|
Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (8/1/2005 6:22:40 PM)
|
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.
|
|
|
|
