UA in Unity Game Engine

Urban Assault is an old game and its rare blend of FPS and RTS deserves to be seen again. For those of you who want to start/coordinate projects to make an Urban Assault 2, this is a dedicated forum for you!
Remork
Firefly
Firefly
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:46 pm

Re: UA in Unity Game Engine

Post by Remork » Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:42 pm

No worries Charlotte, any discussion about UA is worth having. I think its a good idea if we all try to organize our thoughts together constructively. How about everyone tries to sum up what they want out of UA? We can set a limit, how about 10 sentences about what you feel is important of what is retained in our remake? I'll do it too, just have to think about it for a moment first.

And yeah Pete, definitely gotta keep a consistent visual style, but at first there will probably be some morphological inconsistencies if we just use raw free models. We can of course edit and finetune them as time goes on and we can sort of base this off the original anyways. Seeing as how most free models can be used for the Resistance, how about we start off with only that faction? We can use simple primitive meshes as test-enemies and that way it's only a matter of modifying the prefabs later on when we want to implement ghorkovs, taerkasten, ...

One thing which needs to be clearly said: this game won't have the exact same visual feel as the original. The low poly approach had an enormous charm. But 3D methods have come a LONG way, as have our screens & resolutions. Doing low poly style wouldn't feel right at this point so I'll but I'll try my best to work towards the right feeling with a contemporary look. A lot of the feel is in the grittiness and color palette, but a lot of it is in the overall 'shape-language' too.
Though that's where I think we could really turn this remake into a wow-experience - we can really put a lot of industrial / urban feeling into the game now. And we can take the original ideas of the vehicles even further and make them even more badass.

Maybe we should also just write down of what our first goals should be. I guess we should start with vehicles, their basic controls, then do the player-controller and then move over to terrain? The UI is equally important though ... but seeing as how it encompasses all the previous information it makes sense to do it after the other stuff is decently implemented.

I've been downloading a lot of nice models that we can definitely use from blendswap, got myself a 24h license for 5$. Sick value, seriously. If anyone wants to help sift through these models to find the good ones (you'll need blender) just send me a pm with your email address and I'll add you to the copybox (It's not only about privacy btw, Copy gives you 15gb for free, as opposed to Dropbox which only gives 5)

I'm totally down to make an 'exact' remake of UA btw, so we'll keep the git private for now indeed. But I think we should be safe anyway, microsoft won't care if its a free fangame. If they do we'll make up new names or w/e. I'm still down for the name UNITY ASSAULT, has a nice ring to it :)

Once we have that we basically have something we can easily make mods off of if we so desire. Adding new units, mechanics, physics, etc. But first just simple UA basics, is a good idea.

Here's a nice UI targeting example in Unity btw! Haven't looked at the code but it seems like something we could use.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Unity3D/comment ... eting_ive/

User avatar
pete_kaboom
Turantul 1 (Veteran)
Turantul 1 (Veteran)
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:18 am
Location: Down Under

Re: UA in Unity Game Engine

Post by pete_kaboom » Wed Apr 29, 2015 3:42 am

"tl; dr" level-of-text warning, guys!
Just a little reply post for you peeps, thanks for the input as always :D
LloydJara wrote:
CharlotteLabyrinth wrote: This is what I truly wish it to be like...

Several factors that always questioning my mind in regard to UA2 projects are: What aspects of UA gives a feeling and sense of UA? Which ideas suggested for UA2 would be acceptable without impairing the concept of UA? Are those fan-sequels will successfully adapt to the modern gaming standard, whilst not sacrificing the originality of UA?

One question: Why call it 'Urban Assault'?
Should we accept most of eligible, plausible ideas and features that were collectively gathered from sincere fans, I still hold a stern opinion that eventually it would end up in something totally different and thus will not be 'Urban Assault' anymore. As pete_kaboom stated, it will be excellent to have two distinctively seperate version of UA2 in this regard.

I admit that the sentimental attachment is more likely prevalent in this affair. Because personally I really don't want to see a game that might be completely different and have nothing to do original UA (for this matter, have a look at former UA2 threads and you will see what I mean) is claiming itself to be UA2; just because it was developed by UA fans.
Have to agree too with the different Version Stuff,.Indeed i could give you several ideas for a entirely new game if you ask me. ;)

Maybe i have to agree a bit with the name thing,as if we remake UA it woudnt be UA at all, as it wont be identical to the 1998 Original UA as you previously said.
Hmm, that's a valid point you guys make. For me, one way we might go about finding out what makes UA "Urban Assault" and ensure we keep with the features & concept of the original UA whilst bringing it to the modern gaming standard is to first develop a remake of UA (with all the core features that UA has), then for UA2, we can add, change and remove certain features so we can see how much we can improve it, what can we innovate and change, and what might not work so well or detract too far from the original concept. Surely, if we make a direct remake of UA, we should be able to keep it true to the concept of UA.

Basically, agreeing with Remork on this :)
Remork wrote:I'm totally down to make an 'exact' remake of UA btw, so we'll keep the git private for now indeed. But I think we should be safe anyway, microsoft won't care if its a free fangame. If they do we'll make up new names or w/e. I'm still down for the name UNITY ASSAULT, has a nice ring to it :)
And yeah, we'll look to you for some ideas if we decide on a different direction for the game, LloydJara ;)
CharlotteLabyrinth wrote:I'm not that rigorously conservative. :P In fact, I have (really) many ideas on my own, and it is also undeniably vital to add new features and functions into the game to satisfy the modern gaming standard. As long as we can keep our imaginations in approporiate lines, I think it would be fine. But as I mentioned in my previous post, to preserve originality it is very important to critically differentiate unique and prominent features of UA, then from there a proper distinction should be maintained prior to implementations of completely new ideas and concepts. I don't really like to persistently insist on same thing over and over again, either. Seperated version of the game is needed for a safety insurance.

Better safe than sorry. Perhaps I'm just too sensitive in these matters. :|
What I would like to do as well is to either release the source or at least make it moddable at some point, so that the community can add and make their own content for the game after the main development's finished. Sort of like what's currently being done with the original UA, though I'm hoping to make it easier to access & change things (or at least easy to know what does what if we release the source rather than make it moddable). That way, even if we don't end up making a UA2, or we take it to a whole new direction , the remake would be adequate for the community to explore what would make UA better, and make it easier to add content and features as they see fit, even if the majority is content with how we approach it. Though, depending on how much of the content is from the asset store (or is proprietary), modding might be a more legally ethical choice.

But yeah, again, agreeing with Remork on this :D
Remork wrote:Once we have that we basically have something we can easily make mods off of if we so desire. Adding new units, mechanics, physics, etc. But first just simple UA basics, is a good idea.
CharlotteLabyrinth wrote:
LloydJara wrote:
CharlotteLabyrinth wrote:Avoiding the original title would be crucially exigent at this point as we possess no valid authority or legitimacy to create a genuine heir of UA. In a more practical and down-to-earth viewpoint, it will grant us an ensurance of maximum immunity from any sort of possible copyright issues.

I would be elated if we could get a definite answer from the Stefan Karau concerning what he thinks about the entire UA2 plans and projects, as I believe when it comes to a legitimacy and validity of UA, his verdict still retains the most power and influence among us.
And about Stefan,yeah,his veredict is important but its really hard to contact him (But not impossible) and his opinion could help us a lot.I wont make conclusions what Stefan may think about a UA 2 proyect as we would have to talk with him,or make him to see this thread to know what he thinks but im
quite sure that Stefan would like the idea of a UA revival (In the form of UA 2) mostly because the poor sales of the Original UA and the Stuff that prevented it to be popular,also the fact that a new UA could make it a bit more popular and make a bigger community.
Apparently Stefan is not around here anymore, so it would be less likely to receive his actual answers at the moment. Moreover, I have come to think of that if Stefan had his own decisive opinions concerning UA2 then he might have already posted it long time ago... Anyway, to this time, I'm still very grateful that he visited Stoudson Corporation and had generously provided us with indispensable information and history about him and UA. :D
I'm hoping that he'll still return with news or at least a request for talent at some point. I'm assuming that he either has a UA2 project underway, or at least has the concept down and just needs the manpower to get it developed. If his direction seems solid, I'd be happy to work with him, and transfer any current resources over to him, assuming that there's already some headway in his UA2 remake (and since he stated in the other post that he'll be using Unity as well, it will be likely that something will be able to be transferred to the other project, or at least be compatible with it).
EDIT: I think I got him confused with Dragonfire967 :? My bad.
CharlotteLabyrinth wrote:
LloydJara wrote:
CharlotteLabyrinth wrote:Please excuse me if I went a smidgen off-topic and may possibly offended anyone with my words here.
I dunno who could get offendended with your words,Charlotte.
Well, generally most people have a very positive perspective towards UA2, and until this time, many of their suggestions, regardless of actual validity or suitability, were made in a very cordial and heartfelt manner. Therefore making such overly fastidious and incredulous statements like mine would likely evoke disapprovals from some people, and some people might even consider my opinions about UA2 as retrogressive. Also I tend to be quite squeamish, especially when speaking publicly.

On top of that, I think my post may have been fairly out of place. Seeing that Remork and pete_kaboom were having an ongoing constructive discussion about designing and planning the profound development of UA2 in Unity, I felt like I was inordinately disturbing their earnest conversations with my thoughts on UA2.
S'alright, your input is more constructive than not, plus people in the creative industry tend to develop a thick skin anyways :D

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Development stuff, now!
Remork wrote:No worries Charlotte, any discussion about UA is worth having. I think its a good idea if we all try to organize our thoughts together constructively. How about everyone tries to sum up what they want out of UA? We can set a limit, how about 10 sentences about what you feel is important of what is retained in our remake? I'll do it too, just have to think about it for a moment first.
Pretty much, community input's valuable for this. I'm more of a game developer than a game designer, so the direction will mostly be sourced from the community until someone steps up as the game designer, hopefully Stefan.
Remork wrote:And yeah Pete, definitely gotta keep a consistent visual style, but at first there will probably be some morphological inconsistencies if we just use raw free models. We can of course edit and finetune them as time goes on and we can sort of base this off the original anyways. Seeing as how most free models can be used for the Resistance, how about we start off with only that faction? We can use simple primitive meshes as test-enemies and that way it's only a matter of modifying the prefabs later on when we want to implement ghorkovs, taerkasten, ...
Remork wrote:simple primitive meshes as test-enemies
Mykonians :lol:


But yeah, the resistance (and ghorkovs, to an extent), will probably be the easiest one to start off with. I don't mind if there are inconsistencies initially, our primary focus in the early stages would probably be to make a MVP (minimum viable product), then move to the prototype/draft stage (which is where the models in whatever format will mostly be imported in) before reaching production stage (which is when the faction models & textures will begin production).
Remork wrote:One thing which needs to be clearly said: this game won't have the exact same visual feel as the original. The low poly approach had an enormous charm. But 3D methods have come a LONG way, as have our screens & resolutions. Doing low poly style wouldn't feel right at this point so I'll but I'll try my best to work towards the right feeling with a contemporary look. A lot of the feel is in the grittiness and color palette, but a lot of it is in the overall 'shape-language' too.
Though that's where I think we could really turn this remake into a wow-experience - we can really put a lot of industrial / urban feeling into the game now. And we can take the original ideas of the vehicles even further and make them even more badass.
Low poly is not such a bad idea, as long as we use normals to highlight the quality (A common technique used is to make a high poly model, then bake the details into a low poly model for games). Still, most modern rigs are decent enough, so long as we don't go too crazy on the number of polys (like 50k poly count per model, minimum xD), high-poly should be alright.
Remork wrote:Maybe we should also just write down of what our first goals should be. I guess we should start with vehicles, their basic controls, then do the player-controller and then move over to terrain? The UI is equally important though ... but seeing as how it encompasses all the previous information it makes sense to do it after the other stuff is decently implemented.
VR first :lol:
The current goals seem like a good idea. I'll get on it, probably set up a Unity project for it & add you to the repository. We should also set a deadline, or use agile methodology so we can keep ourselves motivated & produce results at a relatively constant rate.
Also, I recommend we use a trello board for our roadmap, I think other people will be able to view it as well if we set it to public, so they can make suggestions on our current progress.
Remork wrote:I've been downloading a lot of nice models that we can definitely use from blendswap, got myself a 24h license for 5$. Sick value, seriously. If anyone wants to help sift through these models to find the good ones (you'll need blender) just send me a pm with your email address and I'll add you to the copybox (It's not only about privacy btw, Copy gives you 15gb for free, as opposed to Dropbox which only gives 5)
That's fair, my email is [Removed] (just PM me if you want it :P)
Also, anyone from this board is welcome to contact me via the above email address. I also use [Removed], but not as much as my [Removed] these days.
Remork wrote:Here's a nice UI targeting example in Unity btw! Haven't looked at the code but it seems like something we could use.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Unity3D/comment ... eting_ive/
Sweet, will take a look!
Last edited by pete_kaboom on Mon May 04, 2015 2:25 am, edited 3 times in total.

Remork
Firefly
Firefly
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:46 pm

Re: UA in Unity Game Engine

Post by Remork » Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:26 am

Kay, I've added you to the Copy folder! Don't freak out, it's 5gb worth of scifi stuff :D

We'll have to keep a good eye on which models we end up using, all credit needs to be given where credit is due since we'll have to be careful with the licenses (theyre included in each model's folder). I'm still in the process of organizing all of them so it'll be moving around a bit.

For me one of the most important things about UA was immersion. Speaking of VR, we don't really have to do anything special to see it through an Oculus Rift no? I've actually been considering buying one lately .... it plugs into Unity quite easily, right? I'd love to test our game out with a devkit :D

Also, control at different levels is so important. Squad manager, map view, FP view, they worked in perfect harmony and that's what made UA so cool to me. It makes sense that an AI has full control over everything at the same time. This definitely needs to be a top-priority if we want the remake to be successful.

It's also one of the things I've been thinking about in regards to modding. Now I know this sounds far out - but keep an open mind for a moment- an AI would be able to program itself right? I'm thinking node-based, intuitive programming through a HUD/GUI view, which you can use to program certain units/squads with. It's sort of like making a custom aggression level, you know? I liked the idea of the aggression levels but the implementation could've been a bit better perhaps? (aka the AI just kinda sucked) It was easy to use though, of course. I'm not talking about replacing that system though, just adding a deeper, semi-hidden (at first) layer of control underneath. It totally fits into the machine-world style and I think it could be something novel which attracts some attention. Strategy/FP game where you play an AI which has its own programming language that you can modify? that has got to make some heads turn.

But enough dreaming, those ideas aren't supposed to see the light of day yet :) And I'm aware of the fact that achieving such a thing wouldn't be easy at all programmatically. Not even that, but design-wise as well. Max MSP is a pretty good example of such a node-based programming language (mainly for audiosynthesis) but it's difficult as hell to use. I'll have to keep this in the back of my head. This idea just really strikes me like one of those things that produces crazy feats of creativity from a userbase and garners attention in that way.

The economy system of UA was simply amazing. I remember when I was a kid and it clicked for the first time, my mind was blown. The power station system and the zone-capturing to complement those stations is just ... I can't think of how to improve that. Really good economy-system. I actually don't even know if I've ever seen anything like it anywhere else.

I think the only thing that sort of bothered me was the unit creation system. On the one hand, the whole warping animation with the spinning and the sounds had a great feel to it ... but the usability is a bit lacking when you're making a lot of units at once (read:ultraswarm). And then you accidentally doubleclick one of the already spawned units...Yeah. That was kind of annoying. Like I mentioned in one of my first posts, I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of semi-automated spawning mechanic, where you have one "spawnpad" per zone which can pump out units at a certain (balanced) rate. Perhaps with some added mechanic of having to build powerlines to those pads or something, since they need continuous energy? I'm rambling again lol. Again, ideas for the future! But perhaps it wouldn't be bad to at least think about how we could do the spawning (from the host station) in a more user-friendly way?

Oh yeah, what do you guys think about the state of buildings btw? Everything looked gritty in the original, but there were no strong signs of decay. It seems like it would make sense to have decay in a world where there are no humans left and every moving thing is waging war ... Also, building destruction could be turned into something way cooler. There have got to be some good Unity libs for demolition. Like ... split up the mesh into smaller pieces which fade after a while? I wouldn't mind seeing buildings collapse onto vehicles ... but again that's easily moddable in the future :) Here's a crappy but working example of what I mean - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0-38ix8Ucc

Ormu
Turantul 1 (Veteran)
Turantul 1 (Veteran)
Posts: 840
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: Finland

Re: UA in Unity Game Engine

Post by Ormu » Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:04 am

Some thoughts:


Cooperation! It's not constructive to have multiple projects with so few developers. So if we ever want to see "UA2" then everyone should probably concentrate on one project. Also, I'd like to hear dragonfire967's thoughts in case he still has a project going on.

Stefan Karau is a member here so you can PM him if you want. Some members have also managed to contact Andre Weissflog and perhaps some other developers too. Just please be considerate and do not flood anyone with messages. It would bring bad publicity.


The idea of customizable aggressiveness levels sounds great. Ability to set "flags" for attack, defend, conquer etc. would be very useful in many situations. I like how it's done in AoE II.
Image
Matthew Lever wrote:Take out Ormus as soon as you see them.
UA community Discord channel: https://discord.gg/7H4dFQH
Not all Ormus are mine. When in doubt, please ask...

User avatar
pete_kaboom
Turantul 1 (Veteran)
Turantul 1 (Veteran)
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:18 am
Location: Down Under

Re: UA in Unity Game Engine

Post by pete_kaboom » Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:04 am

Ormu wrote:Some thoughts:


Cooperation! It's not constructive to have multiple projects with so few developers. So if we ever want to see "UA2" then everyone should probably concentrate on one project. Also, I'd like to hear dragonfire967's thoughts in case he still has a project going on.

Stefan Karau is a member here so you can PM him if you want. Some members have also managed to contact Andre Weissflog and perhaps some other developers too. Just please be considerate and do not flood anyone with messages. It would bring bad publicity.


The idea of customizable aggressiveness levels sounds great. Ability to set "flags" for attack, defend, conquer etc. would be very useful in many situations. I like how it's done in AoE II.
I agree that we the developers on this forum should co-operate on this project together. However, so far all of the other projects & reboots with a UA remake or UA2 are either private or (I'm assuming) discontinued. If dragonfire967 comes by, I'd be more than happy to transfer my skills & resources to his project, if Remork's fine with it as well. However, we're currently in a situation where we've got a pool of talent, but little or scattered initiative at the moment (thus, agreeing that we're a bit all over the place :? ), or all the possible reboots are under dagger and cloak so we have no idea about their existence or progress.
My goal is to, at least, spearhead some progress before including other interested members of the community, and eventually to make a project where the community can be aware of its progress and contribute, whether its in audio, development, art, marketing, management, whatever. Admittedly, I'm only a junior game developer (and have a number of other projects going on), so I'm aware it's probably not going to be a project where me and Remork would be able to complete alone.

Contacting the original developers of Urban Assault sounds like a good idea, but I want to first get some progress and traction going first, and ensure that this project will persist this time. I don't want to contact him about a UA 2 or reboot then end up with barely any progress 3-6 months down the line. And yeah, I won't spam if I do contact him, promise ;) Though, if anyone else can be so kind as to let them know of our project once we've gained momentum, that would be kind :D

And yeah, we'll be sure, at the very least, to allow more AI behavior once the core concepts have been integrated into the game.

https://trello.com/b/DdMtWltd/unity-assault
Btw, here's the trello board we will be using to post tasks & keep track of the project's progress. Make any additional suggestions either here, in the trello board under the suggestions card or via PM here.

Also, anyone else who has time, wants to take a leap of faith & is interested in participating in the project, just PM me or Remork or just post down here. I know we have a post in the UA2 board of our available talent, but I'm not sure who's active, free and interested.

User avatar
CharlotteLabyrinth
Turantul 1 (Veteran)
Turantul 1 (Veteran)
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:00 pm
Location: Schloss Charlottenburg..?

Re: UA in Unity Game Engine

Post by CharlotteLabyrinth » Thu Apr 30, 2015 9:20 pm

Thank you for your considerate answers, Remork and Pete. You guys have my utmost respect for planning and coordinating UA2 with a strong conformity to original UA, and of course while balancing other real life works and situations. ;) Hopefully we can see the first alpha version in near future when more people get involved into the project, and once the fundamental design/development agenda had been established accordingly. After all, I think we are still on a brainstorming stage. Just for now, we should come up with as much idea as possible.

It satisfies me greatly to see that the project is keep growing larger with expanding ideas and possibilities. Unfortunately time constraints on my academic terms and courses are still affecting me (I miss my days back in the gymnasium :( ) in attritional ways, so being a 'formal' part of the dev team is yet quite a bit precarious. Anyway, from now on, I will try my best to keep myself updated in this promising project. On the other hand, I will have to take my time for assembling and organizing ideas for UA in more coherent ways.


Some responses...
Remork wrote:Also, control at different levels is so important. Squad manager, map view, FP view, they worked in perfect harmony and that's what made UA so cool to me. It makes sense that an AI has full control over everything at the same time. This definitely needs to be a top-priority if we want the remake to be successful.
What I currently have in my mind are more flexible grid maps and offset levels that can be meticulously adjusted via mouse wheels or something similar. It would be also great to have an 'overview' mode on friendly sectors just like a good old Commander View in BF2/2142/BF4, where you can observe down sectors from a bird's-eye view. Alternative unit stances (aggressive, defensive, search & destroy... etc) will surely be a key gameplay elements, too.
Remork wrote:The economy system of UA was simply amazing. I remember when I was a kid and it clicked for the first time, my mind was blown. The power station system and the zone-capturing to complement those stations is just ... I can't think of how to improve that. Really good economy-system. I actually don't even know if I've ever seen anything like it anywhere else.
I agree with that, economic systems and resource managements in UA is simple, efficient and well-organized. I liked the clean and orderly feelings of resource gathering and management operations, it also keep players busy to expand territories and capture power stations. You don't need to have a map control for resources; the map control itself is a huge resource/strategic advantage! Moreover, unlimited energy means you can play the game in a style you want and it is one of key factors in UA.
Remork wrote:I think the only thing that sort of bothered me was the unit creation system. On the one hand, the whole warping animation with the spinning and the sounds had a great feel to it ... but the usability is a bit lacking when you're making a lot of units at once (read:ultraswarm). And then you accidentally doubleclick one of the already spawned units...Yeah. That was kind of annoying. Like I mentioned in one of my first posts, I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of semi-automated spawning mechanic, where you have one "spawnpad" per zone which can pump out units at a certain (balanced) rate.
This is actually a good idea. Although not necessarily an automated procedure, it was possible to imitate a similar trick in UA by making one of Host Station gun turrets as mobile units such as scouts (Since gun turrets are actual components of Host Station, it is possible to create units from there), so you can create units while flying around all over the places.

Also, how about "queueing"? Like most other RTS games the queueing feature which enables automatic unit creations from Host Station in a consistent and specific order, without forcing players to come back into his/her Host Station to create more units would be useful. But of course there should be a massive creation speed penalties to compensate it. Otherwise will the function itself is just not a suitable idea and perhaps will make the game way too easy? :P
Remork wrote:Perhaps with some added mechanic of having to build powerlines to those pads or something, since they need continuous energy?
Not directly related to this feature, but could be applied as well if a design and concept is adjusted accordingly. My idea is a 'power generator', which is essentially a minor version of power stations. Reasons are because even the weakest power stations in UA costs way too much energy to build, and requires actual Host Station to move into the place in vicinity for constructions, so generally in both singleplayer and multiplayer games it was extremely impractical to build 'forward' power stations with a minimum cost of 1000 + Energy required for beaming.

Instead, power generators will be packed on a slow unarmed mobile ground unit, called 'Extractor'. Once you 'deploy' an extractor (by pressing the attacking button for normal units) in a desired location, the unit will be expended and a power generator will be installed on a sector. It should take some time until the installation process is complete. Power generator should retain every basic functions (Free beam point, repairing units... etc) of power stations, but with a very weak amount of energy output, making it useless for harvesting energy from. This will make power generators a valuable asset for both tactical and strategic decisions (Like repairing units out on a field, serving as beam points that can be used to quickly reinforce squads in a battle, or even scheming covert operations by deploying it at the hidden corner of battlefields in order to secretly beam your Host Station at the behind of enemy base :twisted: ).
Remork wrote:It's also one of the things I've been thinking about in regards to modding. Now I know this sounds far out - but keep an open mind for a moment- an AI would be able to program itself right? I'm thinking node-based, intuitive programming through a HUD/GUI view, which you can use to program certain units/squads with. It's sort of like making a custom aggression level, you know? I liked the idea of the aggression levels but the implementation could've been a bit better perhaps? (aka the AI just kinda sucked) It was easy to use though, of course. I'm not talking about replacing that system though, just adding a deeper, semi-hidden (at first) layer of control underneath. It totally fits into the machine-world style and I think it could be something novel which attracts some attention. Strategy/FP game where you play an AI which has its own programming language that you can modify? that has got to make some heads turn.
pete_kaboom wrote:And yeah, we'll be sure, at the very least, to allow more AI behavior once the core concepts have been integrated into the game.
One aspect of UA that disheartened me was a complete lack of accessible/customisable AI files. Some modules of AI have a serious fallacies such as radar construction AI which is basically nothing but causes AI to perform a mindless suicide act, whilst other hard-coded sections contain some key intuitive AI behaviours but cannot be altered. That alone led me to do some casual hex-editing into the executable file from time to time without noticable results to the initial purpose. :ugeek:

AIs are still one of the most quintessential factors in games, especially in mod-heavy games their existences and limits of intellectual capabilities are cherished. Should the majority of AI definitions are accessible, people might be able to come up with some creative ideas as well. Different detection ranges, attack ranges or attack patterns for different units would be very interesting. Unit AIs should also possess several basic innate tactical variations for their respective classifications (tank, heli, plane... etc) instead of just directly facing and approaches to their opponents all the time. At least we can make helicopters actually keep their distances from targets while attacking, just like in real life. Considering that the primary reason why UA helicopters AI is so bad is due to their excessive obsessive-compulsory disorder for an allocated 'height' value.

P.S: Pete, there is a minor quotation mistake at the first part of your "tl;dr" post. The writers are switched. If it doesn't bother you, would you mind to fix that? :ninja:
;----------------------------------------------------------
;
; Vielleicht der niedlichste Hubi, Knuddel.
;
;----------------------------------------------------------

Personal Declaration: I always use different usernames across different websites. Hence if you ever see my username is being used outside of Stoudson Corporation, I absolutely have no affiliation whatsoever with that!

Fragger
Turantul 1 (Veteran)
Turantul 1 (Veteran)
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 3:41 am

Re: UA in Unity Game Engine

Post by Fragger » Thu Apr 30, 2015 9:44 pm

Is there any way I can help? I can do some small bug testing, idea-generating, and software development. :) We should all collaborate in a teamspeak or skype call so EVERYONE can have a voice!!! :D

User avatar
pete_kaboom
Turantul 1 (Veteran)
Turantul 1 (Veteran)
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:18 am
Location: Down Under

Re: UA in Unity Game Engine

Post by pete_kaboom » Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:45 pm

Thanks for your response, Charlotte, we'll be sure to put them under consideration once we've finished the MVP (watch the trello board ;) ).
CharlotteLabyrinth wrote:P.S: Pete, there is a minor quotation mistake at the first part of your "tl;dr" post. The writers are switched. If it doesn't bother you, would you mind to fix that? :ninja:
Sorry about that, should be fixed now :D
Fragger wrote:Is there any way I can help? I can do some small bug testing, idea-generating, and software development. :) We should all collaborate in a teamspeak or skype call so EVERYONE can have a voice!!! :D
Sounds good, I'm currently using skype atm, though I can pick up teamspeak if the majority uses it. Skype name is either [Removed] or [Removed] (PM if you want it :P). Should come up with someone called Peter Liang. I'll create a general skype group that we can all join once confirmed & people can makes suggestions, pitch in ideas or just buzz about the current progress ;)
Last edited by pete_kaboom on Mon May 04, 2015 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fragger
Turantul 1 (Veteran)
Turantul 1 (Veteran)
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 3:41 am

Re: UA in Unity Game Engine

Post by Fragger » Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:55 pm

pete_kaboom wrote:Thanks for your response, Charlotte, we'll be sure to put them under consideration once we've finished the MVP (watch the trello board ;) ).
CharlotteLabyrinth wrote:P.S: Pete, there is a minor quotation mistake at the first part of your "tl;dr" post. The writers are switched. If it doesn't bother you, would you mind to fix that? :ninja:
Sorry about that, should be fixed now :D
Fragger wrote:Is there any way I can help? I can do some small bug testing, idea-generating, and software development. :) We should all collaborate in a teamspeak or skype call so EVERYONE can have a voice!!! :D
Sounds good, I'm currently using skype atm, though I can pick up teamspeak if the majority uses it. Skype name is either pete_kaboom@hotmail.com or Pancakes.Mcmuffin. Should come up with someone called Peter Liang. I'll create a general skype group that we can all join once confirmed & people can makes suggestions, pitch in ideas or just buzz about the current progress ;)
I already have you addded and I just messaged you! :D

User avatar
pete_kaboom
Turantul 1 (Veteran)
Turantul 1 (Veteran)
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:18 am
Location: Down Under

Re: UA in Unity Game Engine

Post by pete_kaboom » Fri May 01, 2015 12:23 am

Hmm, strange, I didn't get any message. The avatar (or display picture) is a monochromatic guy in a coat, right?

Post Reply