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: <DsI3tD.Jss@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: <31AC9266.167E@eecs.umich.edu> <4oiqn0$8l5@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 00:20:39 GMT
Lines: 28

drmweaver2@aol.com (DrmWeaver2) wrote:

>Real world armies, at least the former Sovs and the US spend hours
>praticing semmingly simple manuever in order to become proficient at it. 
>Given the "Fog and confusion of war" on a battlefield, I would expect that
>a unit or two might be temporarily out of position - but, the flocking
>rules are a guideline to allow them to return to position with a minimum
>of orders being given.

>I am also not sure that the generic flocking rules can't be modified by
>doctrinal orders coded into "modes"/formations that each unit knows about
>(see the Military Genetics/ Combat Hueristics posts for more on that). 
>And should a unit remain "out of position" longer than the AI senses is
>appropriate for its goals, there's nothing to prevent the AI from
>"ordering" an increase in speed for a specific unit.

>Comments???

Flocking is one thing. Keeping formation is an entirely different
animal. Flocking behavior is an emergent behavior, while formations
are highly pklanned maneuvers, I just can't see how these two would
integrate. 
I can see how each one would work on its own, and they are both
interesting alternatives, and I suppose one could switch between them.

Uri


