Ragdoll physics for the win

Ragdoll physics illustration

Ragdoll physics is fun to see in action. 
Ragdoll physics is NOT fun to implement in a full game. 

For sure, I wanted to have ragdoll physics in Artillery Royale.
It’s fun and goes well with the explosions and destructible map. 

As always I checked online for tutorials and I found many of them.
It seemed easy with unity: add a bunch of rigid bodies and capsule colliders linked with hinge joints and… voilà

But what if you already have some animations going on?
Using some anima2D inverse kinematic or similar?
Those tutorials fall short. 

So this is how I did, it’s not that hard but there is a lot of going on. 

But first, please enjoy the result

See the ragdoll physics in action, even pushing the opponent in the way

We have two states: Playing (using idle/run/jump animations), and Receiving damages (ragdoll part).

Playing: the animation (via animator) is active and your anima2D bones move. Great. 
Receiving damages (i.e.: from an explosion): 
– You stop the animation and disable anima2D.
– Save all bones local positions and rotations.
– Activate all your ragdoll related rigid bodies (that will activate the associated colliders etc).
– Add some force to the main bone’s rigid body and let the physics engine do the magic.
– When the main rigid body ends moving you deactivate all the ragdoll rigid bodies.
– Extrapolate the current bones positions/rotations back to their saved state.
– Eventually you restart the animation and you’re back to Playing state. 

OMG this is some intense coding but it works quite well!

A star pathfinding is easy!

A bot found a path to the player

If you are like me, you probably have the impostor syndrome. 
And let’s be honest, I’m not good at math and often it’s a hard problem for game dev.

Today I’m going to talk about A* also known as A star pathfinding.

At first, I thought I would not be able to do it myself, so I spent a lot of time looking for the right A* pre-made assets and I tried many.

Most were hard to understand and use, plus Artillery Royale does not use anything close to a grid and basic A* assets often presume that you have some kind of grid, so it was like trying to fit circles into squares.

Anyway, at some point I decided to learn about that A* algorithm to be able to understand a better those assets.

I thought it was only going to be for my developer culture because it would have been too hard for me to implement from scratch, but I realized it was really easy.

I read a bunch of blog posts and I decided to give it a go, using my own graph data.
And guess what? It worked like a charm.

The hard part was to find navigable segment on the map, here you can see the debug with pink segments that represent walkable path and blue segments that represent possible jumps.

Those are the resource I learned from:

To be honest, if you read this you will be able to get somewhere.

For me the hard part was not the A* algorithm but building a graph that represent the game. A* (in the examples I found) is often used for grid based game, but it can be used for any graph.

Now I have a working A* path finding for my AI and I’m really proud (except that I lose several days trying to figure out assets from other instead of trying to understand A*).

Lesson learn, it’s quite often better to dive a little deeper than the asset store and look at what is behind the scene. 

Note, it’s the second time I felt in this trap, when building the destructible map I started with an asset and in the end switched to my own code.

Building A Community

First, let me show you the official Artillery Royale logo!
If you ask me, it’s beautiful.

Made by Jean-Baptiste Dessaux, idea by Damien Balada


Now let’s talk about Artillery Royale community. If you follow the game you now that we have a discord server where people can get news and give feedbacks about the ongoing alpha: https://discord.com/invite/fq78teW

Growing a community is hard, starting like me from nothing and nowhere — I don’t have any pre-existing network — I’m often wondering how I can get people look at the game and more than that, join the discussion.

On the game side, the technical base is working, know I’m going to iterate and add content. More weapons, more features etc. but what I’d love is to have player engaged in the process, so I’d know that this game will be enjoyed as much as I enjoy making it.

You will probably see me all around the Internet posting on Twitter, YouTube and other game related platforms. I don’t know how to do that, but I’ll report on that blog in a few months, hopefully with some results!


Right now I have some pleasant news, first Artillery Royale is coming soon on Steam (as a “Coming Soon” page) and because — or thanks to — the hard work I had to put in that store listing (Steam is asking a bunch of assets and other questions) I have a bunch of nice screenshots, banner, icon and… an official trailer!

It’s not one of my specialty + the game is alpha, so is the trailer, but still I’m proud of it

You can find me on YouTube too, I’m not yet sure of which channel I’ll choose, but I let you know! Follow and subscribe to everything, and we will see which platform wins.

Meanwhile, it’s Discord where all the news are aggregated, and where future player can take part in the development process!

Artificial Intelligence (AI) — Part two

Graphs showing some ML data

Spoiler alert, I won’t use Unity machine learning (also called mlagents) to implement artificial intelligence for my bots. If you want to know more about why, read on.

At first, it was hard to use, see my previous post, but then Unity helped my by giving me access to their alpha mlagents-cloud. That fixed my previous problem which was mostly a hardware problem.

From hard to use it becomes easy to iterate, and that’s exactly what I needed to find out if it was a good approach for my idea of having bot using “real” AI.


When you try to train a model you have to give it three main data points:

1 – Observations: what it (it’s called an agent) can see from its environment
2 – Actions: what the agent can do
3 – Rewards: information on how it performs

So you have to think quite hard about it, but as you know your environment, in the end you can find some good inputs for each of those (so you think).

In the very beginning I tried to train a model that would move and shot the target.

Let’s dive into some details

I had 12 observations, 10 actions and plenty of rewards points here and there. But I found out that no matter what, my model could not understand how to fire, it was moving quite alright but never firing.

I decided to split the model in two, one for moving, and one for aim and fire. I found out online that most people do this way when the problem for the agent is too hard. It’s a first trade off but I thought that it was acceptable.

Now I have two experiments, one to learn to move and the other to aim and fire.


The agent has to go to the target so reward is calculated on how close it is to the target. It can go left/right/jump/double jump. The map can be pretty hard to navigate for sure, even sometime impossible (something that machine learning does not like).

After 7 iterations, where I changed the reward values, added/removed some observations, made the map easier to navigate etc. This is what I’ve got:

The agent mostly succeed but sometime it goes in the wrong direction, it is always jumping like crazy, it does not handle the double jump when needed, it does not look natural at all.

Give it 8 more iterations, trying to add negative reward to the jump so it stops doing it that much etc. I did not get anything better.

Note that even if Unity mlagents-cloud allow me to iterate quickly, it still needs a couple of hours between each model changes.


The agent has to hit the target with the bazooka so reward is calculated on how many damages it makes and also how close it is (when failing). It can aim up/down/load fire/release to shot. This time the map was made easy from the beginning.

But after 5 iterations I found out that this was already too complex for the model. It did not manage to hit the target, only itself. The load and release action to fire is too complex from what I understood.


The problem is that machine learning is hard, and I’m not an expert in it

It took me a full week, working like crazy to conclude that I’m not an expert enough to know what are the limits of this, and how to bypass them. Of course, I could spend more time on this but it seems that no matter what, the outcome will not be as good as I first imagined.

By working on machine learning in this scope, training an agent to be a bot in a game, I also realized that doing so as a developper, you would lose all the control on your bot. I’m quite sure that when the AI is well trained the result for the player is nice, but as a game designer you can not force how your bot would behave (except making an new model each time).

This adds up to my final conclusion: machine learning is not what I need so I’ll have to make a manual AI for Artillery Battle, and this will be hard.

Funny note

When working with machine learning, you can come across some funny (but logic) behaviors. For example in my first “fire” experiment the agent learned that not firing at all was the best way to go. Because if it failed and hit itself it was punished. So I had to give it some positive reward for firing and lower negative on hitting itself (this is an example on what you have to do between each of your experiments to get a better outcome).