Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implement basic Strategist Singleton #12

Closed
krogenth opened this issue Jan 17, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #28
Closed

Implement basic Strategist Singleton #12

krogenth opened this issue Jan 17, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #28
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@krogenth
Copy link
Owner

We'll need to analyze the state of the game, and attempt to estimate the best possible course to win. For now, we will only choose an initial Build Order based on Map size from #4 to initialize a starting building queue. The Strategist should check what the first order is on each frame to see if the requirements(and resources) are available to make the order. Like the Map in #2, this will be a Singleton. For now, we will use queues to store Build Orders for Units to ask for.

The Strategist should contain:

  • the amount of minerals spent(including Worker/Building issued orders)
  • the total amount of supply(including Overlords in Build Order queue)
  • at least a Zerg_Larva, Zerg_Drone, and Zerg_Hatchery Build Order queues

Remember, there may be nothing in the Build Order queue for the Unit asking, it's recommended to use std::optional for this.

@krogenth krogenth added the enhancement New feature or request label Jan 17, 2022
@krogenth krogenth added this to To Do in AdditionalPylons via automation Jan 17, 2022
@krogenth krogenth moved this from To Do to In Progress in AdditionalPylons Feb 8, 2022
AdditionalPylons automation moved this from In Progress to Done Feb 19, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants