article1085.asp.htm

电脑游戏中的人工智能制作（含源代码）

era which may be adapted for computer play.
b) The rigid formations and formal tactics of the era should make the 
pattern recognsion easier.
c) The principles of combined arms are easy to grasp and formalise 
heruisticly in this era.
d) Only a small number of troop types have to be provided to provide a 
reasonable game.

The rules which I intend on implementing to date consist of three troop 
INF: slow, strong, short range; 
CAV: fast, strong, zero range;
ART: slow, weak, long range;
and three extra terrain types(other than clear)
WOODS: defence from melee and ranged attacks, slows movement;
ROUGH(HILLS): defence from melee, slows movement, aids attack;
ROAD: no defence, faster movement;

Of course the principles of pattern recognition and stratigic disposions 
apply to any game in any era, and also to more abstract forms of the 
wargame such as CHESS, GO, and CHECKERS.  I am using these rules because 
I beleive they provide the basic elements of wargames, and are necessary 
and sufficient for the application of traditional military stratagy and 
tactics.  Therefore if I can produce a computer player which successfully 
plays a sound stratigic game and which has a 'grasp' of tactics, it 
should be able to be applied to any napolionic rule system with little 
modification, and to other eras without too much difficulty.

Andrae.

==============================================================================

Steve Woodcock ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Andrae Muys ([e-mail]) wrote:
: : I am currently trying to write a game that will provide a computer 
: : opponent in a computer wargame.

:    Your approach to break things down into 'front', 'flank', and 
: 'rear' makes sense and seems like a reasonable simplification of the problem.
: A first-order definition of each might be:

:      front -- Where the mass of the enemy units are known to be.  The
:               direction I want to attack.

:      flank -- Any area in which there are fewer (1/3 ?) as many enemy
:               units as the area designed as 'front'.  (Note this is
:               purely arbitrary, based as much on prior experience as
:               anything else.)  Perhaps also selected based on natural
:               defensive terrain (i.e., oceans or mountains).

:      rear  -- Any area in which no (known) enemy units are operating,
:               or an area completely surrounded and controlled by me.

:      
:     These definitions work by identifying the front, then extrapolating
: from that.  As enemy units move around, become detected, attack, etc.,
: the 'size' of the front will likely grown and shrink, forcing similar changes
: to the flanks (especially) and perhaps to the rear areas as well.

Identifing the front first and then defining the rest w.r.t it would seem 
to simplify the problem further.  I hadn't thought of that, it looks like 
a good idea.  However one question to contimplate.  Where are the fronts 
in the following position. {X - YOURS, Y - THEIRS}

            YY      Now by any standards X is in a bad way.  It has been
             Y      completely outflanked and his left flank is already
     XXX     YY     overrun.  Intuitivly his front is now perpendicular
XX XXX  XX   XY  Y  to Y's.  I think we may need a concept such as
   X        X Y     contact point, which in this case is Y's centre, and 
                Y   X's left flank.  Naturally in most battles there would
            YYY     be multiple contact points.  Personally I would draw the
            Y       fronts as follows.
        |           
        |           What do you think?
--------C|
        |
        |


:     One problem I can think of off the top of my head is how to handle
: multiple front situations; there's at least some possibility of overlapping
: definitions, meaning that some precedence order must be established.
: Special exceptions will also have to be made for overflying enemy aircraft
: and incursions by enemy units of various types.  (Example: If the enemy
: drops some paratroopers into your 'rear' area, does it automatically become
: a 'front'?)

This is why I am using a very basic set of game mechanics, and using a 
different era(see other post).  This way the only way troops can reach 
your rear is to march there.  Also there are very few battles in this era 
with multiple fronts.  Although allowance must be made for bent and 
twisted fronts.  The hinge being a very critical point in an extended line.

:     In extreme situations of mass attack, I could see virtually the entire
: play area being designated as a 'front' (imagine the Eastern Front in
: WWII), which of course makes your branching problem worse.  On the other
: hand, attempts to continually minimize the size of the front will cut down
: on the branching options, but might result in poor strategic and tactical
: choices (i.e., the entire German army focuses on capturing Malta, rather than
: overrunning Malta on its way to North Africa).

In the rules I have in mind, most cases you will only have mass attacks 
or at least dense fronts.  One problem you do have if you try to model a 
high echelon game such as the eastern front(WWII) what happened next.  
The  russian front fragmented and from one dense front you ended up with 
hundreds of small localised fronts, the resulting loss of cohesion being 
one of the greatest advantages of blitzcrieg.  Because cohesion is so 
much more important at a grand stratigic level(not that it isn't in 
stratagies at a operational/tactical level) I feel that a search for a 
front maybe counter productive.  My gut feeling is that it would be 
better to consider area controled by your forces, controlled by their 
forces, and contested.  With an emphisis on your forces maintaining 
unbroken contact between spheres of influence.  So the insertion of 
forces 'behind the lines' would only alter the balance of control in the 
local area.  A domino effect would be possible where forces stratigicly 
inserted would weaken a units control of an area weakening a unit relying 
on it for its 'cohesive link' weaking its control of another area and so 
on.  However this is what happens in real life so if any thing it 
suggests that it may be a good approach.

:     More brainstorming as I come up with ideas..............

ditto.

: Steven

Andrae

==============================================================================

On 11 May 1995, Andrae Muys wrote:
> one of the greatest advantages of blitzcrieg.  Because cohesion is so 
> much more important at a grand stratigic level(not that it isn't in 
> stratagies at a operational/tactical level) I feel that a search for a 
> front maybe counter productive.  My gut feeling is that it would be 
> better to consider area controled by your forces, controlled by their 
> forces, and contested.  With an emphisis on your forces maintaining 
> unbroken contact between spheres of influence.  So the insertion of 
> forces 'behind the lines' would only alter the balance of control in the 
> local area.  A domino effect would be possible where forces stratigicly 
> inserted would weaken a units control of an area weakening a unit relying 
> on it for its 'cohesive link' weaking its control of another area and so 
> on.  However this is what happens in real life so if any thing it 
> suggests that it may be a good approach.

In real life, I would imagine one of the main targets in any campaign to 
be supply lines. For example, The Dambusters is a movie about some 
special bombers with special bombs desiged to destroy dams, with the aim 
of crippling Germany's iron/steel industry. General Custer was in trouble 
because he was surrounded and cut off from supplies and reinforcements 
(yes, my knowledge is very sketchy).

Another approach to defining a front is that it is where you want it to 
be! Perhaps call your front where you are trying to hold back/push back 
enemy forces. Incursions don't necessarily happen on a front - you may 
quick-march or drop forces into enemy territory next to a vital supply 
line, or sneak in sabateurs to destroy strategic bridges ("A Bridge Too 
Far").

I heard someone claim once that war is about economic ruin rather than 
outright carnage. Is there any way your AI can calculate the move that 
will cause most damage to industry and support, rather than shoot the 
most enemy? Of course, these strategies apply to wars, not battles...

Just a thought...
-Alex

==============================================================================

Satrapa / Alexander Marc (ISE) ([e-mail]) wrote:
: On 11 May 1995, Andrae Muys wrote:
<<<SNIP>>>
: > front maybe counter productive.  My gut feeling is that it would be 
: > better to consider area controled by your forces, controlled by their 
: > forces, and contested.  With an emphisis on your forces maintaining 
: > unbroken contact between spheres of influence.  So the insertion of 
<<<SNIP: Insersion of forces in rear/domino effect>>>

: In real life, I would imagine one of the main targets in any campaign to 
: be supply lines. For example, The Dambusters is a movie about some 
: special bombers with special bombs desiged to destroy dams, with the aim 
: of crippling Germany's iron/steel industry. General Custer was in trouble 
: because he was surrounded and cut off from supplies and reinforcements 
: (yes, my knowledge is very sketchy).

Yes you are right one of the major considerations at a Stratigic level is 
supply, how do I attack yours, how do I protect mine.  One point 
concerning General Custer however, his problem wasn't so much that his 
supply lines were cut, more that he was surrounded with no avenue of 
retreat.  This is a position which is so inheriently poor that any AI 
should automatically avoid it without any requirement for a 'special case'.

: Another approach to defining a front is that it is where you want it to 
: be! Perhaps call your front where you are trying to hold back/push back 
: enemy forces. Incursions don't necessarily happen on a front - you may 
: quick-march or drop forces into enemy territory next to a vital supply 
: line, or sneak in sabateurs to destroy strategic bridges ("A Bridge Too 
: Far").

With the game mechanics we have been considering of late the AI won't 
have to be concerned with most of these problems.  I personally can't see 
how defining a front 'where you want it to be' is useful although this is 
probably more me not thinking it though properly than a problem with the 
idea.  What do you mean by it, and is it in anyway related to the concept 
of critical point/contact point currently being discussed?

: I heard someone claim once that war is about economic ruin rather than 
: outright carnage. Is there any way your AI can calculate the move that 
: will cause most damage to industry and support, rather than shoot the 
: most enemy? Of course, these strategies apply to wars, not battles...

Personally I prefer Sun Tzu's philosophy.  Basically it holds that to win 
without fighting is best, and the aim of war is to capture territory 
without damaging it.

BTW: does anyone know if there is a e-text version of The Art of War 
anywhere?

Andrae.

==============================================================================

Andrae Muys ([e-mail]) wrote:
: With the game mechanics we have been considering of late the AI won't 
: have to be concerned with most of these problems.  I personally can't see 
: how defining a front 'where you want it to be' is useful although this is 
: probably more me not thinking it though properly than a problem with the 
: idea.  What do you mean by it, and is it in anyway related to the concept 
: of critical point/contact point currently being discussed?


   That's right; at the moment we're sort of focusing on a roughly
Napoleonic-era level of combat for the sake of simplicity.  Paratroopers
will be added in AI v. 2.0.    ;)


: : I heard someone claim once that war is about economic ruin rather than 
: : outright carnage. Is there any way your AI can calculate the move that 
: : will cause most damage to industry and support, rather than shoot the 
: : most enemy? Of course, these strategies apply to wars, not battles...
: Personally I prefer Sun Tzu's philosophy.  Basically it holds that to win 
: without fighting is best, and the aim of war is to capture territory 
: without damaging it.

   If we hold to the concept of specifying various objectives (as discussed
way back at the start of this thread), then I would think moves designed
to inflict economic damage would flow naturally out of that.  Oil wells,
ports, rail lines, etc. would all be natural objectives, and as the AI
considers its moves and attempts to seize objectives they would naturally
be overrrun.  


: BTW: does anyone know if there is a e-text version of The Art of War 
: anywhere?

   Good question...I'd like to know myself.

Steven

==============================================================================

[e-mail] (Andrae Muys) writes:
>Personally I prefer Sun Tzu's philosophy.  Basically it holds that to win 
>without fighting is best, and the aim of war is to capture territory 
>without damaging it.
>BTW: does anyone know if there is a e-text version of The Art of War 
>anywhere?
>
>Andrae.

http://timpwrmac.clh.icnet.uk/Docs/suntzu/szcontents.html
  for the Art of War (not the 1960's translation, an older one) , and

http://fermi.clas.virginia.edu/~gl8f/paradoxes.html
  for George Silver's Paradoxes of defence, which is probably
in a similarr vein, but I have not got around to reading it yet.