4 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

That Part was already done away with. Each turn you just go down the list and whichever command matched you do that one. I guess its like coding.

I also like the programming angle because it makes command resolution simple. If the first condition is No, move on to the next until you reach a true condition and follow that rules text. Since Armada is more sophisticated than X-Wing, we shouldn't feel shy about creating a letter-sized document to explain the "standard" AI governing rules, and a seperate AI card for vessel specifics

The HotAC does have a archetype route by providing "other AI target selections" to describe differing AI behavior from the standard. I think it would be better to devise that standard AI and then diversify from there. And I still think the best candidate to establish that standard is the VSD... since it can basically do everything but be a fragile speedster (which we'd need to re-develop with the Raider). We'll work up Imperials first, then think about Rebels (or scum/CIS) afterward.

I'm >this< close to developing a movement chart for the VSD to have something we can put to the table and start practicing it. Two things I want to put on it:

Movement Chart:
Like HoTac the chart will respond to the target vessel closing/fleeing. Fleeing the ship will increase speed, closing the ship will decrease speed (still talking standard here). Each click on the nav chart can be adjusted by a D6 roll, just as HoTAc does it. Of course, movement will be adjusted to avoid obstacles/collisions after the course is plotted.

Command priority:
In place of action selection, I made up a programmed chart of If-else statements to govern what command would be chosen depending on the position of the target ship in relation to the AI controlled vessel... but I wonder if it would be easier to say the ship uses a standard command based on type (Carriers = Fighter, Attack ships = Concentrate Fire, Support ships = Engineering, Flankers = Speed). For the standard this command would be navigation to assist the movement chart in adjusting positions.

If we find this "dumb" AI is too easily exploited, we could give the ship a free command token based on its type as well, or for a specialization depending on the mission. Regardless, we need to focus on getting something to the table to start playing with.


One question to ask here as well is the behavior of fighters. Shall such behavior be determined by the parent command vessel, or shall we create AI cards for squadrons that govern behavior based on how they are activated? I think the latter option is better, because then it's less "stress" on the carrier vessel and it allows squadrons to behave more along the lines of their specialized roles.

5 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Once that is fleshed out, I could see an additional layer built on top that changes the AI based on the current game state. Raider/HH wolf packs would change the normal movement priority to engage flag ships, which a lone raider would not do because they would die easily.

I like this. Hmmmm could also be modified for squadrons too once they hit a peak point. The Coding aspect would increase though to something like;

1. Select Target:

   1. If in a Taskforce Target Largest sized Ship in attack range
   2. Most dice usable
   3. Most Damaged ship
   4. Mission priority target
   5. Lowest Starting hull
   6. Nearest enemy
   7. Nearest Squadrons

4 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

Command priority:
In place of action selection, I made up a programmed chart of If-else statements to govern what command would be chosen depending on the position of the target ship in relation to the AI controlled vessel... but I wonder if it would be easier to say the ship uses a standard command based on type (Carriers = Fighter, Attack ships = Concentrate Fire, Support ships = Engineering, Flankers = Speed). For the standard this command would be navigation to assist the movement chart in adjusting positions.

If we find this "dumb" AI is too easily exploited, we could give the ship a free command token based on its type as well, or for a specialization depending on the mission. Regardless, we need to focus on getting something to the table to start playing with.


One question to ask here as well is the behavior of fighters. Shall such behavior be determined by the parent command vessel, or shall we create AI cards for squadrons that govern behavior based on how they are activated? I think the latter option is better, because then it's less "stress" on the carrier vessel and it allows squadrons to behave more along the lines of their specialized roles.

Did you see how I did the VSD command selection?

I Did it in the coding method and labled each command out that way there was no mistakes. Here this is the Brawlers I adjusted to which the VSD1 falls under (imo)

1. Select Command

   1. Concentrate Fire Command: Target is in best arc with all dice in range

   2. Engineering Command: If the ship's health is less than half (Ship health is Hull + Shields). Move Shields to max towards Target, Repair weakest shields, Remove Damage Cards

   3. Navigation Command: To maintain target in best arc

   4. Squadron Command: If there are at least Squadron Value -1 in command range

9 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

I'm >this< close to developing a movement chart for the VSD to have something we can put to the table and start practicing it. Two things I want to put on it:

Movement Chart:
Like HoTac the chart will respond to the target vessel closing/fleeing. Fleeing the ship will increase speed, closing the ship will decrease speed (still talking standard here). Each click on the nav chart can be adjusted by a D6 roll, just as HoTAc does it. Of course, movement will be adjusted to avoid obstacles/collisions after the course is plotted.

The movement chart is annoying. I want something similar to HotAC but its hard for ships like the CR90. . . those clicks. . . then there is nav teams. . . yeesh!

6 hours ago, Lyraeus said:

Select Command

1. Engineering Command: If the ship's health is less than half (Ship health is Hull + Shields). Move Shields to max towards Target, Repair weakest shields, Remove Damage Cards
2. Squadron Command: If there are at least Squadron Value -1 in command range
3. Navigation Command: Target is in weaker arc
4. Concentrate Fire Command: Target is in best arc

I think squadron commands would be a little un-intuitive if say the VSD has a very great shot but has only one TIE Fighter in range.

6 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

The movement chart is annoying. I want something similar to HotAC but its hard for ships like the CR90. . . those clicks. . . then there is nav teams. . . yeesh!

The movement chart doesn't have to be that complex... but some apparatus needs to govern ship movement and HotAC works. Engine techs doesn't have to be standard on all ships after all, and it could come with its own movement chart caveat based on what ship type has the thing equipped. Really out of the Empire the only ship we'd expect to see it on is Demolisher, and that's more like enemy boss territory than something mainstream. As in, something to put in the scenario's specific rules.

In the very least I'd want to write one up and see what happens.

@Norsehound Then the VSD would do a squadron. It has a Squadron of 3 right? So 2 squadrons would be the minimum. That was the one I designed for both VSD's.

I slow the VSD1 in the Brawler category from a few posts up so Its CON Fire if in max dice range

I updated the Command and target selection program for each ship. Working on the Navigation Program which will likely be a stopgap since @Norsehound will likely blow anything I do out of the water

My suggestion would be to completely throw any intention of simulating a human player out the window. Is it possible to create an AI system that makes decisions the way a human player would? Maybe, or close to possible. But that's not even what would make for the best HotAC experience.

Instead, just make it fun. You're dead-on right for throwing out command dial stacks. I suggest throwing away upgrades and even the base game statlines.

Look at a game like StarCraft. It has maybe the most rigorous player-v-player experience of any strategy computer game ever. Yet, when the developers made StarCraft II's single-player campaign, they threw all the multiplayer stuff away. You don't use the same units that you would in multiplayer, or the same upgrades, and you don't have the same objectives. Likewise, the computer's units are custom as well. Sometimes it's just fun balls-to-the-wall power creep that wouldn't be balanced for multiplayer but is **** fun in a single-player campaign. Sometimes it's stuff that is appropriate for the scenario that the campaign takes you to, but there just isn't a niche for it in the multiplayer.

So throw out the ship cards for the AI. Don't use those mechanics. Instead, make a simple statline for enemy units and how they operate. Maybe a simple rollable table for an example ship behavior, with different results dictating how it prioritizes enemies and what abilities trigger off of those attacks.

Wasnt @LTD working on AI for armada?

7 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

I updated the Command and target selection program for each ship. Working on the Navigation Program which will likely be a stopgap since @Norsehound will likely blow anything I do out of the water

You're too kind, but sadly correct. I can't leave anything half-assed, and even half-assed work tends to turn out really good looking anyway (or so "they" tell me).

Right now you can presume the ship is resolving nav commands all the time to get that extra movement, but I may have to change the chart to resolve movements based on current speed, then throw in a conditional during the flow chart on the left to give an automatic navigation token for speeding up or slowing down depending on the range to target.

10 minutes ago, Nostromoid said:

Instead, just make it fun. You're dead-on right for throwing out command dial stacks. I suggest throwing away upgrades and even the base game statlines.

In a way that's what we're doing now. There's no way any player will have prescient vision to correctly predict having a navigate token two turns ago in order to resolve it under the current board state. That's how (at least this AI card) will resolve when it's in the field.

As an exchange in balance, players will be unlocking their vessels and making them more powerful as they play. Unlike HotAC, the Rebellion is going to have a large uphill struggle as their bread and butter craft are weaker than those fielded by the Empire. You'll either have to tag-team the Imperial big boats with multiple small ships, or outrun them. The Rebellion is also no strange to bamboozling the Empire, which will happen if Rebel players see some exploit in the ship's AI and abuse it to their full advantage.

Special commanders during special scenarios, however, will have special rules to make their AI commands more sophisticated.

Next to work on is Rules which includes is building and such. Thoughts EXTREMELY welcome on this. Those with Aturi experience please I can use all the experience you can share!

9 minutes ago, Nostromoid said:

My suggestion would be to completely throw any intention of simulating a human player out the window. Is it possible to create an AI system that makes decisions the way a human player would? Maybe, or close to possible. But that's not even what would make for the best HotAC experience.

Instead, just make it fun. You're dead-on right for throwing out command dial stacks. I suggest throwing away upgrades and even the base game statlines.

Look at a game like StarCraft. It has maybe the most rigorous player-v-player experience of any strategy computer game ever. Yet, when the developers made StarCraft II's single-player campaign, they threw all the multiplayer stuff away. You don't use the same units that you would in multiplayer, or the same upgrades, and you don't have the same objectives. Likewise, the computer's units are custom as well. Sometimes it's just fun balls-to-the-wall power creep that wouldn't be balanced for multiplayer but is **** fun in a single-player campaign. Sometimes it's stuff that is appropriate for the scenario that the campaign takes you to, but there just isn't a niche for it in the multiplayer.

So throw out the ship cards for the AI. Don't use those mechanics. Instead, make a simple statline for enemy units and how they operate. Maybe a simple rollable table for an example ship behavior, with different results dictating how it prioritizes enemies and what abilities trigger off of those attacks.

Throwing out base statlines O.o well Things like Modifications on enemy ships was going to be disregarded so you could see some crazy Turbolaser loadouts. Otherwise the base stats are there to give a baseline for testing and if there are any buffs needed. Some things will be thrown out or added, such as Task Forces where suddenly you have Raiders moving in groups to hunt ships. . . Talk about SCARY!

4 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

You're too kind, but sadly correct. I can't leave anything half-assed, and even half-assed work tends to turn out really good looking anyway (or so "they" tell me).

Right now you can presume the ship is resolving nav commands all the time to get that extra movement, but I may have to change the chart to resolve movements based on current speed, then throw in a conditional during the flow chart on the left to give an automatic navigation token for speeding up or slowing down depending on the range to target.

In a way that's what we're doing now. There's no way any player will have prescient vision to correctly predict having a navigate token two turns ago in order to resolve it under the current board state. That's how (at least this AI card) will resolve when it's in the field.

As an exchange in balance, players will be unlocking their vessels and making them more powerful as they play. Unlike HotAC, the Rebellion is going to have a large uphill struggle as their bread and butter craft are weaker than those fielded by the Empire. You'll either have to tag-team the Imperial big boats with multiple small ships, or outrun them. The Rebellion is also no strange to bamboozling the Empire, which will happen if Rebel players see some exploit in the ship's AI and abuse it to their full advantage.

Special commanders during special scenarios, however, will have special rules to make their AI commands more sophisticated.

Super simple AI. Great for testing but not that great for having a different feel when it comes to type of ship. Testing will tell!

Command 3 of the Resolve Command step is ehhhh that could lead to the ship slowing down to 0 and then never actually getting to a CF command

21 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Wasnt @LTD working on AI for armada?

Is this true! I would have NO idea. Regardless. . . I sort of like my system

5 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Command 3 of the Resolve Command step is ehhhh that could lead to the ship slowing down to 0 and then never actually getting to a CF command

The reason there's no icon for that one is because I slipped that one in right before I saved it. I haven't decided how ship speed is going to play a part in this... the Speed 2 VSD is easy because you can rationalize it has a permanent navigate token to adjust speed as necessary to respond to enemy ships. But what about speed 3-4 ships? Shall we presume also that ozzle is onboard everything to let a speed 3 ship jump down to speed 1 if the dice will it? Or shall we cut out all pretense of speed change and use the dice for a ship permanently locked at speed 1-2 or 2-3?

These are choices I need to decide upon, but I wanted to put this sheet out there as something to print out, play with, mark up, adjust, and so on.

Just now, Norsehound said:

The reason there's no icon for that one is because I slipped that one in right before I saved it. I haven't decided how ship speed is going to play a part in this... the Speed 2 VSD is easy because you can rationalize it has a permanent navigate token to adjust speed as necessary to respond to enemy ships. But what about speed 3-4 ships? Shall we presume also that ozzle is onboard everything to let a speed 3 ship jump down to speed 1 if the dice will it? Or shall we cut out all pretense of speed change and use the dice for a ship permanently locked at speed 1-2 or 2-3?

These are choices I need to decide upon, but I wanted to put this sheet out there as something to print out, play with, mark up, adjust, and so on.

I just ask that you take my version for a spin as well

Watching Hero's of he Aturi Cluster battle reports... I think I shall work on a mission for right now. AI is about 60% complete so we need rules, missions and upgrades. HotAC uses a lot of scenario rules... Hmmm

Will need stations and terrain... Hmmmm

Try small at first. A rebel recruitment meeting is interrupted by the arrival of vsd inquititor, and you have to escape to hyperspace by flying around it. Bonus points if you bring down the VSD!

Use the starter scenario as your template, but have the vsd and fighters automated.

Ok looking at HotAC they allow the X Wing and Y Wing to start so I am thinking of using the GR 75 Combat with two X-Wings, the CR90a and the Hammerhead Scout. I am waffling on the Torpedo and 90b though. I think the 90a and Scout are great choices because of the beginner flexibility of the 90a so it would be the lower base XP of the group. Hmmmmm thoughts?

3 hours ago, Lyraeus said:

Ok looking at HotAC they allow the X Wing and Y Wing to start so I am thinking of using the GR 75 Combat with two X-Wings, the CR90a and the Hammerhead Scout. I am waffling on the Torpedo and 90b though. I think the 90a and Scout are great choices because of the beginner flexibility of the 90a so it would be the lower base XP of the group. Hmmmmm thoughts?

I just did 60 points. It allows a decent number of ships (CR-90, HH, GR-75, Pelta, and Neb. B) while keeping the crazy combos out. That said, I could also be talked into quickstart cards with those setups. Either way works though, and I don't think it super matters. But maybe just do 50 points? All of those fit and that stops pelta and neb.

3 hours ago, Norsehound said:

Try small at first. A rebel recruitment meeting is interrupted by the arrival of vsd inquititor, and you have to escape to hyperspace by flying around it. Bonus points if you bring down the VSD!

Use the starter scenario as your template, but have the vsd and fighters automated.

Depending on players, this may be a slight bit too easy. Something I found is that it's no fun if no one gets close to dying (too easy). that said, I think ith atolled up VSD or dictor this could be a cool mission three. My first rebel arc was something along the lines of

supply run of hope (Or some other suitably rebel name)

1: Blockade run (Start behind two naked VSDs, and run past them to hyper space! Get harder over time! Simple into to AI!)

2: Station raid (Capture the station, Defender by 1-2 raiders, a Goz. (Maybe?), and maybe something else (Arc!) as well as TIEs! More ships! More squads!)

3: Hyperspace Interrupted (the mission you had! But maybe with a dictor too! or maybe some other stuff!)

4: Relief run! Reverse of mission1, but now the VSDs are ready (and upgraded)! (Or maybe make it an ISD, cause ICONIC!)

In regards to the AI: this system is definitely better than mine, which was basically just a player. Specifically, @Norsehound that chart is the bee's knees. When referencing the raider though, and think we just cheat. Easier to make it work, and easier on the table. (No speed dial). It makes some cards irrelevant, but if we want to we can errata them anyway. Maybe just make it have to nav to do certain things? or just always nav, and other command as well. but I am still in the just cheat camp.

Finally, do you think we should make a version of this where players get super ships, or do we want them to earn super fleets? and how fast do we want this to happen?

11 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

I just did 60 points. It allows a decent number of ships (CR-90, HH, GR-75, Pelta, and Neb. B) while keeping the crazy combos out. That said, I could also be talked into quickstart cards with those setups. Either way works though, and I don't think it super matters. But maybe just do 50 points? All of those fit and that stops pelta and neb.

Lots to work here so one bit at a time

Possibly but that limits things. I also don't want players to start and have so much extra XP they break things. So limiting ship choices means I can control he flow for a a set of missions efore a branch and allow players to increase in experience and abilities.

Gaining XP is also a concern. Just making a successful damaging shot is too easy. I will likely ha e to limit to XP for each time an attack damages he hull of a ship, you fully kill a squadron, or you kill a ship. Limiting to that means players can't just drop points in to Captain Rating and jump into a MC75 too fast or steal an ISD and fly that (oh yes, that will be a mission, same with the SSD, they will be hard but fun!)

12 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

Depending on players, this may be a slight bit too easy. Something I found is that it's no fun if no one gets close to dying (too easy). that said, I think ith atolled up VSD or dictor this could be a cool mission three. My first rebel arc was something along the lines of

I have a lot of experience running the demo game to understand this all too well. My starter mission will likely have to be a VSD and something lighter that can play he toll of flanker. Arquitens.

What do you think @Norsehound, could you whip up an arquitens card?

As for other missions, things to work with, Imperial Star Destroyers have compliments of Star Fighters so they Wil be able to launch fighters and Bombers. Yes, even the Gladiator. That Hanger Bay isn't just a hungry maw full of missile teeth.

Will need to work on limits and such. Some squadrons can come out of no where (Defenders...) while others have no such luck (standard TIEs). Some missions will get around that with nearby planets or bases but not always.

Missions need to be dynamic. There needs to be things that causes players to stress and plan excessively. This causes games that people consider "epic" or "amazing" that game that was so close that it was a borderline loss by they pulled it out.

19 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

Finally, do you think we should make a version of this where players get super ships, or do we want them to earn super fleets? and how fast do we want this to happen?

Well players will be able to become Task Force leaders. So a Captain with Captain rating of 9 can command up 3 other ships in their task force. Size will effect that of course. A Medium ship takes more effort to captain than a small vessel and larger vessels take even more.

Limit wise, I suspect I will limit it to 4 small ships tops per player but I also thing that will get decreased because of time and turn length. Definitely expect enemy Task Forces though. That group of 3 Raiders and another of 2 Arquitens, what's that? TWO VSD are in formation?!

It will happen

@Norsehound just a thought. Ignore Admirals for now. Think more Groups of ships.

The Rebels are not here for a stand up fight. They will scatter and run fast.

I like to use this as a bit of inspiration

44 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

Finally, do you think we should make a version of this where players get super ships, or do we want them to earn super fleets? and how fast do we want this to happen?

23 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Well players will be able to become Task Force leaders. So a Captain with Captain rating of 9 can command up 3 other ships in their task force. Size will effect that of course. A Medium ship takes more effort to captain than a small vessel and larger vessels take even more.

I feel this is where I'll disagree with Lyraeus, because I'd want players to have deep customization of their single craft and commander rather than build a force of 2-3 ships. I figure the best a player could do is purchase 1-2 'escort' light ships (Gozantis/Raiders/CR-90s/Hammerheads) that cannot be upgraded or acheive mission objectives, and are somehow lesser reflections of your command ships. It's similar to something I was experimenting with in my own Imperial HotAC variant with wingmen that you needed to pass activations to.

Point being, these wingmen would be nothing but mooks. The campaign is really about tricking out your one favorite ship and make into something special. And to field more ships, you should bring more players to the table.

4 hours ago, Lyraeus said:

Ok looking at HotAC they allow the X Wing and Y Wing to start so I am thinking of using the GR 75 Combat with two X-Wings, the CR90a and the Hammerhead Scout. I am waffling on the Torpedo and 90b though. I think the 90a and Scout are great choices because of the beginner flexibility of the 90a so it would be the lower base XP of the group. Hmmmmm thoughts?

At one point I made an upgrade tree for that Imperial HotAC, wherein a player had to unlock specific classes to acquire certain ships. GR-75s can unlock assault frigates, which in turn get to MC80s. Hammerheads go to Nebulons, which eventually unlock Liberties. Would this be something desired, or should players be able to jump to ships they want directly like in HotAC?

Just a couple of points on the approach:

(Please excuse my incessant use of ‘you’, this is aimed at the project, not a person, and going back and rewording on mobile is a chore.)

You seem to be design choices far too early in the process. I think by ruling out certain features at this point of design, you’re hamstringing yourselves later.

Your ambition should be to have a fully working AI that plays the same game as the human, and should be designed as such.

That doesn’t mean it can’t cheat on commands (or have commands at all!) in the first build, but you then aren’t limited in your own design.

The second point is simply that I’d avoid calling this Armada Arturi Cluster. Such a comparison only gives people expectations, and if (and when) you deviate from those expectations it is often a negative experience.

I recommend building up a colabrative, in depth, design document in google docs, not here on the forum- it’s too clunky for what you need.