Newsgroups: comp.ai.games
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.new-york.net!actcom!news
From: bruck@actcom.co.il (Uri Bruck)
Subject: Re: Military Unit Flocking
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: p7.haifa1.actcom.co.il
Message-ID: <DsI3t7.JrG@actcom.co.il>
Sender: news@actcom.co.il (News)
Reply-To: bruck@actcom.co.il
Organization: ACTCOM - Internet Services in Israel
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
References: <4obb8f$3gc@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <31AB0944.41C6@eecs.umich.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 00:20:30 GMT
Lines: 34

"Randolph M. Jones" <rjones@eecs.umich.edu> wrote:

>DrmWeaver2 wrote:
>> Some simple flocking rules:
>> 1. Stay within x range of its superior HQ
>> 2. Coordinate attacks with units subordinated to the same HQ
>> 3. Don't deliberately move outside of supply range
>> Optional (feasible - ????)
>> 4. If a HQ, move first (in order to increase range of subordinate units in
>> an attack)???
>> 
>> What are your thoughts?

>I think this is definitely something worth trying, but in my experience
>you will find there are situations in which it would be very helpful
>if all of the units in a group know where the group is supposed to
>be going (so they can anticipate turns, etc.)  The problem is trading
>off this flexibility with the efficiency gains you get from `dumb'
>flocking behavior.

>Randy Jones

Generally this seems like it could produce quite interesting and
realistic results. The term 'emergent behavior' comes to mind.
However, I'd like to point out that when one group engages another at
close range, it is sometimes beneficial to designate specific units to
attack specific enemy units and thus create a proper friendly biased
imbalance of power on unit specific basis. 
So I'd say that the simple flocking behavior (SFB for Sunir) could be
exteremly useful as default behavior, as long as one  can 'switch' to
another more precise behavior  in certain cases.

Uri

