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 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 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.
A was intended to be the blue point and B was intended to be the red
point. Make this a part of the name so that's clear, and clean up
related code to keep that reliable.
The previous flight plan only makes sense if the convoy will make it a
significant distance from its starting point. At road speeds over the
typical mission duration this is not true, so we can actually plan this
as if it was a strike mission near the origin point and that's close
enough.
There's some cleanup work to do here that I've added todos for.
Fixes https://github.com/Khopa/dcs_liberation/issues/996
Splits infantry and other unit IDs.
Resets IDs to start from zero at each press of "Takeoff"
Direct access to the the `Game` class IDs is done on the `Operation` class to
preserve save compat
Every mission generated after the first each time Liberation was
skipping all of the plugins (including the base plugin) because they'd
already been loaded on a previous generation and the list wasn't
cleared.
Apparently we were already getting this info because it's a unit like
any other according to the event system, so if runways were actually
sufficiently damaged we'd emit a ton of exceptions.
This doesn't do anything yet, but tracks the damage state. Will add the
ability to repair them next, and then finally make the damage render the
runway inoperable.
Removed always True "event successful"
Add `AirWarEvent` as the primary game `Event` applied to every miz
Cleanup of `FrontLineAttackEvent`
Change `Operation.is_awacs_enabled` to two bools for each side red/blue
Currently controlled by whether an AWACs is available for the faction
(and only ever true for Blue)
The aircraft that have not been fragged will now be spawned in parking
to provide more targets for OCA strikes. We do this only at airports,
not carriers. The AI has enough trouble taxiing around uncrowded carrier
decks that we probably shouldn't make it harder for them, plus most of
the aircraft will be stored below the flight deck (we allow 90 aircraft
to be stored at the carrier, which certainly will not fit on the flight
deck).
The aircraft are spawned in an uncontrolled state and nothing will
activate them, so aside from the cost of rendering them they shouldn't
affect performance.
Fixes https://github.com/Khopa/dcs_liberation/issues/148
Generated units are added to this during mission generation so we can
map destroyed units back to the data that generated them. Currently only
implemented for aircraft as a proof of concept.
