Newsgroups: comp.ai.games
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel-eecis!news.mathworks.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.new-york.net!actcom!news
From: bruck@actcom.co.il (Uri Bruck)
Subject: Re: AI-friendly war games - PART II
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: p1.haifa2.actcom.co.il
Message-ID: <Du4FE1.IBr@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: <4r02in$kph@fountain.mindlink.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 12:11:13 GMT
Lines: 25

Alan_Douglas@mindlink.bc.ca (Alan Douglas) wrote:


>Now with the continuous front of Diagram 1, you can get interesting
>things like breakthrough, exploitation and encirclement happening.
>The problem is you need lots of units and that puts a great burden on
>the AI.  And if units start getting destroyed, then theres the danger
>of things degenerating to the state of Diagram 2.

>Now perhaps all this demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding
>on my part about the true nature of warfare.  Perhaps Diagram 2 is a
>realistic portrayal of a large scale battlefield with military forces
>on the front line sitting in compact blocks separated by large gaps in
>which there are essentially no military forces.  However, I have
>proceeded from the assumption that this is not realistic.

I think that what you've got here is simply a different kind of game.
Interesting in its own right, and it has some interesting analogies
with aspects of wargames. Still, it seems to me like it's quite
independent from wargaming, and also nearly impossible to implement
without a computer.

I'd like to see some more discussion on this.
Uri

