Video: How Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun punished the computers of the day

When I was working at Babbage’s in the mid-’90s, I recall there being three specific PC games that sat in the “coming soon” column seemingly forever—like, for years—and generated ridiculous amounts of pre-orders and buzz: , the original , and the original . As fate would have it, I worked the launches of all three of those games, and although they all were special, was to me the most surprising to play.

I wasn’t really big into the nascent real-time strategy genre at the time—perhaps unsurprising, since the “genre” prior to release consisted basically of and , but blew me away. I was never any at it, but I was fascinated by it—the strategy game genre was undergoing somewhat of a renaissance in the early-to-mid-’90s, and adding real-time decision-making into the mix was a wild twist on what had become an established formula.

The original was successful, but the sequels established a bona fide gaming dynasty. For this episode of War Stories, we’ve arranged a nicely technical chat with Westwood co-founder Louis Castle (who also worked on the studio’s noir adventure) to dish on the challenges and issues the studio faced with developing , the direct sequel to and one of the most well-regarded games in the entire series.

A path! A path!

And challenges there were. One of the goals with (as one calls the game when one is cool and ) was to have no limit or cap on the number of units players were allowed to build and control, and that goal had a huge string attached to it. More units on the screen meant more units for the computer to keep track of and control, and that meant lots and lots of —that is, figuring out how to get those units from point A to point B. In spite of how simple it might appear to the human eye (“Just go from here to there!”) pathfinding is actually a murderously complex programming challenge—one that, depending on the path, might be NP-complete.

The “eureka!” moment came when Castle and team realized they didn’t have to build perfect—or even really great—pathfinding. Rather, they had to build pathfinding that to the player. This meant that instead of having to solve an effectively unsolvable NP-complete problem, they could instead apply several layers of edge-case mitigation and modifications over their basic algorithm. Eventually, after much iteration, they reached a point where units acted (mostly) sane and did (mostly) what the player expected (most of the time).

The most interesting thing, at least to me, is that pathfinding is a difficult problem even for modern games, and simply throwing more CPU power at the problem doesn’t really help that much—such is the curse of NP-complete problems. The fixes developed by the Westwood devs are still applicable today—and will continue to be applicable, right up until the point when someone proves P=NP.

And if ever happens… well, pathfinding algorithms will be the least of our worries.

[ufc-fb-comments url=""]

Latest Articles

Related Articles