Newsgroups: comp.ai.games
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!newspump.wustl.edu!crcnews.unl.edu!news.mid.net!newsfeeder.gi.net!news.dra.com!hunter.premier.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeeds.sol.net!news.webspan.net!news.tacom.army.mil!ulowell.uml.edu!news.wizvax.net!mv!usenet
From: hodsdon@scoot.netis.com (Steve Hodsdon)
Subject: Re: AI control in Wargames
X-Newsreader: Anawave Gravity v1.10.556
Organization: Pragmatic Designs
Message-ID: <MPG.d6edafb634abc3a989686@news.mv.com>
References: <01bc1612$0adcdbc0$02babac6@hodsdon.scoot.netis.com> <3303BE53.4079@ubaclu.unibas.ch>
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: scoot.netis.com
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 02:36:48 GMT
Lines: 53

In article <3303BE53.4079@ubaclu.unibas.ch>, Mittag@ubaclu.unibas.ch 
says...
> Steve Hodsdon wrote:
[...]
> > As you can see, status travels up the chain of command while orders travel
> > down.  The thing to remember is that there can be multiple Korps under an
> > Armee whilst there can be multiple Armees under an Army Group.
> 
> I actually think that the role of the "general" is much overestimated in
> current games. The General is some central algorithm deciding what to do,
> then telling his troops to go ahead. I have not seen one properly programmed
> yet, so usually you can fool around freely wherever the general doesn't

This is but one method of control.  It worked for SSG and I'd imagine 
that they used it in several of their games of the period.  

I would imagine that you can "fool the general" in any game that is 
currently on the market.  By this I mean that once you hit upon a 
strategy that allows you to win, you can use the same strategy over and 
over again.  (On reflection, I should qualify this to include "same 
strategy on the same map."  Enemy Nations, to think of one example, 
generates a new map each time you start a game.)  My goal is for the AIP 
to "learn" from its mistakes.  A lofty goal to be sure and one that I 
don't know how to do.  (But that's why I hang out here and put up with 
the "get rich quick" posts!)  :)

> look. I think there should also be travel of info (requests?) up - a goldmine
> *wants* to be conquered, a group of soldiers *want* to attack a smaller
> group nearby, or come to help at fights nearby. This would not be extremely

I would think that the top level "general" wouldn't worry about such 
details.  This would be taken care of further down the chain of command.  
To use your examples...  Since there are goldmines, units would be told 
to patrol (search) for them.  When found, it would be "conquered" if the 
finder was not otherwise occupied.  Groups of solders would be ordered 
out on an "aggressive" patrol, (as opposed to passive?).  They would 
attack any groups they came upon (if the odds were in favor) or respond 
to calls for help.

> time-consuming either, since I guess the average guy makes a decision every
> couple of seconds. Also, this would allow for more intelligent units, i.e.
> soldiers that don't want to die.

Morale should be included (he says not very sure of himself).

Steve

-- 

I eat my peas with honey.  I've done it all my life.
It makes my peas taste funny.  But it keeps them on my knife.

mailto:hodsdon@scoot.netis.com
