- Add the new airassault mission type and special flightplans for it
- Add the mission type to airbase and FOB
- Add Layout for the UH-1H
- Add mission type to capable squadrons
- Allow the auto planner to task air assault missions when preconditions are met
- Improve Airlift mission type and improve the flightplan (Stopover and Helo landing)
- Allow Slingload and spawnable crates for airlift
- Rework airsupport to a general missiondata class
- Added Carrier Information to mission data
- Allow to define CTLD specific capabilities in the unit yaml
- Allow inflight preload and fixed wing support for air assault
- factor out own class for the iadsnetwork within the conflicttheater
- This class will handle all Skynet related things - no specific group_name handling necessary in future
- make iadsbuilding own TGO class because SAM & EWRs are Vehicle Groups. IADS Elements dont have any groups attached.
- added command center, connection node and power source as Ground objects which can be added by the campaign designer
- adjust lua generator to support new iads units
- parse the campaign yaml to get the iads network information
- use the range as fallback if no yaml information was found
- complete rewrite of the skynet lua script
- allow destruction of iads network to be persistent over all rounds
- modified the presetlocation handling: the wrapper PresetLocation for PointWithHeading now stores the original name from the campaign miz to have the ability to process campaign yaml configurations based on the ground unit
- Implementation of the UI representation for the IADS Network
- Give user the option to enable or disable advanced iads
- Extended the layout system: Implement Sub task handling to support PD
Split the oversized file into one per plan type. This also moves the
layout responsibility out of the oversized FlightPlanBuilder and into
each flight plan type file.
This is briefly moving us over to my fork of pydcs while we wait for
https://github.com/pydcs/dcs/pull/206 to be merged. The adaptation is
invasive enough that I don't want it lingering for long.
- completly refactored the way TGO handles groups and replaced the usage of the pydcs ground groups (vehicle, ship, static) with an own Group and Unit class.
- this allows us to only take care of dcs group generation during miz generation, where it should have always been.
- We can now have any type of unit (even statics) in the same logic ground group we handle in liberation. this is independent from the dcs group handling. the dcs group will only be genarted when takeoff is pressed.
- Refactored the unitmap and the scenery object handling to adopt to changes that now TGOs can hold all Units we want.
- Cleaned up many many many lines of uneeded hacks to build stuff around dcs groups.
- Removed IDs for TGOs as the names we generate are unique and for liberation to work we need no ids. Unique IDs for dcs will be generated for the units and groups only.
CAS would never be planned for turn 0 because there were no enemy ground
units, so a breakthrough attack was planned and CAS was considered
unnecessary. Fix that by rejecting all frontline stance tasks when there
are no *friendly* ground units to command.
Another issue is that CAS missions were being planned even when there
were no enemy front line forces. Skip planning in that case except on
turn 0 since we expect there to be enemy ground units on turn 1.
Fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/1629
This also does improve the over-purchase problems, though I can't spot
the behavior change that's causing that. Presumably the old
implementation had a bug I can't spot and in rewriting it I solved the
problem...
Fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/1582
This is needed fairly often, and we have a lot of Game being passed
around to ControlPoint methods specifically to support this. Just store
the owning Coalition directly in the ControlPoint to clean up. I haven't
cleaned up *every* API here, but did that aircraft allocations as an
example.
Since the theater commander runs once per campaign action, missions that
do not have aircraft available may be checked more than once a turn.
Without deduping requests this can lead to cases where the AI buys
dozens of tankers on turn 0.
Fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/1470
The doctrine/task limits were capturing a reasonable average for the
era, but it did a bad job for cases like the Harrier vs the Hornet,
which perform similar missions but have drastically different max
ranges. It also forced us into limiting CAS missions (even those flown
by long range aircraft like the A-10) to 50nm since helicopters could
commonly be fragged to them.
This should allow us to design campaigns without needing airfields to be
a max of ~50-100nm apart.
This makes it so that the mission planning effects are applied only if
the package can be fulfilled. For example, breakthrough will be used
only if all the BAI missions were fulfilled, not if they will *attempt*
to be fulfilled.
Consider BAI missions planned this turn when determining if a control
point is still garrisioned for preventing breakthrough.
This isn't very accurate yet since the HTN isn't checking for aircraft
fulfillment yet, so it might *plan* a mission to kill the garrison, but
there's no way to know if it will be fulfilled.
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.
IADS that are in detection range (but not attack range) of missions will
be targeted at very low priority. These will typically only be planned
when no other targets are in range.
The players can still manually assign strike missions on other target
types since that's sometimes better for player waypoint generation (one
waypoint per unit is nice for SAMs), but it's bad for the AI so by
default we should exclude non-buildings.
This also prevents double targeting of groups, since they might have
been identified by other missions as well.
We already did some of this, but since we were excluding specific TGO
types rather than only allowing building TGOs we were often missing
things (missile sites, coastal defenses, and EWRs, it seems).
Garrison groups should be preferred with the following priority:
1. Groups blocking base capture
2. Groups at bases connected to an active front line
3. Rear guard units
Previously they were being prioritized based on the distance to the
closest friendy control point, which is similar to this but an
aggressively placed carrier could throw it off.
This alters the DEAD task planning to be the *least* preferred task, but
prevents other tasks from being planned unless they are excepted to be
clear of air defenses first. Even so, missions are a guaranteed success
so those other missions will still get SEAD escorts if there's potential
for a SAM in the area.
This means that air defenses that are not protecting a more useful
target (like a convoy, armor column, building, etc) will no longer be
considered by the mission planner. This isn't *quite* right since we
currently only check the target area for air defenses rather than the
entire flight plan, so there's a chance that we ignore IADS that have
threatened ingress points (though that's mostly solved by the flight
plan layout).
This also is still slightly limited because it's not checking for
aircraft availability at this stage yet, so we may aggressively plan
missions that we should be skipping unless we can guarantee that the
DEAD mission was planned. However, that's not new behavior.
An HTN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_task_network) is
similar to a decision tree, but it is able to reset to an earlier stage
if a subtask fails and tasks are able to account for the changes in
world state caused by earlier tasks.
Currently this just uses exactly the same strategy as before so we can
prove the system, but it should make it simpler to improve on task
planning.
