This improves the AI behavior by choosing the stances non-randomly:
* Breakthrough will be used if the base is expected to be capturable and
the coalition outnumbers the enemy by 20%.
* Elimination will be used if the coalition has at least as many units
as the enemy.
* Defensive will be used if the coalition has at least half as many
units as the enemy.
* Retreat will be used if the coalition is significantly outnumbers.
This also exposes the option to the player.
This is as much as we can do until pydcs actually adds the py.typed
file. Once that's added there are a few ugly monkey patching corners
that will just need `# type: ignore` for now, but we can't pre-add those
since we have mypy warning us about superfluous ignore comments.
This is an attempt to remove a lot of our supposedly unnecessary error
handling. Every aircraft should have a price, a description, a name,
etc; and none of those should require carrying around the faction's
country as context.
This moves all the data for aircraft into yaml files (only one converted
here as an example). Most of the "extended unit info" isn't actually
being read yet.
To replace the renaming of units based on the county, we instead
generate multiple types of each unit when necessary. The CF-18 is just
as much a first-class type as the F/A-18 is.
This doesn't work in its current state because it does break all the
existing names for aircraft that are used in the faction and squadron
files, and we no longer let those errors go as a warning. It will be an
annoying one time switch, but it allows us to define the names that get
used in these files instead of being sensitive to changes as they happen
in pydcs, and allows faction designers to specifically choose, for
example, the Su-22 instead of the Su-17.
One thing not handled by this is aircraft task capability. This is
because the lists in ai_flight_planner_db.py are a priority list, and to
move it out to a yaml file we'd need to assign a weight to it that would
be used to stack rank each aircraft. That's doable, but it makes it much
more difficult to see the ordering of aircraft at a glance, and much
more annoying to move aircraft around in the priority list. I don't
think this is worth doing, and the priority lists will remain in their
own separate lists.
This includes the converted I used to convert all the old unit info and
factions to the new format. This doesn't need to live long, but we may
want to reuse it in the future so we want it in the version history.
This Pull Request lets users plan Tanker flights.
Features:
- Introduction of `Refueling` flight type.
- Tankers can be purchased at airbases and carriers.
- Tankers get planned by AI.
- Tankers are planned from airbases and at aircraft carriers.
- Tankers aim to be at high, fast, and 70 miles from the nearest threat.
(A10s won't be able to tank)
- Tankers racetrack orbit for one hour.
- Optional Tickbox to enable legacy tankers.
- S-3B Tanker added to factions.
- KC-130 MPRS added to factions.
- Kneeboard shows planned tankers, their tacans, and radios.
Limitations:
- AI doesn't know whether to plan probe and drogue or boom refueling
tankers.
- User can't choose tanker speed. Heavily loaded aircraft may have
trouble.
- User can't choose tanker altitude. A-10s will not make it to high
altitude.
Problems:
- Tanker callsigns do not increment, see attached image. (Investigated:
Need to use `FlyingType.callsign_dict`, instead of just
`FlyingType.callsign`. This seems like it might be significant work
to do.).
- Having a flight of two or more tankers only spawns one tanker.
- Let me know if you have a solution, or feel free to commit one.
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/74509817/120909602-d7bc3680-c633-11eb-80d7-eccd4e095770.png
The AI purchaser will aim to have a 50/50 ground/air investment mix.
This allows it to overspend on one category if significant losses were
taken the previous turn.
The total purchase amount is still limited, so if the bases are full
when only 10% of the investment is in ground units, the full budget for
the turn will still go to air.
The usual symptom here was the game breaking when a carrier is
destroyed. The carrier would no longer be operational but missions would
be assigned there that could not generate flight plans.
Unit composition is defined by the doctrine. The most understaffed CP
will now get the most underrepresented unit type. Previously a random
understaffed CP would get a random unit type.
Fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/1057.
This limit is determined by the number of buildings that belong to Ammo
Depots at the front line's connected Control Point. The limit increases
for every surviving building at ammo depot objectives.
There is a lower limit to the number of units that will spawn, so that
if there are no surviving ammo depot buildings at a control point, there
will still be some ground conflict.
We were setting up all the correct *target* waypoints but the AI doesn't
use the target waypoints; they use the targets property of the ingress
waypoint. This meant that the flight plan looked correct in the UI and
was correct for players but the tasks were set up incorrectly for the AI
because building TGOs are aggravatingly multiple TGOs with the same name
in the implementation.
Mission targets now enumerate their own strike targets so that this
mistake is harder to make in the future.
This won't be perfect, the AI is still not able to parallelize tasks and
since buildings aren't groups they can only attack one structure at a
time, but they'll now at least switch to the next target after hitting
the first one.
As a bonus, stop bombing the dead buildings.
Fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/235
Fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/244
This PR allows campaign creators to incorporate map objects (referred to as Scenery in the code) into their Liberation campaign.
Map objects are defined using white trigger zones created by right clicking on scenery and clicking `assign as...`. Objective groups are defined by creating a blue TriggerZone surrounding the centers of the white trigger zones. The type of objective is determined by the campaign creator, assigning the value of the first property of the blue TriggerZone with the objective type.
Map objects maintain their visually dead state by assigning a `Mission Start` `Scenery Object Dead` trigger to the trigger zone. It is important for the Liberation generated TriggerZone to be as small as possible so that no other scenery is marked dead by DCS.
TriggerZones are hidden during gameplay (DCS behavior. I don't know if it's possible to turn that off.) TriggerZones are visible in the mission editor and mission planner however. If a player is using an older plane, it is important for them to remember where the target is.
In the mission planner, the trigger zones' will be blue or red depending on which faction the map objects belong to.
Inherent Resolve campaign has been modified to integrate scenery objects.
### **Limitations:**
- Objective definitions (Any Blue TriggerZones) in campaign definition cannot overlap.
- Map object deaths in `state.json` is tracking integers. You won't know what died until debriefing.
- No images for the various buildings. In theory it can be done, but an unreasonable amount of work.
- Every blue trigger zone must have a unique name. (If you let DCS auto increment the names this is not a concern.
- No output to screen when scenery object is dead. You can see the building drawn as dead in the F10 map though.
### **Pictures:**
An objective:
How the objective looks once in the mission planner/editor. This objective belongs to the enemy faction:
The `FactoryGroundObject` is just a special case of
`BuildingGroundObject` that we maybe don't actually need. For now it
provides some special case logic for the layout, but this allows any TGO
with the "factory" category to behave as a ground unit source.
Note that the "factory" random strike targets are *not* generated
anymore, so this doesn't affect campaign design currently.
The routes do not need be be recreated each time we create a
`FrontLine`. The front lines follow the convoy routes, which are static.
Add the convoy route data to the `ControlPoint` the way we do for
shipping lanes and have `FrontLine` load the data from there.
Removing the per-transit type supply routes allows us to find the best
route from A to B even if the unit needs to switch transit modes along
the way.
The "best" route is the one that will generate better gameplay. That is,
convoys are preferred to ships (use cases for GMT are rare in DCS), and
ships are preferred to airlift (reasons to attack cargo ships are also
rare). Avoiding airlift is also a good strategic choice generally since
it consumes aircraft that could be performing other missions.
The extreme weight against airlift in the pathfinding algorithm could
probably be scaled way down so that airlift would be given preference
over a very long trip, possibly only for urgent transfers.
Later when we add rail that will probably be given the most preference,
but possibly between road and shipping.
https://github.com/Khopa/dcs_liberation/issues/823
The simple form of this works, but without the multi-mode routing it'll
only get used when the final destination is a port with a link to a port
with a factory.
These also aren't targetable or simulated yet.
https://github.com/Khopa/dcs_liberation/issues/826
Downside to the current implementation is that whether or not transports
that were purchased last turn will be available for airlift this turn is
arbitrary. This is because transfers are created at the same time as
units are delivered, and units are delivered in an arbitrary order per
CP. If the helicopters are delivered before the ground units they'll
have access to the transports, otherwise they'll be refunded. This will
be fixed later when I rework the transfer requests to not require
immediate fulfillment.
https://github.com/Khopa/dcs_liberation/issues/825
Historically this inherited from Event but there was no reason for that.
That's gone now. Finish the separation and move the unit order tracking
class out of the combat results reaction class's file.
A CP with a factory would be able to supply itself, but was not in a
supply route if it was the only connected friendly CP. When the player
starts with only one base against an enemy base this meant that it was
in no supply route, causing it to not be a recruitment location or a
place to buy more than a reserve of vehicles automatically.
The purchase system will seek out a source for its units when the
purchase is completed. If no source is available the order will be
refunded. Orders with no source available are prevented, so this only
happens when the source was cut off from the destination during the
turn.
There's still some funkiness going on with the first turn (but possibly
only when the first turn includes a cheat to capture) where the AI buys
a ton of units somewhere other than the front line. First turn behavior
should probably be different anyway, with the first turn allowing
purchases anywhere to avoid empty front lines while troops reinforce if
the front line isn't a factory.
https://github.com/Khopa/dcs_liberation/issues/986
This also removes the "factory" type from the normal strike target
(money generating) generators to avoid confusion. Later only control
points with factories will be able to spawn ground units, at which point
these will no longer generate income.
https://github.com/Khopa/dcs_liberation/issues/986
* A Bluefor EWR 55GS in the campaign miz defines an optional EWR site. There is no distinction between how close or far it is to a base, so it's possible that there will be many EWRs within an airbase.
* A Redfor EWR 1L13 in the campaign miz defines a required EWR site.
It would be a good future idea to limit the amount of EWRs within a certain distance from an airbase. That way there's no chance of 5 EWRs all at the same airbase. Even better if there were something preventing any two EWRs from being right next to each other.
No campaigns take advantage of this yet.
Fixes https://github.com/Khopa/dcs_liberation/issues/524
