a white rabbit
Posts: 2366
Joined: 4/27/2002 From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E.. Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Karri quote:
ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote:
ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..you're looking at it wrong, on the right magnification, a formation, say a corps is one 'thing', with a limited number of options, The options are finite, sure. But they number in the millions. Raise this to the power of the number of formations, and then add in the possible actions of the other side (bearing in mind sharply limited intelligence, whereas in Chess and Go intelligence is perfect). quote:
..what toaw does now, is decide btn by btn, refering only to the pre-set objective track for that btn's formation, This is more or less the problem. But the solution to this isn't a brute-force approach like you use for a Chess computer. You'd want a learning AI which tries to be more like a human player and less like an adding machine. The idea I had would be for the player to design objective tracks independent of the formations. The AI would then judge how it was performing on each of these objective tracks relative to one another, and assign its formation to these tracks depending on the situation. So if the situation on one track is changing rapidly, that gets extra formations assigned to it. IMO, the only solution if one wants to improve the Ai is to completely redo the OOB system of TOAW. Once you have a 'clear' OOB, ie this division is part of this corps, which is part of this army, which is part of that Army Group which is commanded by the Supreme Command, can you actually develope an AI that thinks in the grand scale. Furthemore, the Supreme Command needs to 'know' how to give objectives(instead of designer implementing those objective tracks), then the army groups, corps, divisions, and battalions need to know what they can do and what they should do. The key is information and how to use that information, and it should flow both ways. For example the 1st corps gives the 1st division the task of capturing the city of Kharkov. 1st division 'analyses' the situation and sends back a message that this is impossible without 2nd and 3rd division securing flanks. 1st corps then analyses the situation and decides if it can allow 2nd and 3rd division to do that. If not it will either cancel the attack or ask for more reinforcement...or if the situation is desperate it will force the order...and so on. ..sorry but we're stuck with objective tracks, but hopefully at a higher formation level.. ..what you describe is , on the right magnification, a "tactical" matter, grand "tactical" maybe, but whatever you call it, is part of the 2nd level comparisons, which are an Elmer thing, as are the 3rd level, really tactical btn actions.. ..sorry to repeat myself, but all of which takes enormous temp storage, which we have, and RAM, which we have. Elmer needs space and time, to 'think', in fact to do the sums and see which comes up with best numbers and act, then add up the results, recompare, and act and so on till turn end.. ..computers are stupid, get the view point right, a human thing, and you can make them jump thru hoops if you have the necessary, see preceeding para. Toaw 1 was written in an age when 10GB storage and 128 RAM was huge, it's basic machinery is still good, one of the reasons it's still around, but these limits no longer apply, and it should expand to the new limits, in particular those of temp storage, RAM is less important as a good program should always use the min RAM possible, s'a programmer-thing, it shows just how good you really are...
_____________________________
..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,
|