but there were so many trump cards and force multipliers that you could pull out that changed how powerful certain units were and generals abilities that could wreck an army without any consequence, and the same went for the enemy team to you. you had to think strategically to win and you couldn't just micro a bunch of dune buggies to victory
Quad cannon. Fall on the floor.
>EXTRA. LARGE.
Agreed.
Also it's why Total Annihilation was so great, all the units were slow and cumbersome, practically nullifying micro. Also command queues.
There is plenty of strategy in Starcraft, you're just bad at it. It's in the fricking name. If it's "real-time" then there has to be some element of micro involved or TIME is not a factor. If you want to play a strategy game, play a strategy game like civilization or whatever.
RTS died because of World of Warcraft. WoW is a million times more profitable so Warcraft 4 never became a thing. most people prefer MMO or shooters
yeah this, good AI makes tons of mistakes and forgets to macro shit.
It's why I don't like fighting against Sorian AI in Supcom. It's good, but there's no way any human would play like that.
AOE2's definitive edition AI has the same problem but it at least makes mistakes unintentionally.
In Rust of course.
The Rust programming language has become widely used in the programming community, mostly because the community knows how to develop applications with it and it's highly modular, but there's also a great deal of controversy and a large amount of handwaving when it comes to the pros and cons of programming in Rust. Let's take a look at the basics of writing programs in Rust, and what that means for you.
What does Rust mean to you?
is it true that rust is faster than quantum entanglement
It's now a well-known fact that quantum computing is faster than computers at classical problems (some would call this "approximations to quantum efficiency"), but as this is hard to prove empirically one shouldn't put too much stock into it. By looking at the performance of a lot of different programs, including quantum computing applications, it is possible to draw inferences about the quantum computer problem space.
We've found that the A* to A solution for the Fermat program solver contains many solutions of the form
o(1^n)
where the A* is an approximation to the classical A* (n being the size of the hash function)
One of the best AIs I've seen in an RTS game is the Tactical Engine developed by Auran for the Dark Reign titles.
Look up the "Dijkstra" algorithm to find the correct paths the vehicles should travel.
>using Dijkstra and not A*
Those are the same thing
go play screeps and learn
code a simple set of rules for it to follow
>gather resources
>destroy enemy base/units
>avoid having your own base/units destroyed
then set different values to dictate priority of different units/structures. That way the machine could learn to trade effectively, like if it has to throw away 3 cheap units to destroy 1 expensive enemy unit.
>How would you make AI
stop calling it AI. algorithms aren't any form of intelligence.
check out DeepMind starcraft 2 AI