article1085.asp.htm

电脑游戏中的人工智能制作（含源代码）

:    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|
:         |
:         |



    I would agree with your assessment of the situation and your breakdown
of the forces into a front.  Obviously in this case, X either a.) needs
to rapidly execute a turn of his front or b.) is in the midst of a brilliant
plan that wil prove to be Y's undoing.  (The challenge, of course, is to
get a computer AI to execute 'b' more often than 'a'.)

    If we define a contact point, then does that give us a natural focus
towards which to direct our forces and our strategic 'thinking'?  They would
seem to.

: :     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.


   Okay; let's go with that simplification for now. It'll certainly make this
easier to think about, and we can always make the AI smarter in Rev 2.0!  ;)


: 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.

   Okay then, fronts are out.  Spheres of influence are in.  They do seem
to better reflect the 'domino effect', as you suggest.

   If we use your previous suggestion for identifying centers, combined with
the above-mentioned contact points, then this may lead us towards a more
natural way of handling the above situation.  Based on what we've discussed
so far, I would envision an AI's logic train going something like this:

        Pass #1:  Identify natural 'groups' of X-Y forces using the
        'circle method' discussed earlier, perhaps taking into account
        the possibilities of influence and interdiction as a previous
        poster suggested. 

        Pass #2:  Having identified these natural groupings, identify
        contact points amongst the forces within each group.  These
        will serve as natural foci for our planning process.

        Pass #3:  Having identified natural groupings and focus points,
        we now begin thinking about steps needed to link up our groups,
        minimize the size of enemy-held areas, elimination of enemy units,
        etc.  

        
   One thing we do want to avoid, of course, is TOO much reliance on
maintaining unbroken contact between spheres of influence.  As you know,
in the Napoleanic era cavalry forces on the same side were often miles
apart and in some cases didn't even know of each other's existence!  In this
case the AI would need to know to treat the two forces independently and
NOT make linking them a high priority.


Steven

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

Steve Woodcock ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Andrae Muys ([e-mail]) wrote:

: :             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|
: :         |
: :         |

:     I would agree with your assessment of the situation and your breakdown
: of the forces into a front.  Obviously in this case, X either a.) needs
: to rapidly execute a turn of his front or b.) is in the midst of a brilliant
: plan that wil prove to be Y's undoing.  (The challenge, of course, is to
: get a computer AI to execute 'b' more often than 'a'.)

Of course the ultimate AI wouldn't find itself in such a dangerous 
position.  A bit like the untimate General wouldn't.  But if it does it 
must extricate itself well.  Just one more 'special' situation to test 
the AI's abiltiy.

:     If we define a contact point, then does that give us a natural focus
: towards which to direct our forces and our strategic 'thinking'?  They would
: seem to.

Well this thread is useful.  The idea of contact points should radically 
prune any decision tree.(And sooner or later the AI will have to make a 
choice)  Of course at the stratigic/grand stratigic levels we may need a 
modified definition of contact point but at the level I am interested in 
Contact points appear to be a good way to look at things.  In fact now 
that I think about it, contact points are how **I** allocate **MY** 
consideration.  This approach however leads us to consider how to 
recognise potential contact points and how to evaluate the relitive 
benifits of creating/avoiding specific contact points.  e.g. in the 
example above X should avoid contact with Y until he has rotated his 
front.(it looks like we may still need to consider fronts as well).

: : 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.
: Okay; let's go with that simplification for now. It'll certainly make this
: easier to think about, and we can always make the AI smarter in Rev 2.0!  ;)

My thoughts exactly.

<<<<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 
: : 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.

:    Okay then, fronts are out.  Spheres of influence are in.  They do seem
: to better reflect the 'domino effect', as you suggest.

However as discussed above at a lower level fronts again become 
important.  IMHO this is because tactical considerations require physical 
cohesion, while stratigic(level) utilise logical cohesion.  As you later 
note cavalry detatchments regularlly operated independently of other 
units.  However (excluding irregulars) many/most operated in conjunction 
with armies, their presence in a particular area, important to enemy 
forces, deliberate and planned.  Even though operating independently.

:    If we use your previous suggestion for identifying centers, combined with
: the above-mentioned contact points, then this may lead us towards a more
: natural way of handling the above situation.  Based on what we've discussed
: so far, I would envision an AI's logic train going something like this:

:         Pass #1:  Identify natural 'groups' of X-Y forces using the
:         'circle method' discussed earlier, perhaps taking into account
:         the possibilities of influence and interdiction as a previous
:         poster suggested. 

:         Pass #2:  Having identified these natural groupings, identify
:         contact points amongst the forces within each group.  These
:         will serve as natural foci for our planning process.

:         Pass #3:  Having identified natural groupings and focus points,
:         we now begin thinking about steps needed to link up our groups,
:         minimize the size of enemy-held areas, elimination of enemy units,
:         etc.  
This sounds like it should work reasonably well, however I have a feeling 
there may be problems with the way it handles many sparse stratigic 
situations.  I'll think about it and we can discuss it futher when I have 
clearified my concerns.

:    One thing we do want to avoid, of course, is TOO much reliance on
: maintaining unbroken contact between spheres of influence.  As you know,
: in the Napoleanic era cavalry forces on the same side were often miles
: apart and in some cases didn't even know of each other's existence!  In this
: case the AI would need to know to treat the two forces independently and
: NOT make linking them a high priority.

One more thing about cavalry is that the other arms(INF/ART) can't 
operate this way as it requires a level of speed.

One thing I am considering is cross posting some questions regarding real 
life treatment of these concerns to rec.games.miniatures after they finish 
their reorganisation.

Andrae.

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

Steve Woodcock <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>Andrae Muys ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
>: 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|
>:         |
>:         |
>
>
>
>    I would agree with your assessment of the situation and your breakdown
>of the forces into a front.  Obviously in this case, X either a.) needs
>to rapidly execute a turn of his front or b.) is in the midst of a brilliant
>plan that wil prove to be Y's undoing.  (The challenge, of course, is to
>get a computer AI to execute 'b' more often than 'a'.)

  Heh. Actually, if X is driving through Y, in order to create two
fronts along which Y must fight, thereby forcing Y to regroup, then
'b' has been executed.

>    If we define a contact point, then does that give us a natural focus
>towards which to direct our forces and our strategic 'thinking'?  They would
>seem to.

  Yes. The AI should attempt to create as many contatc points as
possible. Why? These points mean that he is actually fighting the
enemy and hopefully killing the same. That is why two parallel lines
are a good formation. With a good lookahead, though, the T formation
is also good, because it will enable many points of contact _over
time_, and hurt Y's ability to create them. Part of the battle is
controlling contact. In fact, if the AI can do this controlling, then
it is my belief that it will have an extremely good chance at winning.

>   Okay then, fronts are out.  Spheres of influence are in.  They do seem
>to better reflect the 'domino effect', as you suggest.

  The sphere of influence idea seems to work well with the points of
contact idea. Perhaps each unit has a sphere wherein it can contact
within a certain number fo moves (say 3), and its job is to contact
the fewest enemies at once but the most over time. IOW, it doesn't
want to be outnumbered but it wants to see action.

  And two units have a greater sphere of influence, say 8 moves, than
just one. This would help reflect the greater power of two. Controlled
territory would be defined as that surrounded by my own units and
without enemy units, once again utilizing the SoIs. Contested would,
of course, be that which neither side controls. Perhaps a 'strength'
value would be attached to areas, indicating the number of units