This will allow expert users to disable the automatic MissionScripting.lua replacement. There are many warnings and errors which have to be ignored to achieve this because DCS Liberation will not work with unmodified MissionScripting.lua
Much of the UI was using the old budget which wasn't removed from Game
like it should have been when Coaltion was introduced. The UI displayed
(and in some cases pulled from) the starting budget rather than the real
budget.
Both types use JSOW -> Walleye -> Mk 84. The JSOW A should maybe fall
back to some CBU instead, but I think the standoff capability is more
important to preserve than the warhead type.
The only parts of the old weapon data that worked well (didn't commonly
result in empty pylons) did this implicitly, so make the grouping
explicit.
This also moves the data out of Python and into the resources, which
both makes the data moddable and isolates us from a huge amount of
effort and a save compat break whenever ED changes weapon names.
I didn't auto migrate the old data since the old groups were not
explict and there's no way to infer the grouping. Besides, since most of
the weapons were *not* grouped, the old data did more harm than good in
my experience. I've handled the AIM-120 and AIM-7 for now, but will get
at least all the fox 3 missiles before we ship.
This places the split point based on the best path from the IP to home,
rather than the best path from home to the target. The outcome is that
the planner might choose an alternate route out of a threatened area
based on the safest escape from the IP, which is where the aircraft
should be when it releases its weapons, rather than at the target.
That's of course not always perfect since the IP distance is not based
on the carried weapon, but it's a better choice when it matters more
(when carrying standoff weapons attacking a more dangerous target).
Try all the nav points between the origin and the target rather than
just the first non-threatened point. This prevents us from using the
fallback behavior for any target that's sufficiently far from the
package airfield.
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.
Used to decorate functions or methods that have save compat code for a
given major version.
```
@has_save_compat_for(5)
def foo() -> None:
...
```
This function will raise an error at startup if it is decorated as
having save compat for a version other than the current major version of
the game. A new major version is the definition of a save compat break,
so keeping around the old compat code serves no purpose other than
hiding initialization bugs. The compat code and the decorator should be
removed in the branch raising the error.
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.
This includes the basics that we need to get type checking for pydcs
calls.
Type checking has been disabled in a few monkey-patching cases. Patches
ought to be sent upstream (or in the case of dead unit tracking,
replaced with a better model).
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.
The loadout case actually could (and previously did) hide bugs from the
type checker, since mypy was smart enough to see that we were removing
None from the input it assumed that the member was non-optional, but
later modifications could cause null values, and since those came from
the UI mypy couldn't reason about this. This meant that mypy assumed the
type could not be optional and wouldn't check that case.
We're missing a lot of checking right now. Most of it requires
additional cleanup. For now I've enabled what I could and will follow up
to clean up and enable more checking.
