Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> AI Opponent Discussion >> Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 7/29/2005 3:54:23 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		I am looking for people with a background in Artificial Intelligence who would like to critique and otherwise particiapate in the design of the AI Assistant and AI Opponent for MWIF.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
Post #: 1
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 7/29/2005 9:47:24 AM   
csharpmao

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 7/29/2005
Status: offline 		Hello,
I've no background in AI, but very interested in taking part in this part of MWIF.
Let me know what I can do for you and I 'd be happy to help.

Alain

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 2
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 7/29/2005 10:32:08 AM   
rotor911

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline 		I coded "expert systems" in Lisp a long time ago and I still need some "heuristics" at work time to time. Is this the kind of AI that you envision?

(in reply to csharpmao)
Post #: 3
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 7/29/2005 2:15:16 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		sorry... can't help there.

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to rotor911)
Post #: 4
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 7/29/2005 3:05:40 PM   
Caranorn


Posts: 424
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline 		I'm having enough trouble with my own inteligence at times so I fear I won't be able to help here either. My only experience in this area is to find out that no ai has ever been satisfactory to me...

Marc aka Caran...

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 5
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 7/30/2005 6:19:11 AM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		One of the (few) things I know about artificial intelligence is that they need some table of values against which to do their stuff eg

  • "Gibralter is more important than Cyprus"
  • "One day the USA will declare war on Germany"
  • "The US needs to conserve carriers in the first year or so of the Pacific War"


While us non-PhD types might not be able to speak with a Lisp, maybe we can start getting together some of those rules for you?

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Caranorn)
Post #: 6
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 7/30/2005 12:00:04 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
One of the (few) things I know about artificial intelligence is that they need some table of values against which to do their stuff eg

  • "Gibralter is more important than Cyprus"
  • "One day the USA will declare war on Germany"
  • "The US needs to conserve carriers in the first year or so of the Pacific War"

While us non-PhD types might not be able to speak with a Lisp, maybe we can start getting together some of those rules for you?

Yes. Let me give you a context.

I currently have 8 decision makers for the AI Opponent, and as a group they cover all the various sections of the rules. I do not want to go into the details here because there are a lot of details and how they are addressed requires explaining data structures and the language for decision making.

Be that as it may, the decision makers will be familiar to all WIF players: Grand Strategist, Commander in Chief, Manufacturing Council, Foreign Liaison (coordination with allies), Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiralty, Air Marshall, and Field Marshalls. Note that there may be several Field Marshalls with different ones assigned to different theaters of operation. Each country will have its own set of 8 decision makers; there will not be any grand coordinator of all the major powers for the Axis or Allied sides.

If you want to, you can write up your thoughts on:
(1) one problem one of these decision makers faces in WIF,
(2) what choices they have to choose from,
(3) what information they need to make a decision, and
(4) what criteria they should use to make their decision.

To use your first example (and to only skim the surface of the problem):
(1) The Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Commonwealth should have a stronger defense of Gibraltar than Cyprus.

(2) They need to choose what land and air units to base at these isolated locations to defend against invasion.

(3) Necessary information is: the availability of Axis invading forces, the balance of power in the air (i.e., fighters) in the sea areas neighboring Gibraltar and Cyprus, the balance of power at sea - both naval air and naval surface fleets, and the likelihood of the CW units being put out of supply.

(4) The criteria for making the decision is that the Axis should be denied the opportunity of attacking Gibraltar with 25% chance of success before Cyprus gets any resources. If the Gibraltar attack has less than a 10% chance of success, then Cyprus can recieve excess resources.

You can, and should, be much more detailed in your description of all 4 of these items than I have in the quick and dirty write up I gave in this example. The more details the better.

In selecting a problem to write about I recommend you pick something small to start with. It would be best if it only involved a single unit type (air, land, or naval) and it should be something where you are confident in your analysis. I strongly recommend not starting with something controversial. The idea is to get your feet wet before trying to swim the Atlantic Ocean.

You should choose one of the 8 decision makers and a specific country. That will help you frame the analysis and stay focused on a single problem. There is a very strong temptation to expand a problem and bring in a whole host of related problems. Bad idea. Keep the focus as tight as possible and use specifics (an 8-4 white print infantry) to clarify what you mean.

The Gibraltar example is a very poor choice for your first attempt because it involves multiple unit types. Which is why it would be handled by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

If you think in terms of Strategic, Operational, and Tactical decisions, you might include that in the heading for the problem. The Gibraltar example is a Operational decision because it helps decide which units are sent to which areas of operation. Rearranging units in a front line to optimize defense would be a Tactical decision. Deciding when to go to war would be a Strategic decision.

WIF has hundreds of these problems (if not thousands). Feel free to give away as many of your own secrets to success in WIF as you like.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 7
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 7/30/2005 12:15:19 PM   
Incy

 

Posts: 336
Joined: 10/25/2003
Status: offline 		I have a (slightly rusty) AI background and was going to help out Robert Crandall on the AI.
What hapened to Robert Crandall, btw ? Is he still part of the MWiF effort ?
Are you going to do the AI, Steve ?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 8
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 7/30/2005 12:58:57 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		Mille Grazie... in that case I will start with the rules for the Grand Strategist for Italy.
Thinking... thinking... ah... bene

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Incy)
Post #: 9
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 7/30/2005 1:32:59 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		Steve,
Is this the sort of thing you were after? If so then I will expand my points.



WHILE NEUTRAL:
I do need to be at war with the allies at some point during the game.
I do not need to go to war with the Allies immediately (Sep/Oct 1939)
It is politically better that the Allies declare war on me than I declare war on them, however the military benefits of an unexpected declaration of war on the Allies may outweigh the political benefits of waiting for the Allies to declare war on me.
When I am at war with the Allies I will suffer the economic consequences of their blockade.
In 39/40 I can declare war on Yugoslavia/Greece in preference to declaring war on the Allies.
I need to determine which VP cities I will seek to conquer.

WAR STRATEGY:
The French will be defeated and removed from the game so there is no long-term benefit in fighting them if it can be avoided. Let the Germans force the French to surrender.
After the French surrender it is better that my units be employed to assist the Germans than that they sit back performing no function.
(Some of) My units in the Med do serve the function of dissuading the CW from attacking me.
(Some of) My units in the Med can serve the function of conquering the Balkans
Taking Gibraltar is the extent of my primary ambitions in the west.
After Gibraltar I may have some secondary ambitions in the west (eg raider/sub patrols in Atlantic)
Taking the Suez Canal/Cairo/Palestine is the extent of my primary ambitions in the east.
After Suez Canal/Cairo/Palestine I have some secondary ambitions in the east (eg taking Iran/Iraq and raider/sub patrols in Red Sea.)

BATTLE CRITERIA:
I need to conserve my fleet.

PRODUCTION
I need to maintain my fleet.
First cycle Fleet production after 1941 is not recommended unless the Axis is winning (UK conquered?)
Building carriers is not essential. Land Based air can cover the Med.
Supplying units to assist the Germans should trigger a contra of help to conquer the Balkans or North Africa.


PROBLEM: When to declare war on the Allies?
<<to be continued if I am on the right track>>



< Message edited by Greyshaft -- 7/30/2005 1:37:27 PM >

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 10
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 7/30/2005 6:19:45 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Steve,
Is this the sort of thing you were after? If so then I will expand my points.

PROBLEM: When to declare war on the Allies?
<<to be continued if I am on the right track>>



Yes, but this is a very large problem (or several problems) that you should examine in pieces.

---------------------------------
DECISION MAKER: Italian Grand Strategist

(1) PROBLEM: Assigning priorities to victory cities

(2) CHOICES: (a) Gibraltar > Suez, (b) Gibraltar = Suez, (c) Suez = 0 until Gibraltar taken, ...

(3) INFORMATION NEEDED: overall strategic plan [or this could be a fundamental part of the overall strategic plan]

(4) CRITERIA: probably none; maybe a randomly chosen strategic plan

---------------------------------
DECISION MAKER: Italian Commander in Chief (who makes decisions about going to war)

(1) PROBLEM: When to declare war on the Allies (i.e., France and Commonwealth)?

(2) CHOICES: (a) stay neutral and do nothing to provoke war, (b) stay neutral with Allies but attack Yugoslavia, (c) stay neutral with Allies but attack Greece, (d) do both b & c, (e) stay neutral with Allies but prepare for attack on France, (f) stay neytral with Allies but prepare for attack on Commonwealth, (g) attack France, (h) attack COmmonwealth, ...?

(3) INFORMATION NEEDED: Victory city priorities, France's land, naval, and air strength on Italian border, France's ability to send more units to Italian front, Commonwealth's land, naval, and air strength in Mediterranean, CW's ability to send more units to Mediterranean, the likely date that Germany will defeat France, ....

(4) CRITERIA: ?

---------------------------------
DECISION MAKER: Italian Manufacturing Council

(1) PROBLEM: Should naval units requiring 2 cycles be started?

(2) CHOICES: (a) yes, (b) no

(3) INFORMATION NEEDED: current date, is Axis winning, is CW conquered?, ...

(4) CRITERIA:

----------------------------------

I hope this quasi-example helps you see how I think about these things from the AI's point of view. The problem should be broken into pieces so the AI can look at it from the point of view of one decision maker (DM). The DM might have to rely on the other DMs providing information and/or actually carryng out the decisions. For instance, the Commader in Chief might decide that the Italian navy is inadequate for going to war so he assigns a higher priority to producing naval units. The Manufacturing Council then uses that higher priority in their decision making.

When humans make decisions, they range all over the place, as is clearly demonstrated in your post. We know there are a lot of different aspects that have to be considered and jump around pulling bits and pieces of information together, trying hard to not miss something that is important. After we get all the relevant facts 'gathered' (in the forefront of out thoughts), we them latch onto those that are major factors and use them to narrow down the choices. Once that is done, we try to use all the facts to make the final choice between (a) and (b). Of course I am speaking in generalities here and there could easily be as many exceptions as there are cases where this sequence of events unfolds as I have described.

For the AI Opponent, I need to neatly compartmentalized all decisions and then build the linkages between the pieces. It is not a common thought process for people and strikes most of us as a downright weird way of thinking.



_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 11
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 7/30/2005 6:22:29 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Incy
I have a (slightly rusty) AI background and was going to help out Robert Crandall on the AI.
What hapened to Robert Crandall, btw ? Is he still part of the MWiF effort ?
Are you going to do the AI, Steve ?


I have been trying to reach you via email but it appears that Rob Crandall's old email address for you no longer functions. Please send me a personal message (PM) with your current email address so we can discuss things off-line.


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Incy)
Post #: 12
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 8/1/2005 1:47:39 AM   
c92nichj


Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline 		I have some level of experience with Ai-programming, once coded an AI for (Reversi, Othello) using minimaxi algorithm with added heuristics.

When at university I attended a couple of PHD level AI courses, thats many years ago though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am looking for people with a background in Artificial Intelligence who would like to critique and otherwise particiapate in the design of the AI Assistant and AI Opponent for MWIF.


(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 13
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 8/1/2005 2:14:15 AM   
c92nichj


Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline 		DECISION MAKER: Chineese Fieldmarchal
(1) PROBLEM: Command frontline in southern China
(2) CHOICES: (a) withdraw line to defensive line at mountainhexes and Kwei-Yang, (b) maintain current line (c) attack japaneese hex with 6-3 units (d) Attack Canton
(3) INFORMATION NEEDED:
- Weather
- estimated number of impulses left this turn
- prioties on conserve own troops inflict enemy losses.
- Priority on preserve troops/preserve territory/gain territory
- Predicted chance that japan makes an attack on his pulse
- Predicted troop/land losses on japaneese attack on most vulnerable hex/hexes
- Predicted japaneese/Chineese losses on attack on Canton/hex NE Canton

(4) CRITERIA:
If goal is preserve own troops & predicted chineese losses on japaneese attack >1 corps then withdraw line

If goal is preserve own troops & predicted chineese losses on japaneese attack <=1 corps & predicted Japaneese losses > 1 corp then maintainline

If goal is to gain land & predicted chineese losses on attack on Canton <=1 corps & chance of taking hex >45% Attack Canton.

etc.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 14
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 8/1/2005 4:21:17 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
DECISION MAKER: Chineese Fieldmarchal
(1) PROBLEM: Command frontline in southern China
(2) CHOICES: (a) withdraw line to defensive line at mountainhexes and Kwei-Yang, (b) maintain current line (c) attack japaneese hex with 6-3 units (d) Attack Canton
(3) INFORMATION NEEDED:
- Weather
- estimated number of impulses left this turn
- prioties on conserve own troops inflict enemy losses.
- Priority on preserve troops/preserve territory/gain territory
- Predicted chance that japan makes an attack on his pulse
- Predicted troop/land losses on japaneese attack on most vulnerable hex/hexes
- Predicted japaneese/Chineese losses on attack on Canton/hex NE Canton

(4) CRITERIA:
If goal is preserve own troops & predicted chineese losses on japaneese attack >1 corps then withdraw line

If goal is preserve own troops & predicted chineese losses on japaneese attack <=1 corps & predicted Japaneese losses > 1 corp then maintainline

If goal is to gain land & predicted chineese losses on attack on Canton <=1 corps & chance of taking hex >45% Attack Canton.

etc.

Nice.

This leads to the followng tasks:
(1) estimate the number of impulses left in the turn;
(2) define a metric (scale) for "conserve own troops versus inflict losses on the enemy";
(3) define a metric (scale) for "conserve own troops versus gain territory";
(4) estimate the probability that Japan will attack China in the next impulse; and
(5) estimate our (Chinese) expected losses for a Japanese attack on each of our hexes.

If we can come up with a way to answer to #5, then we can use the same system for any land attack anywhere in the world. We might have to do a dozen or so well defined situations (German-USSR frontline in Barbarossa), (Maginot line in 1940) before we have a methodology that works everywhere. This is the way I like to develop 'rules': start with specific cases, refine them until they are as close to perfect as possible, do a bunch more specific cases, and finally, develop a general methodology based on all the cases.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to c92nichj)
Post #: 15
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 8/1/2005 11:50:16 AM   
rotor911

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline 		INFORMATION NEEDED :
How many land actions can I afford in this turn?
Can I execute the choosen plan with the land movements of combined actions?
Even in 1938, there are corps to ship oversea, fleets to redeploy to new bases and you must carefully weight the importance of a front against others when choosing actions. Just my 2 cents, but I'd add "relative importance of the South China front" and "number of land movements and attacks required by each posture" to the informations required.
In fact, in my opinion, at the beginning of the turn, each "front" should report the type, importance for them (I can wait for the rebase but I must move that corps NOW) and number of activities they would need. Then the GHQ would prepare a "queue" of action types and "allocate" one each impulse depending on the relative importance of the fronts: in 1942, typically for Japan, the first impulses would be naval or combined and "China" would get a land action only if the turn lasted long enough. BUT, China should get 1 or 2 land movements early if it prevents a disaster so a naval action could have changed to a combined in the first impulse. Here, I'm not only talking of choosing the action type but also of allocating the activities: a rebase in North Africa can be more important than a ground strike in Ukraine but if you just blindly use the air actions as long as they are available, it may never be done.
Now you can't all base on your own plans, you must time to time react to the enemy's so there should be a provision for unexpected change of plans. And as I'm writing this, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to chose the action types "on the fly" at each impulse. Less efficiency but better ability to adapt to the circumstances. An ideal AI would have both : a country with the initiative, such as Germany 40, would use the "pre-planned method" while the same Germany in 1944 is often only able to react to the Allies last move.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 16
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 8/1/2005 6:22:40 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rotor
INFORMATION NEEDED :
How many land actions can I afford in this turn?
Can I execute the choosen plan with the land movements of combined actions?
Even in 1938, there are corps to ship oversea, fleets to redeploy to new bases and you must carefully weight the importance of a front against others when choosing actions. Just my 2 cents, but I'd add "relative importance of the South China front" and "number of land movements and attacks required by each posture" to the informations required.
In fact, in my opinion, at the beginning of the turn, each "front" should report the type, importance for them (I can wait for the rebase but I must move that corps NOW) and number of activities they would need. Then the GHQ would prepare a "queue" of action types and "allocate" one each impulse depending on the relative importance of the fronts: in 1942, typically for Japan, the first impulses would be naval or combined and "China" would get a land action only if the turn lasted long enough. BUT, China should get 1 or 2 land movements early if it prevents a disaster so a naval action could have changed to a combined in the first impulse. Here, I'm not only talking of choosing the action type but also of allocating the activities: a rebase in North Africa can be more important than a ground strike in Ukraine but if you just blindly use the air actions as long as they are available, it may never be done.
Now you can't all base on your own plans, you must time to time react to the enemy's so there should be a provision for unexpected change of plans. And as I'm writing this, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to chose the action types "on the fly" at each impulse. Less efficiency but better ability to adapt to the circumstances. An ideal AI would have both : a country with the initiative, such as Germany 40, would use the "pre-planned method" while the same Germany in 1944 is often only able to react to the Allies last move.

Your points are all valid but they would be easier to understand if they were separated and given more structure. So, I have reformatted them below. I do this to help communication. If I made any mistakes and changed your meaning, I apologize and you should let me know.

SJH paraphrase:
---------------------
DECISION MAKER: Joint Chiefs of Staff (Japan)
PROBLEM: Choosing Action Type
CHOICES: Land, Air, Naval, Combined, Pass
INFORMATION NEEDED: year/month/impulse, weather, probability of end of turn in 1, 2, 3, ... impulses, risk of suffering defeat in an opponent's land attack during opponent's next impulse - if Naval Air, or Pass Action taken (no land moves/attacks allocated) / if Combined Action is taken (limited #) / if Land Action is taken (unlimited number), importance of South China Front

---
DECISION MAKER: Joint Chiefs of Staff (all countries)
PROBLEM: Choosing Action Type
CHOICES: Land, Air, Naval, Combined, Pass
INFORMATION NEEDED: from each Field Marshall: importance of getting 1, 2, 3, .. rebases / land moves / land attacks / air missions

---
At the beginning of each turn the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) would gather information from the Field Marshalls and use it to plan the Action Types to be chosen on the 1st, 2nd, ... impulses. This plan would be reexamined each impulse and revised if necessary.
-----------------------

SJH comments:
I would measure the importance of a front in absolute terms and then let the JCS compare them to get a relative importance. The absolute importance of each front would be set by the Grand Strategist.

The field Marshalls should also be accessing and reporting to the JCS on attack opportunities (ripe fruit to be picked). Indeed, the Admiralty and Air Marshall should also be reporting risks from enemy actions and opportunities for attacks / moves.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to rotor911)
Post #: 17
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 8/1/2005 9:38:01 PM   
rotor911

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline 		DECISION MAKER: Admiralty (any country)
PROBLEM: Choosing Task Force composition
CHOICES: Which ships to affect to a given mission
INFORMATION NEEDED: nature of the mission (port attack, raiding,..), target seazone or port, list of assets that the enemy can use against the task force : land based aviation/carriers/scs/submarines, weather, importance of the mission, list of ships not already selected for another task, optionally starting harbour, in other cases, the JCS could leave the admiralty the choice between, say, Gibraltar and Alexandria to select the best suited ships for the mission.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 18
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 8/1/2005 10:11:49 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rotor
DECISION MAKER: Admiralty (any country)
PROBLEM: Choosing Task Force composition
CHOICES: Which ships to affect to a given mission
INFORMATION NEEDED: nature of the mission (port attack, raiding,..), target seazone or port, list of assets that the enemy can use against the task force : land based aviation/carriers/scs/submarines, weather, importance of the mission, list of ships not already selected for another task, optionally starting harbour, in other cases, the JCS could leave the admiralty the choice between, say, Gibraltar and Alexandria to select the best suited ships for the mission.

Ok.

Now, you could take one of the missions (say, port attack) and figure out the criteria for setting the #of planes, air-to-sea factors, and # of fighters to send. Because the problem was task force composition, I assume we are not automatically sending everyone. How do we use the information to make the decision?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to rotor911)
Post #: 19
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 8/1/2005 10:16:15 PM   
rotor911

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline 		DECISION MAKER: Field Marshalls (any country)
a case can be made for letting the JCS deciding globally of the necessary reorganizations
PROBLEM: Reorganize
CHOICES: Which units to reorganize with wich hq
INFORMATION NEEDED: expected remaining length of the turn, expected weather (reorg planes of not), which units could effectively be reorganized, what are we going to do in the coming impulses : advancing, retreating, heavy fighting.., do we expect a situation where we would need the hq special abilities (emergency supply & offensive/defensive support irc), would inverting the hq put it in danger (case of retreat)..
imho it will be the toughest part to do right. Grand strategy looks easy in comparison. But maybe it's just me...

(in reply to rotor911)
Post #: 20
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 8/1/2005 11:32:53 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rotor
DECISION MAKER: Field Marshalls (any country)
a case can be made for letting the JCS deciding globally of the necessary reorganizations
PROBLEM: Reorganize
CHOICES: Which units to reorganize with wich hq
INFORMATION NEEDED: expected remaining length of the turn, expected weather (reorg planes of not), which units could effectively be reorganized, what are we going to do in the coming impulses : advancing, retreating, heavy fighting.., do we expect a situation where we would need the hq special abilities (emergency supply & offensive/defensive support irc), would inverting the hq put it in danger (case of retreat)..
imho it will be the toughest part to do right. Grand strategy looks easy in comparison. But maybe it's just me...

I do not think figuring out reorganizations will be that hard.

First of all there are only a few unit types that can reorganize units (HQ, ATR, TRS). So, the question becomes "should this HQ/ATR/TRS reorganize units now?" Rather than look at all of the HQs at the same time, go through them sequentially. This means that even the Germans in the thick of Barbarossa only have 3 or 4 binary (yes/no) decisions to make.

There will almost always be units that could be reorganized so the criteria have to trade off: (1) the benefit of turning units face up versus (2) saving the 'reorganizer' for other duties or reorganizing during a future impulse.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to rotor911)
Post #: 21
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 8/2/2005 12:21:21 AM   
rotor911

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Now, you could take one of the missions (say, port attack) and figure out the criteria for setting the #of planes, air-to-sea factors, and # of fighters to send.

ok. Please forgive me for the long post but I couldn't come with something shorter. Also it's a first try so of course it can be improved.
First some assumptions :
-weather is good else we don't bother with a port attack -> we don't count enemy scs and submarines since our carriers should always be able to choose air to sea combat (unless heavily surprised..)
-we assume that if friendly land based aviation was in range of the target we wouldn't risk our carriers so they're out of the picture.
- composing a TF is as much a feasibility study as an actual preparation : so if the Admiralty estimates that it lacks the necessary resources, it just aborts the procedure, in effect saying no to the JCS.
so
- first calculate the safest path (less enemy LBA & patrolling fleet) unless the mission is critical, then choose the shortest one (more ships to bring)
- if the target is a minor port, select only ships which can reach the 3 box of the selected sea zone, the 5 box if the target is a major port (2 & 4 respectively if the mission is critical)
- calculate how many air-to-sea factors you need to cause at least 1 X given the number of enemy ships in the target port : for instance, if there are 6 ships in the port, you need at least 5 air-to-sea factors
- select enough carriers to have these factors available. If you haven’t them, abort now.
- add the anti-aircraft factors of the enemy ships in the target port and those of the uninverted anti-aircraft land units in the hex (or adjacent hexes irc). Calculate the average result against the number of bombers we selected so far (we’ll need a table here to spare us recalculating each time the value of 1/3 or –2/5).
- For each 5 points of damage, add 1 carrier with air-to-sea factors. . If you haven’t them, abort now
- Add-up all possible intercepting or cap fighters air-to-air factors. Add enough carriers with air-to-air factors to at least achieve parity. . If you haven’t them, abort now
- Add up the maximum number of land-based enemy planes which could attack the TF at a time : add enough cruisers, light cruisers and, if you have many or if the mission is critical, battleships, to boost the TF anti-aircraft value of the TF so it gives at least 1/1 or better against such a number. . If you haven’t them, abort now
- Estimate the worst enemy carrier TF which could intercept you (if playing with hidden task forces, it could be tricky..) : add carriers until you have at least the parity in number of carriers. . If you haven’t them, abort now
- Now sum the build value of all the ships which were selected : if the total is greater than the importance of the mission (which would then be the maximum ships build points which the JCS would accept to lose in the affair) , then abort.

(in reply to rotor911)
Post #: 22
Italian Timing for DOW v.02 - 8/2/2005 1:34:24 AM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		DECISION MAKER: Grand Strategist for Italy.

PROBLEM: When to make a declaration of war and should it be against the Allies or a neutral?

CHOICES:
  • a fixed date (eg Mar/Apr 1940) OR
  • after a specific event (eg Surrender of France) OR
  • on identifying an opportunity (eg uncommitted British&French Fleet in Med < 80% of Italian fleet attack factors)
  • Attack Allies
  • Attack Neutral (Yugoslavia / Greece / Turkey / Spain)

INFORMATION NEEDED:
  • Quantification of what surplus Italian naval/land/air forces “X Force” are available for invading other countries.
  • Allied Land: Quantification of what Allied air/land forces (France in Alps and British in Egypt) are available to counterattack Italy.
  • Allied Fleet: Quantification of what Allied naval forces are available to prevent our naval missions in the Med.
  • Political effects of our DOW

CRITERIA:
  • Game start selection of a particular strategy (east to Suez / west to Gibraltar / attack Spain / ???) which weights other factors
  • Political events (Fall of Poland completed / has Germany or Allies DOW or conquered low countries implying French forces tied to defensive role and unable to spare a Naval action in the Med)
  • Casualties (Does French/British land & air casualties outnumber German casualties by 2:1 in unit count?)
  • French Land: How many French units are available for combat against Italy ie not garrisoning Maginot Line?
  • British Land: Is Malta / Cyprus / Egypt / Gibraltar vulnerable to invasion by X Force with > 50% chance of success?
  • Generic Land: Are we vulnerable to an enemy counterattack eg Egypt => Libya?
  • British Fleet: Does British fleet surface combat factors in Med ports inc. Gibraltar > 80% of X Force surface combat factors?
  • Other Land: Is X Force value > 150% of corresponding Yugoslavia / Greece / Spain / Turkey forces (not total forces – just the forces free to counterattack our invasion)?
  • Political: Will delaying the DOW produce a significant US entry effect - eg DOW in 1941 instead of 1940



Feedback please, before I start working on v.03



_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to rotor911)
Post #: 23
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 8/2/2005 1:38:57 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		Let me paraphrase your criteria into a structure that the AI could use. Again, if I make mistakes I apologize and you should let me know.
-------------
DECISION MAKER: Admiralty
PROBLEM: Choosing task force (TF) for a port attack
CHOICES: Which ships to give the mission [list all ships that could participate and each is a yes/no chioce]
INFORMATION NEEDED: land based aviation and carriers that the enemy can use against the task force, weather, importance of the mission, list of ships still available, optionally starting harbour[??]
CRITERIA
(1) If weather is not good, then no port attack.
(2) If land based NavAir available, then use them instead of sending carriers. This means no port attack.
(3) If insufficient [?] resources available, then no port attack.
(4) Choose sea box for attack depending on major or minor port and whether the mission is critical. Given the sea box, choose the best path to get there, avoiding the enemy if possible. If enemy is likely to be encountered, increase the TF to cope with the naval combat). Evaluate air-to-sea factors that can make the sea box; if too few, then no port attack.
(5) Estimate how many carriers will get through after air-to-air combat. If too few, no port attack.
(6) Calculate expected losses due to anti-air attack. If too few air-to-sea factors are going to get through, no port attack.
(7) Estimate enemy attack on TF next impulse and add naval units (Cruisers, Light Cruisers, and/or Battleships) for defense. We need to defend against both air and surface atacks. Compare expected losses (in buld points) inflicted on enemy versus expected losses we will take. If ratio (or magnitude of difference) exceeds what is justified by mission criticality, then no port attack.
-----------------

Each numbered step of the criteria is a pass/fail. If any step is fail, then there is no port attack and we don't need the rest of the steps. I think of these steps as rules where sometimes the program has to run a calculation or procedure before it can evaluate the rule. Rules are usually written as: "If ..., Then ...".

I changed the order of air-to-air and anti-air combat from what you gave (steps 5 and 6).
I do not know what you mean by "starting harbour".
I do not know how you measure 'insufficient' in step 3.

This is a good start on defining task forces for port attacks. It would appear that no one should ever do port attacks!

What we will most likely do is make a lot of the pass/fail decisions probabilities so that sometimes the AI takes risks. Avoiding combat unless things are just right makes the AI too inactive and predictable. It then becomes easy to defeat the AI by simply putting up a good defense (deterents) everywhere and concentrating any forces left over as a hammer to beat on the weakest part of the AI's position.


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to rotor911)
Post #: 24
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 8/2/2005 10:33:59 AM   
rotor911

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I do not know what you mean by "starting harbour".
I do not know how you measure 'insufficient' in step 3.

"starting harbour" : the port where will be composed the TF. Composing several TF in several ports and assigning them a meeting point is maybe uselessly complicated (and consumes several naval moves). Generally, the navies are concentrated in some major ports and it's not a problem.
"insufficient" : less than the calculated number of air-to-sea factors (or ships or..) required to do the task. Or than a percentage of the calculated number, the said percentage depending of the importance of the task.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 25
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 8/2/2005 11:16:51 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rotor
"starting harbour" : the port where will be composed the TF. Composing several TF in several ports and assigning them a meeting point is maybe uselessly complicated (and consumes several naval moves). Generally, the navies are concentrated in some major ports and it's not a problem.

"insufficient" : less than the calculated number of air-to-sea factors (or ships or..) required to do the task. Or than a percentage of the calculated number, the said percentage depending of the importance of the task.

Ok.

Then there should be something about whether the TF is all starting in the same place or starting in different places and joining up at the destiation.

Insufficient has the same meaning as in the later steps: enough air power to achieve the desired results.
-------------------
As you probably are beginning to see, I break everything into little pieces and then try to define each piece as precisely as possible. Eventually, the program is going to have to 'look' at the units and the map and generate a number for each little piece. The AI will then use the numbers in the 'If' portion of a rule to decide whether to go on to the 'Then' portion or not.

There will be small procedures for combining the numbers and boolean logic as well (If A and B but Not C, Then ...). In order for this to work, I have to be able to translate the thought processes we use when we play the game into the rules, numbers, and boolean logic for the AI. Actually, I view this as the most interesting part of the project. Not necessarily the most important, just the most interesting.

There are many things about developing MWIF that are important, and most are interesting. Regretably, many tasks are tedious and require a lot of attention to make sure all the details are done perfectly. I work on the last as long as I can, but once I lose my sharpness, I skip to things that are a little less demanding.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to rotor911)
Post #: 26
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 8/2/2005 4:37:51 PM   
c92nichj


Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
It would appear that no one should ever do port attacks!


Which is not that bad rule of thumb, Port Attacks are usually not that effective, escpecially since the port attack phase comes before naval movement which means that the opponent have the chance to leave the port before he is attacked. Usually it effectiveness is best during a suprise impulse.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 27
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 8/3/2005 5:52:43 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline 		Hello Steve. I'm very happy with the recent progress and best of luck.

If you haven't already, contact Incy man. There was an old thread on this and he was talking about 15-20 (from memory) intelligent agents co-operating to form the AI and the cat sounded like a real gun.

I've played a fair bit of WiF and other wargames and I'm finishing my computer science degree this semester with 2 years of AI. My instincts tell me that the AI will have to be as flexible as possible and that is probably not best attained by a rule heavy approach.

I've got some ideas if you're interested.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 28
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 8/3/2005 6:03:51 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Hello Steve. I'm very happy with the recent progress and best of luck.

If you haven't already, contact Incy man. There was an old thread on this and he was talking about 15-20 (from memory) intelligent agents co-operating to form the AI and the cat sounded like a real gun.

I've played a fair bit of WiF and other wargames and I'm finishing my computer science degree this semester with 2 years of AI. My instincts tell me that the AI will have to be as flexible as possible and that is probably not best attained by a rule heavy approach.

I've got some ideas if you're interested.

Cheers, Neilster


I am. Could you send me (Steve@PatternDiscovery.us) your email address?


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 29
RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - 8/3/2005 6:37:10 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline 		Done

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> AI Opponent Discussion >> Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.031