"Autocast" attacks

[Zoythrus]

now, lets just say that you're base building and the enemy attacks your garrison of troops w/o you fully aware of it. wouldnt you want your guys to at least defend themselves while you're away? im not saying that i want the game to play itself, but i would like the units to think a little so that you dont have to. also, in the heat of battle, sometimes its impossible to micro-manage everything.

[titi_son]

now, lets just say that you're base building and the enemy attacks your garrison of troops w/o you fully aware of it. wouldnt you want your guys to at least defend themselves while you're away? im not saying that i want the game to play itself, but i would like the units to think a little so that you dont have to. also, in the heat of battle, sometimes its impossible to micro-manage everything.

yeah and that's really cool  thats why i am winning sometimes vs players: because they can't manage there units.

[Zoythrus]

ultimately, the point here is that we want the units to think a little. one thing i hate about Glest is that if a guy has a melee and a ranged attack, he wont use them intelligently. that's what this idea is trying to solve.

[John.d.h]

Basically, a unit's behavior should make sense.   I mean, if you wanted it to be really non-automated, then your units wouldn't even fight back when they got attacked.  I suspect that hardly anyone would want that.

[ElimiNator]

I think it should be slightly more automated. For example, I send a battlemachine down to the enemy using axe, and I meet an airship instead of just walking to my death (like it dose now) I automatically switch to bow and attack air.

[Zoythrus]

I think it should be slightly more automated. For example, I send a battlemachine down to the enemy using axe, and I meet an airship instead of just walking to my death (like it dose now) I automatically switch to bow and attack air.

those are called "contextual attacks," and i thought we had those....

[ElimiNator]

More than that I say NO.

[Omega]

Yes, they already have such a simple thing. And I say YES to "autocasting", and hear me out on why.

First of all, there's the whole matter of choice, the player can override these commands at any time, and most of them are far, far too complex to do for a human player, yet are unrealistic without. For example, in a mass battle, are you going to select your archers one by one when swordmen come near so they can switch to a melee attack? No! This just lets you use that melee attack without having the impossible task of switching. Any battle with more than 5 units on each side would become too overwhelming.

This does NOT mean the CPU is playing for you, it just automatically switches the attack based on idiotic computer formulas. It has no idea what the battle is, and only hopes that in most situations, it's the right choice. There's still micromanagement by manually controlling your unit. For example, you might tell your archer to manually chase a fleeing foe with his melee attack (using a ranged attack on a fleeing foe is unlikely to hit, and "autocast" will not switch here). There's still plenty of micromanagement.

This isn't meant for the tiny battles that you might see when the enemy sends a scout, it's meant for the large battles that make up the core of the game, where there's more than enough micromanagement just sending your units to attack targets, not even having to worry about multiple attacks. The "autocast" doesn't take away micromanagement and strategy from the game, it adds it! Why do you so oppose it anyway? After all, without autoswitching, there's no point in giving an archer a melee attack since it will be impossible to use really, but with it, there's a reason to give it that melee attack, as the CPU and player can actually make a use of it then. Further than that all depends on the modder.

And going back to the concept of choice, suppose there's an INI option to enable/disable it. Granted, you'd be weakened/less realistic with it off, but if you're too stubborn to accept the concept, well, you turned it off, can't complain, huh?

[Zoythrus]

Everything that Omega just said.

[ElimiNator]

But what if I want all my battlemachine to keep attacking with arrow because the arrows splash deals more damage to the type of armour the enemy has then the axe will.

[Zoythrus]

well, i guess that you can turn it off with a toggle switch like GAE's auto-heal/flee/attack buttons

[titi_son]

But what if I want all my battlemachine to keep attacking with arrow because the arrows splash deals more damage to the type of armour the enemy has then the axe will.

+1
and i think that it doesn't "autocast" is a feature anyway, but now i think i know why it have to be included! What about set this in the techtree .xml?
We have to wait anyway for someone who will include this "feature"

[Omega]

But what if I want all my battlemachine to keep attacking with arrow because the arrows splash deals more damage to the type of armour the enemy has then the axe will.

+1
and i think that it doesn't "autocast" is a feature anyway, but now i think i know why it have to be included! What about set this in the techtree .xml?
We have to wait anyway for someone who will include this "feature"

You misunderstand, you still can use the arrow attack, you just have to manually tell it to do so. That's no more work than normal too, since the arrow is currently the secondary attack anyway.

With autocasting, a battlemachine could use the arrow attack automatically while a foe rushes up to him, then switch to the stronger melee attack once it's right next to him. Or you could do it manually, but try doing that with a dozen battle machines in a large scale battle. And even if you oppose this feature, you could always disable it, and allow others to use it if they prefer.

[Psychedelic_hands]

I'm in favour for this, I mean this is a RTS. You aren't playing as the units themselves, thats what shooters are for.
Still, if this was implemented it should be an xml tag because this works for secondary attacks but not special attacks. You don't want units constantly using special attacks.

[Zoythrus]

I'm in favour for this, I mean this is a RTS. You aren't playing as the units themselves, thats what shooters are for.
Still, if this was implemented it should be an xml tag because this works for secondary attacks but not special attacks. You don't want units constantly using special attacks.

in other games with autocast, right-clicking on the attack's pic would set it's autocast state (on or off). so you can choose what you want to be automatically performed

[John.d.h]

You aren't playing as the units themselves, thats what shooters are for.

This.  A soldier isn't going to wait for his commanding officer to tell him to throw a grenade.  If he sees the opportunity for it, he's going to pull the pin and throw it on his own.  Now of course, his CO might tell him "save your grenades; we'll need them later" (i.e. toggling auto-cast off for that skill ).

[Omega]

I'm in favour for this, I mean this is a RTS. You aren't playing as the units themselves, thats what shooters are for.
Still, if this was implemented it should be an xml tag because this works for secondary attacks but not special attacks. You don't want units constantly using special attacks.

But then the AI will *never* use special attacks... In fact, even with this, it might not use a special attack, since other attacks may fullfill the requirements better. Perhaps there should be some way to specify to use attacks "commonly" or "rarely". After all, a special attack is useless if not used at all, and we'd presume that being "special", there's probably some type of limitation to it, such as being slow to use or requiring EP. As well, the CPU being unable to use special attacks makes the game unbalanced, as you can choose a secondary attack that deals more damage, while the CPU will never use it.

Also, to be honest, I'm a little bit worried that those who, for some reason, oppose this tag may end up not using it, forcing everyone who plays their mods to not be able to use it... I think it should use XML specified priority, and if not specified, be based on the order of the command's appearance.

[titi]

If it will come it will be unit specific!
This is one of the features which will imbalance exsting things.

What about the idea of having it for ai only?

[Omega]

If it will come it will be unit specific!
This is one of the features which will imbalance exsting things.

How many units even have more than one attack? Not very many at all.

What about the idea of having it for ai only?

That's pointless, the entire feature request was for a human feature. Otherwise the thread would be called "yet another already requested AI change".

[will]

The reason i much prefer to play GAE is that the units need less micro-management.  All changes that get us closer gameplay to AoE is good in my book

[Zoythrus]

The reason i much prefer to play GAE is that the units need less micro-management.  All changes that get us closer gameplay to AoE is good in my book

^this^

so, to all of you out there who oppose this idea, just because we like less micro doesnt mean that are bad players or we want it easier. no, we just want units that have a small amount of intelligence so they can defend themselves in the best way that they can. now, ultimately, a greater ability to micro will still win battles, but we just want our units to watch themselves a little bit more so we dont have to

[titi]

As I said the current data was made for the micro management line and I love it! This keeps me playing this game because I still can get better and better but I for myself will never manage to control all my 100 units in a big fight the perfect way!

But obviously other people like it when the computer does a lot for them ( autorepair/autoattack/autoweapon selection ... ). So we can talk about adding it to the engine, but not to the current data, because all mainly involved people like it more the mirco management way it is now.

[Omega]

because all mainly involved people like it more the mirco management way it is now.

Only PT and Eliminator have stated that, and presumably you, from your stance. However, me, Zoythrus, John, Will, Valetdepik, emscape, Psychedelic_hands, Mark, claymore, Little Helper, and Mr War have stated they would like to see this. I'm quite certain that 10 is a larger number than 3, so it looks like not all people like more micromanagement. And looking at how many automation options commercial games have, it seems that it's commercially successful too (and in commercial games, it's more important to have things that the majority of players want, thus that speaks more).

Let's take a look at Civilization for an instance (yes, not an RTS, but fitting to this discussion because of their implementation). You can automate everything from production to the focuses of the cities, yet, it's all optional, you can toggle it on or off. If you want to do micromanagement, which can sometimes help your game, since the AI may not know what you have planned as a strategy, you can turn it off. If you don't want to choose for yourself, which can be a lot of micromanagement, that can be done, and allows players who dislike such intense micromanagement to enjoy the game. And isn't that the point of a game, to make it enjoyable?

As I said the current data was made for the micro management line and I love it! This keeps me playing this game because I still can get better and better but I for myself will never manage to control all my 100 units in a big fight the perfect way!

That's fine, keep it off (you'll hardly notice a difference anyway, it's not that drastic of a change), but don't force others to do the same. You aren't the only one who plays this game.

The reason i much prefer to play GAE is that the units need less micro-management.

we just want units that have a small amount of intelligence so they can defend themselves in the best way that they can.

A soldier isn't going to wait for his commanding officer to tell him to throw a grenade.  If he sees the opportunity for it, he's going to pull the pin and throw it on his own.  Now of course, his CO might tell him "save your grenades; we'll need them later" (i.e. toggling auto-cast off for that skill ).

this is a RTS. You aren't playing as the units themselves, thats what shooters are for.

Basically, a unit's behavior should make sense.   I mean, if you wanted it to be really non-automated, then your units wouldn't even fight back when they got attacked.  I suspect that hardly anyone would want that.

one thing i hate about Glest is that if a guy has a melee and a ranged attack, he wont use them intelligently. that's what this idea is trying to solve.

[ultifd]

Hmm, probably the whole V Family opposes this, and that's like...a lot of people. Maybe tomreyn too? I don't know, you should check the IRC Channel.
I think this is a good idea though, so at least implement it for the CPUs when you (SC/titi) has the time.

[John.d.h]

In my opinion, macro feels more like a commander, while micro feels more like a nanny.