AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy

[brian brian]

I can't remember, but will the AI play using fractional odds? With fractional odds, the value of flying in a 1 ground support point fighter-bomber on defense is only 1 point of combat factors. Without fractionals, a 1 point plane can change odds levels completely and that air mission is far more valuable. Playing with fractionals, more air is used for ground strikes than for ground support.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I can't remember, but will the AI play using fractional odds? With fractional odds, the value of flying in a 1 ground support point fighter-bomber on defense is only 1 point of combat factors. Without fractionals, a 1 point plane can change odds levels completely and that air mission is far more valuable. Playing with fractionals, more air is used for ground strikes than for ground support.

It's an optional rule, so the AIO will play whatever the player selects. The AIO looks at probabilities of combat outcomes, and there is no branching logic related to optional rules in use. The calculations for results check for optional rules, just as during game play, but the AIO simply looks at what is likely to happen (probable outcomes).

[Mitchellvitch]

One other possibility for the AI to consider when flying air missions (I don't think it has been mentioned...):

Fly two air missions into areas with only one FTR providing cover, especially useful for strategic bombing, or a combination of strategic bombing and port attack.

[Sewerlobster]

Some threads are gems because of their topics, but for me this one transcends because it just fills me with the competetive desire to play this game. Deciding when to go for objectives and when to attack units is at the heart of the strategic process.
 
I guess the question is: Will the AI (as say the Axis) be able to handle an objective oriented nation, say Japan, who needs resources; while being able to have the Russian steppe brawl that Germany can end up in?
 
As a non-programmer I'd also love a layman's thread on how AI works in a wargame beyond assigning values to hexes. <But certainly not at the cost of delaying our beloved programmers from finishing WiF [&o]>
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[gregtherobot]

Hi there
this is my first post on this forum. Gotta say: I greatly
appreciate your effort on making the greatest strategy game I know playable on
a computer. Thanks for that!

I want to try and chip in with my thoughts about the AI. I read the forum
and I am impressed with the combined WIF expertise shown here. But I don't
really know by now how you constructed the AI in general terms - that kinda
hinders me to give (maybe stupid) advice how the AI could work. If it is
not too time consuming for you, would you be able to give a short description?
Questions I have would be (no need to answer all of them, just for you to
know what information I am missing):

1) What is the nature of the interaction between the different DM?
2) How is grand strategy implemented - say how does the german AI decide
when to build a hydrogenation plant? I realize that there are different
threads for each major power AI. Does this imply that you programmed (may be
many) fixed grand strategies from which to choose or between which to change?
3) What is the connection between the tactical decision or tactical
developments and the strategy?

Sorry for posting such open questions - to which the answers could be
dozens of pages - but I tried to come up with simple examples (say a list of
Variables influencing the decision between Blitz and assault table) which you
could then explain to me.... But...hm... I failed / ran out of time. Very
complex and not really doable without a layout of the total AI. I thought:
Better ask then!

Different approach: Do you have any document which states (in a
qualitative manner) which processes, interdependencies, decision branches etc. you
have already implemented/taken into account? That would allow me to figure
out stuff that you haven't thought of yet - not implying that you missed
something, but... you know what I mean.

Bye the way, if I am off topic with this post tell me - I can take it.


Cheers

Bot

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: gregtherobot

Hi there
this is my first post on this forum. Gotta say: I greatly
appreciate your effort on making the greatest strategy game I know playable on
a computer. Thanks for that!

I want to try and chip in with my thoughts about the AI. I read the forum
and I am impressed with the combined WIF expertise shown here. But I don't
really know by now how you constructed the AI in general terms - that kinda
hinders me to give (maybe stupid) advice how the AI could work. If it is
not too time consuming for you, would you be able to give a short description?
Questions I have would be (no need to answer all of them, just for you to
know what information I am missing):

1) What is the nature of the interaction between the different DM?
2) How is grand strategy implemented - say how does the german AI decide
when to build a hydrogenation plant? I realize that there are different
threads for each major power AI. Does this imply that you programmed (may be
many) fixed grand strategies from which to choose or between which to change?
3) What is the connection between the tactical decision or tactical
developments and the strategy?

Sorry for posting such open questions - to which the answers could be
dozens of pages - but I tried to come up with simple examples (say a list of
Variables influencing the decision between Blitz and assault table) which you
could then explain to me.... But...hm... I failed / ran out of time. Very
complex and not really doable without a layout of the total AI. I thought:
Better ask then!

Different approach: Do you have any document which states (in a
qualitative manner) which processes, interdependencies, decision branches etc. you
have already implemented/taken into account? That would allow me to figure
out stuff that you haven't thought of yet - not implying that you missed
something, but... you know what I mean.

Bye the way, if I am off topic with this post tell me - I can take it.


Cheers

Bot

Welcome.

Here is a portion of the AI Opponent design document. CVs are a metric for measuring the worth of a unit. If this doesn't answer all your questions let me know which ones it doesn't.
===========
.
.
.
.
3.1 Overview and Purpose
There are 8 distinct Decision Makers (DMs) but conceptually they are the same. Each DM has a jurisdiction either by role and/or geography, a superior (except for the Grand Strategist) to whom they report, and subordinates (except for units) for whom they set missions. At the lowest level are the units. Each DM evaluates all possible goals in its rule sets and prioritizes them based on expected outcomes. He then defines missions for his subordinates. Each DM has a memory of recent inputs and outputs to prevent cycling amongst different plans. DMs are somewhat generic with the capacity to be given personality and national characteristics using a ‘profile of weights’.

DMs assess the current game position within their defined area of interest and report that assessment to their superiors. In doing so, DMs orient their analysis by filtering observations based on their current objectives. When making decisions, DMs run through their list of rule sets and evaluate the associated CV risk and reward for each rule set in light of the current objectives. The chosen rule set determines the DM’s immediate goal(s). Goals are decomposed into a list of subordinate goals whenever possible. Goals which cannot be decomposed are processed until they are complete or have failed.

3.2 Responsibilities
3.2.1 Grand Strategist
The primary purpose of the Grand Strategist (GS) is to choose/design a long range strategic plan and keep the other decision makers focused on tasks that implement that plan. At the beginning of every turn, the GS reviews and updates his master plan. The GS authorizes all US entry choices and actions, though the subordinate DMs may decide some of the finer details. For example, the GS may decide to risk a US entry choice or action with a 50% chance of changing the US entry status. Subordinate DMs would decide which specific US entry choice or action to take. Because of its critical importance when looking many turns ahead, the GS decides on the initiative choices: which side goes first and whether to reroll.

More mundane decisions that are the responsibility of the GS are placing markers: in the US entry pool, offensive and defensive markers on the borders of neutrality pact countries, and as USSR reserve build points. The GS also chooses a new home country when, as a major power, his home country is conquered (e.g., France), and makes all decisions relating to the optional rules on intelligence. One final task the GS decides is factory destruction.

The GS has no superior and his direct subordinates are the Manufacturing Council, the Commander in Chief, and Foreign Liaison.

3.2.2 Manufacturing Council
The Manufacturing Council (MC) is primarily concerned with which units should be built. To that end, the MC monitors the factories, resources, convoys, and rail lines that culminate in production points and ultimately, build points. Working from the priorities set by the Grand Strategist and the requests the MC receives from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the MC generates a master production plan. This production plan runs from the current turn through to the end of the game. The production plan estimates the available build points, the requested unit types, the units in the force pool, and gearing limits. From this source data, the MC decides which units to build for every turn remaining in the game. Obviously, the master production plan is revised each turn based on new estimates.

The MC advises the GS on US entry options related to production. The MC controls the force pools by deciding which units to scrap and whether to build units ahead. Moving, creating, and repairing factories are decisions made by the MC.

Determining routes for resources from their source hex to a factory is also handled by the MC. The MC places requirements upon the Admiralty, the Air Marshal, and the Field Marshals, respectively, to protect against attacks on convoys, strategic bombing, and land attacks whose purpose is to cut rail lines. The defense of factories and resources is built into the CV value of their hexes and therefore requires no special orders from the MC.

The Manufacturing Council has no direct subordinates and reports to the Grand Strategist.

3.2.3 Commander in Chief
The Commander in Chief (CC) is responsible for deciding when and on whom to declare war, which minor countries to align, whether to surrender, liberation details, the spoils of war, neutrality pacts, and proposing peace. The CC decides who controls minor countries, choices regarding Vichy France, Soviet border claims, whether to create the Ukraine, and Germany’s political stance in the Balkans. Most of these decisions require at least guiding principles and sometimes specific directions from the Grand Strategist, with the CC primarily concerned with timing and other minor aspects of these decisions.

One of the critical responsibilities of the CC is monitoring the balance of power on borders where neutrality pacts exist, with an eye on whether to create or break those pacts. This requires close coordination with the Grand Strategist, who decides placement of offensive and defensive markers on those borders.

The CC takes the strategic goals set by the Grand Strategist and passes them through the prism of the existing and future states of war between nations. The results are sent to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as tasks with more immediacy than the goals set by the GS.

Because the CC is focused on current and future enemies, he evaluates and recommends US entry options and actions regarding Japan and the Americas to the GS. The Commander in Chief reports to the Grand Strategist and has the Joint Chiefs of Staff as its sole subordinate.

3.2.4 Foreign Liaison
The Foreign Liaison (FL) is charged with the responsibility of coordinating with allies on: (1) the strategic allocation of resources, and (2) operational and tactical deployment of units in the field. One way of thinking about the separation of powers between the Commander in Chief and the Foreign Liaison is the CC deals with countries that are enemies and the FL deals with those that are allies.

Lend lease and trade agreements are the purview of the FL. Making sure that necessary actions are accomplished but not performed redundantly are also part of the FL’s job. Mostly, the Foreign Liaisons of two friendly counties act as the linkage between their respective Admiralties, Air Marshals, and Field Marshals. This frequently comes up for joining naval forces, protecting convoys, transporting units and resources, and working side by side along a common front line. Joint air operations are another area that requires the FL’s gentle touch.

Arguably the most important task the FL performs is making recommendations to the Grand Strategist about US entry choices concerning: China, the Commonwealth and France, Atlantic convoys, and the USSR. These recommendations require the FL to assess how well the war is going for all current and potentially future combatants. Since those assessments cover the entire globe, all units of all branches of service, all national production capacities, and the territorial holdings of every major power, this is both an enormous and very detailed task. It is essential information for the Grand Strategist when reviewing and choosing the grand strategic plan.

The Foreign Liaison has no direct subordinates and reports to the Grand Strategist.

3.2.5 Joint Chiefs of Staff
First on the list of tasks for the Joints Chiefs of Staff (JCS) is deciding which action to take each impulse. This requires estimating the number of impulses in the turn and heeding the requests from the Admiralty, the Air Marshal, and the Field Marshals. The JCS handles force deployments: placing reinforcements, calling out the reserves, and replacing units with Siberians, heavy weapons units, and Guard Banner Armies. Along these same lines, the JCS allocates rail moves for land and air units and deploys supply depots, supply units, oil points, and naval supply units. One additional strategic task for the JCS is to decide on strategic bombing missions.

At the intersection between operational and tactical decision making, the JCS identifies attack opportunities and allocates limited activities (e.g., air missions) among its subordinates. Another critical decision the JCS makes is the use of offensive chits. This decision has to be approved by the Grand Strategist, which bypasses the normal chain of command. At the most tactical level, the JCS coordinates forces for invasions.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff report to the Commander in Chief and have as subordinates the Admiralty, the Air Marshal, and the Field Marshals.

3.2.6 Admiralty
The Admiralty (AD) is responsible for almost all aspect of naval units throughout the globe. Most of his directives are received from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Requests for assistance come from the Manufacturing Council, to create and protect convoys, and the Air Marshal and Field Marshals, to transport units and keep them in supply. Within these broad outlines of what to do, the Admiralty has great latitude in the deployment of expensive naval resources to accomplish both offensive and defensive objectives operationally and tactically.

Reporting to Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Admiralty has no direct subordinates other than individual units.

3.2.7 Air Marshal
The Air Marshal (AM) is responsible for all the air units throughout the globe. Most of his directives originate with the JCS and he serves as a central clearing house for allocating air units. There are multiple demands for air units coming from the Admiralty, the Field Marshals, and even the JCS (for strategic bombers). For all air operations the AM decides on the need for fighter protection and allocates them to individual missions. Like the Admiralty, the AM has to address both offensive and defensive needs and make operational and tactical decisions.

Reporting to Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Air Marshal has no direct subordinates other than units.

3.2.8 Field Marshals
Field Marshals have more tasks than any other decision maker. For that reason, multiple FMs frequently exist for each major power so an FM can focus on one theater of operations. Within his assigned theater of operations, the FM has broad latitude on how to use his forces operationally and tactically, offensively and defensively. It is the responsibility of the FM to keep his units in supply and reorganized at the end of each turn.

All of the tactical decisions about making land attacks and defending against same are made by FMs. To them falls the difficult task of making trade offs between preserving their units and occupying territory. Though given direction from the JCS, each FM decides tactical decisions based primarily on CV values for units and hexes.

At times an FM needs to be added or removed. Those decisions are made by the JCS.

Reporting to Joint Chiefs of Staff, each Field Marshal (FM) has no direct subordinates other than units.

3.2.8.1 German Field Marshals
In September of 1939 Germany has 1 Field Marshal (FM West). When Germany goes to war with the USSR, it adds a second Field Marshal (FM Russia). The second FM commands all units oriented towards the USSR. The first remains in command of all German land forces facing west. A third German FM (FM Med) might be created for operations in the Mediterranean (e.g., North Africa).

3.2.8.2 Italian Field Marshals
Italy has only 1 FM (FM Italy) for the entire war and his domain is the Mediterranean (including France, if a state of war exists with France)

3.2.8.3 Japanese Field Marshals
Japan has 1 Field Marshal (FM Asia) that handles both China and the USSR. When Japan goes to war with the Commonwealth or the US, it adds a second FM (FM Pacific). The second FM handles all land units that are not in China, Manchuria, and the USSR. Essentially, there is one FM for mainland Asia and a second for land masses in the Pacific Ocean. A third (FM China & FM USSR) or even fourth FM (FM India) may be created if (1) the war in the USSR goes so well that it becomes quite distinct from China, or (2) progress through southeast Asia leads to invasions in India or elsewhere from the Indian Ocean.

3.2.8.4 USSR Field Marshals
The USSR has 2 Field Marshals: one in the Pacific (FM Japan) and the other in Europe (FM Germany). A third FM (FM Middle East) may be created for attacking south into Iran, Iraq, and Turkey, but even that FM will probably only have a short tenure.

3.2.8.5 French Field Marshals
France has 1 Field Marshal (FM France).

3.2.8.6 Chinese Field Marshals
China has 2 Field Marshals: one for Nationalist China (FM Nationalist) and one for Communist China (FM Communist). Both report to the Chinese AIO though the communist FM must coordinate closely with the USSR FM Japan.

3.2.8.7 Commonwealth Field Marshals
The Commonwealth has 2 Field Marshals in 1939: one for Western Europe (FM Europe), including Scandinavia, and one for the Mediterranean and Africa (FM Africa). When the Commonwealth goes to war with Japan, a third FM is added for the Pacific (FM Japan). A fourth may eventually be necessary for India and points east (FM SE Asia).

3.2.8.8 US Field Marshals
The US has 2 Field Marshals: one for the Pacific (FM Pacific) and one for Europe (FM Europe). A third may be added (FM Med) to handle the Mediterranean separately from the rest of Europe.

3.3 Friendly Field Marshals Cooperation
When the geographical domains of friendly FMs overlap, they have to decide exactly where the line of separation occurs so the domains abut instead of overlap. This is especially true for France and CW in Europe and later, the US and CW. It is also true for the two Chinese FMs. This communication goes through the Foreign Liaison so that a long view is maintained of the relationship. For example, though the French and Commonwealth Field Marshals might want a certain deployment for tactical or operational reasons, it is crucial that the potential fall of France not strand the Commonwealth land units on the continent.

3.4 Task List
Tasks are grouped by DM and by strategic versus operational versus tactical. They are also classified by level of difficulty using a scale from 1 (easiest) to 5 (hardest). Task numbers in blue have written descriptions of how they are to be accomplished. If the task number is in bold, then it is closely associated with the major power’s strategic plan. Lastly, tasks are placed in one of the 6 categories described below.

(1) Structural (St) tasks lay the foundation for performing other tasks.
(2) Calculation (Ca) tasks perform a calculation using the current or a hypothetical situation. This usually involves combat tables or other fine grain details of the game.
(3) Responsive (Re) tasks answer direct requests from MWIF for a specific decision.
(4) Initiative (In) tasks are proactive in making something happen in the game. They are totally voluntary and can be taken whenever the AIO deems appropriate (and the rules of the game permit).
(5) Preparation (Pr) tasks prepare for specific, future, initiative tasks.
(6) Coordination (Co) tasks coordinate with other major powers on the same side or within the group of direct reports to the JCS.

As an example of the differences in the categories, here are 3 related tasks for the Commander in Chief:
#3.5 “Make USSR border claims”, is an initiative task, for the USSR player can choose it whenever he likes.
#3.6, “Respond to a USSR border claim”, is a responsive task, for the German player must answer the question immediately before the game can continue.
#3.7 “Make alignment decisions concerning the Balkans”, is a structural task, for it defines how the AIO wants to align the various countries in the Balkans.
.
.
.
.

[gregtherobot]

Thank you very much for the instant reply. Looks like a very professional and sound layout to me, meaning I did not find any issues which are not covered by responsibilities. But, you never know...[;)]
I would like to challange it by examples / pick out some points if you don't mind (and if it is of any use to you), because any other way seems - given the advanced state of development - futile.

1) What is the setting that makes the AI realize that a target, may it be tactical or strategic in nature - is not achievable any more?
2) The resource routing is done by the MC - what is the mechanism of balancing this with the field marshal requirements?
3) Do I understand right: Algning minors is not part of the grand strategy? Is it then possible to have a, say, elaborate Balkans strategy for Germany/Italy in place?


4) Another possibility would be to go into more detail, for instance spelling out all the interdependencies for one example, say the decision what action type to choose. We could then discuss wether all relevant issues are taken into account when such a decision is made.

Example would be:
Urgency/value of strategic moves - fullfill strategic objective (take gibraltar, conquer china etc.), prevent strategic move by oponent, prepare future strategic move
urgency/value of tactical moves - choose good "valued" tactical move (exploit breakthrough, reach objective, exploit double turn in babarossa, move subs on bad weather roll, reinforce air power by rebase moves, attack naval force without sufficient air cover),
prevent good value strategic moves from oponent - (land move to prevent invasion, capture factory, resource etc.)
prevent good value tactical moves from oponent - ...
take future situation/possibilities into account
.
.

Anyway, simply stop me if I am running in the wrong direction.

cheers

greg

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: gregtherobot

Thank you very much for the instant reply. Looks like a very professional and sound layout to me, meaning I did not find any issues which are not covered by responsibilities. But, you never know...[;)]
I would like to challange it by examples / pick out some points if you don't mind (and if it is of any use to you), because any other way seems - given the advanced state of development - futile.

1) What is the setting that makes the AI realize that a target, may it be tactical or strategic in nature - is not achievable any more?
2) The resource routing is done by the MC - what is the mechanism of balancing this with the field marshal requirements?
3) Do I understand right: Algning minors is not part of the grand strategy? Is it then possible to have a, say, elaborate Balkans strategy for Germany/Italy in place?


4) Another possibility would be to go into more detail, for instance spelling out all the interdependencies for one example, say the decision what action type to choose. We could then discuss wether all relevant issues are taken into account when such a decision is made.

Example would be:
Urgency/value of strategic moves - fullfill strategic objective (take gibraltar, conquer china etc.), prevent strategic move by oponent, prepare future strategic move
urgency/value of tactical moves - choose good "valued" tactical move (exploit breakthrough, reach objective, exploit double turn in babarossa, move subs on bad weather roll, reinforce air power by rebase moves, attack naval force without sufficient air cover),
prevent good value strategic moves from oponent - (land move to prevent invasion, capture factory, resource etc.)
prevent good value tactical moves from oponent - ...
take future situation/possibilities into account
.
.

Anyway, simply stop me if I am running in the wrong direction.

cheers

greg

Strategic, operational, and tactical evaluations are done regualrly - when needed.
The AIO's strategic position is based on strength of arms world-wide: us versus them. That lets the AIO know whether it should be agressive or defensive.
Operational decisions are based the strength of forces in the theater of operations - with definition of same being somewhat flexible over time (e.g., Japanese holdings in the Pacific, the German-USSR front).
Tactical is very local: 1 center hex and the hexes within a radius of 4-6 from there (within land movement range). That's different ofr air operations and naval operations obviously.

I haven't thought about the trade-off between routing resources to factories versus keeping overseas units in supply. It seems like something the MC and JCS should resolve.

Aligning minors is part of the strategic plan. That includes decisions about the Balkans.

CVs pretty much drive everything. The strategic plan says: do this, do not do that. But after those boundaries are set, it is the value of the CVs which indicate which way to go. I collapse numbers with decimal precision into ratings of: Excellent/Very Good/Good/Fair/Poor/Awful. That avoids having 25.3 being always better than 25.1. If there are 'equal' ratings, then random numbers decide. Random numbers can be used even when ratings are not equal, but that depends on the script for the decision.
=============
How involved would you like to get in this?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: gregtherobot

Thank you very much for the instant reply. Looks like a very professional and sound layout to me, meaning I did not find any issues which are not covered by responsibilities. But, you never know...[;)]
I would like to challange it by examples / pick out some points if you don't mind (and if it is of any use to you), because any other way seems - given the advanced state of development - futile.

1) What is the setting that makes the AI realize that a target, may it be tactical or strategic in nature - is not achievable any more?
2) The resource routing is done by the MC - what is the mechanism of balancing this with the field marshal requirements?
3) Do I understand right: Algning minors is not part of the grand strategy? Is it then possible to have a, say, elaborate Balkans strategy for Germany/Italy in place?


4) Another possibility would be to go into more detail, for instance spelling out all the interdependencies for one example, say the decision what action type to choose. We could then discuss wether all relevant issues are taken into account when such a decision is made.

Example would be:
Urgency/value of strategic moves - fullfill strategic objective (take gibraltar, conquer china etc.), prevent strategic move by oponent, prepare future strategic move
urgency/value of tactical moves - choose good "valued" tactical move (exploit breakthrough, reach objective, exploit double turn in babarossa, move subs on bad weather roll, reinforce air power by rebase moves, attack naval force without sufficient air cover),
prevent good value strategic moves from oponent - (land move to prevent invasion, capture factory, resource etc.)
prevent good value tactical moves from oponent - ...
take future situation/possibilities into account
.
.

Anyway, simply stop me if I am running in the wrong direction.

cheers

greg

I wrote a long reply but it was destroyed by the computer gods.[:@]

1 - Balance of power at 3 levels: strategic, operational, tactical.
2 - I haven't thought about it. Probably a joint decision by the MC and JCS.
3 - Part of strategic plan.
4 - Within the boundaries of the strategic plan, CVs drive pretty much everything. Decimal numbers are collapsed to Excellent/Very Good/Good/Fair/Poor/Awful. After collapsing ties are resolved using random numbers.

How involved would you like to get in this?

[gregtherobot]

well,

sort of "a bit" - i have some serious time constraints in my real life [:(]. I would be happy to assist in certain specific questions, e.g. the example of choosing the action type. checking options and choices - if everything is covered, sort of playing the bad guy: what if this, what if that etc.

(kind of feels like letting you down on my 3rd post [&:] - not a good start!)

you have any examples of what could be in question?

greets

greg the robot

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: gregtherobot

well,

sort of "a bit" - i have some serious time constraints in my real life [:(]. I would be happy to assist in certain specific questions, e.g. the example of choosing the action type. checking options and choices - if everything is covered, sort of playing the bad guy: what if this, what if that etc.

(kind of feels like letting you down on my 3rd post [&:] - not a good start!)

you have any examples of what could be in question?

greets

greg the robot

Background Infomration
=============
2.8 Time, Actions, and Activity Limits
There are two basic units of time in WIF: turns and impulses. Most measurements are in turns. But when the AIO moves units around on the map it’s in impulses. For example, how many impulses will it take to move a unit from its current position to another position? For naval units this is the equivalent of turns, since naval units can only move once per turn. Land and air units can relocate once per impulse and travel quite far in a single turn if that turn has 6 impulses per side. Therefore the AIO measures time in terms of impulses for moving land and air units.

For participating in combat, air units are available only once per turn. Land and naval units may be available more than that if their combats are successful or if they are on the defense and just sitting there. Air units can participate in a series of combat rounds during one subphase of an impulse but essentially they are one-and-done during a turn. This means that the number of combat impulses per turn for an air or a naval unit is one, and for a land unit, some number greater than one. The land unit’s number is based on its probability of continuing success.

From these facts the AIO measures: the maximum number of naval moves that might be wanted during a turn, the maximum number of air moves for attacks, plus rebases, and a rough estimate of the number of land moves and attacks desired. The last can be a very large number if the AIO is engaged in a major land offense. Spreading these numbers out over the likely number of impulses remaining in a turn lets the AIO evaluate its ability to accommodate the needs of the Air Marshal, the Admiralty, and the Field Marshals in terms of moves and attacks. The Joint Chiefs of Staff lets each of these decision makers know the number of moves and attacks he can expect for the rest of that turn. The decision makers then incorporate that information into their evaluations of the cost of undertaking various offenses and repositioning units under their command.

This transforms the value of time from turns and impulses into land moves, land attacks, air missions, naval moves, and rail moves! For the individual decision maker these availability numbers serve as constraints on what is feasible to accomplish in the rest of the turn. Time doesn’t really have value under this system, it is simply a constraint.

But using principles from linear programming, when a problem is viewed from a different perspective, constraints can be measured as resources. If each constraint were loosened just a bit, how much more could be done? In game terms, the Joint Chiefs of Staff asks each subordinate decision maker to report how much more he would expect to accomplish, in terms of CVs, if he were given one more land attack, one more air mission, or one more naval move.

Like all “shadow prices” these calculations of the worth of, say, a land attack, have limited applicability. Indeed, the value is calculated for the entire range of possible land attacks from 1 through N. Each additional land attack might have a different CV value. This means that the JCS develops a distribution of CV values for each of the 5 constrained activities: air missions, naval moves, rail moves, land moves, and land attacks. By knowing the value of each of the activity limits they calculate action choices. So, ultimately, the AIO calculates the value of land, naval, air, and combined actions in terms of CVs. From those numbers it gets the CV value of an impulse and turn.
================
Specific Decision:
================
JCS 1 Choose action; see RAC 10 (5 Re)
Action choices are always coordinated with allies. This is true for moving naval units in particular. Coordination is also crucial for joint operations: invasions, paradrops, and strategic bombing campaigns. Pass impulses absolutely have to be coordinated.

This is fairly easy to determine, aside from the coordination aspects. The distributions from task JCS 10, Identify attack opportunities, are used to calculate the worth of Naval, Air, Land, Combined, and Pass actions. The activity limits are dependent on the major power, scenario, and whether the country is at war. Using the distribution and activity limits the action with the highest CV is taken.

Other considerations are postponing the movement, attack, and/or air missions to a future impulse. For example, rebases and strategic bombing can often be postponed. Another possibility is to have an allied major power perform part of a task (e.g., ground strikes).

Coordination with allies requires that the results of all these calculations be passed to the Foreign Liaison for resolution under task FL 4.
===============
Referenced Decisions
===============
JCS 10 Identify attack opportunities; see RAC 11.11, 11.16 (5 Pr)
Attack opportunities can be on land, at sea, or in the air. Land attacks are: (1) assaults, (2) blitzkriegs, (3) overruns, and (4) to occupy empty enemy territory. The last might be simply running a unit over a hex to change who controls it. The naval attacks are: (1) on convoys, (2) on enemy surface fleets (at sea or in port), (3) on submarines, and (4) for control of a sea area (cutting off supply and reinforcements).

Each FM reports on land attack opportunities as part of tasks:
&#8729; FM 26 (Normal attacks),
&#8729; FM 27 (Invasions), and
&#8729; FM 28 (Paradrops).

The Admiralty reports on attack opportunities at sea as part of tasks:
&#8729; AD 2 (Attacks on naval units),
&#8729; AD 3 (Attacks on supply lines), and
&#8729; AD 6 (Port attacks).

The viability of invasions is under the control of the FM, who requests input from the Admiralty before deciding whether an attack opportunity exists.

The JCS identifies strategic bombing opportunities.

The JCS builds 5 CV distributions: for air missions, for naval moves, for rail moves, for land moves, and for land attacks. That is, one distribution for each activity type that has limits. These distributions have as many entries as the maximum number of activities the subordinate DMs would like to have. Each entry is a decimal number, which may be a negative value when failure to act will result in CV losses. Indeed, these might be better titled as defensive opportunities in cases where the DM is trying to minimize a negative CV value.

The difficult decisions are those that require joint operations: air transport, paradrops, and invasions. For these three interrelated activities, the linkages are noted by the subordinates (e.g., 3rd air mission linked to 7th land move - a paradrop). The five distributions are used in task JCS 1 when choosing the action for the impulse.
================
FL 4 Match actions with allies; (4 Co)
{Nothing has been written for this decision yet.}

[Anendrue]

Will the Ai scripts be accessible for players to modify?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: abj9562

Will the Ai scripts be accessible for players to modify?

I am not so sure at this point.

The LAIO (Language for AI Opponent) code will be quite technical.
Some of the functions will be hard coded in Pascal (e.g., estimate the number of impulses remaining in the turn).
I worry about players 'seeing' too much of how the AIO 'thinks'.
---
Players say they want to "get into" making the AIO better, but it requires serious work, not just tweaking a parameter here or there. For instance, the logic for setting up the one Persian unit runs to 14 pages.

I believe that players expect to 'correct' the AIO logic by spending an hour or two and fixing dozens of 'problems'. The reality is more like spending a dozen hours to fix a problem or two. Of course, if they put in 100 hours or so working on the scripts, then they will become more productive/faster. A much more likely outcome is that the modified logic will be a real mess causing virtually unpredictable behavior by the AIO (and none of it 'improved').

Many players will consider me a pessimist about this, but take a look at what Peter is doing for setting up the Yugoslavian units (which he posted yesterday). Specifically, look at the logic he lays out in his first post in that thread. That is pseudo-code, which then needs to be translated into LAIO. By which I mean, that the LAIO code is more dense/difficult to read.
---
So, the scripts will be available eventually, but probably not with the initial release. For the most part, this falls into the category I have labeled: WIF Design Kit, which is not part of my contract with Matrix Games.

[Anendrue]

Sorry for the late reply. I have been busy with the Christmas Holiday Season. I reviewed the Yugoslav pseudo code as you suggested. It appears to be well thought out and the code will be significantly harder for armchair coders than most games.
&nbsp;
If I understand these are the reasons for not&nbsp;the LAIO&nbsp;code:
&nbsp;
1) Players evaluating the AI and manipulating it to "game" the system. Ruining multiplayer games for many people.
&nbsp;(I think this is perhaps the strongest argument for hrad coding the scripts.)
&nbsp;
2) Unforseen possibilities, results, and consequences in the initial AI&nbsp; scripts.
&nbsp;(These&nbsp;wiill very likely have to be modified for game quality by you after the initial release.
&nbsp;
3) Additional support and overhead of making the AI transparent.
&nbsp;(Very understandable business concerns.)
&nbsp;
With this knowledge I advocate for no release of the LAIO code at all. If the game design kit comes out I hope the only way to modify LAIO is to write&nbsp;completely new scripts from a generic sample instead of reading and modifying the original. Hopefully this will make both worlds happy for the modder and for people wanting an honest game.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: abj9562

Sorry for the late reply. I have been busy with the Christmas Holiday Season. I reviewed the Yugoslav pseudo code as you suggested. It appears to be well thought out and the code will be significantly harder for armchair coders than most games.

If I understand these are the reasons for not the LAIO code:

1) Players evaluating the AI and manipulating it to "game" the system. Ruining multiplayer games for many people.
(I think this is perhaps the strongest argument for hrad coding the scripts.)

2) Unforseen possibilities, results, and consequences in the initial AI  scripts.
(These wiill very likely have to be modified for game quality by you after the initial release.

3) Additional support and overhead of making the AI transparent.
(Very understandable business concerns.)

With this knowledge I advocate for no release of the LAIO code at all. If the game design kit comes out I hope the only way to modify LAIO is to write completely new scripts from a generic sample instead of reading and modifying the original. Hopefully this will make both worlds happy for the modder and for people wanting an honest game.

Thanks. Yes, including a description of LAIO and the scripts as part of the MWIF design kit seems like a good idea to me.

[IKerensky_alt]

Now that I have read all this I am really impressed with the whole DMs thing.
&nbsp;
I still have one question : Will it exist an interface between the player and the FL/GS of the other nations ( played by the AI ) of his side ? Something perhaps as basic as a windows with the strategic plan your computer allies are following or as complete as a request for aerial support or lend-lease.
&nbsp;
Or perhaps the trouble is that I plan to play against and with the AI and not only against an AIO. Is there any contengency to add an AIA ?
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[csharpmao]

For MWiF version 1, I think there will be no computer allies.
AI "just" play one side, and you play the other one.

tm.asp?m=1653332

[Shannon V. OKeets]

MWIF AI Opponent Where, Who, and What

I have always understood that these are the 3 big questions for the AI Opponent (AIO): where on the map should the AIO place its units and what should those units do once they get there. I have worked out detailed answers for who and what, by defining an organizational structure for decision making and compiling a detailed list of tasks for each decision makers. In working with Peter on the setups for both the minor countries and the major powers, and on the advice of Ian concerning the value of an abstract topology of the map, I have put some more thought into the question of ‘Where’.

All 3 questions are interrelated since the definition of the size of the area dictates the size of the military force and also what the force is capable of achieving. For this document I have started with the where, though I could just as easily have started with either of the other two questions.

I. Where: Geographical Breakdown of the World Map

Here is what I propose for the geographical breakdown of the World Map, which consists of 70,200 hexes, 83 sea areas, 252 countries, and ~5100 coastal hexes.

Theaters of Operations (TO)
• Asia: Urals to Pacific Ocean, Mongolia, China.
• Europe: Northern Europe to the Urals, North Atlantic, eastern North America.
• Mediterranean: Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, all countries that border same (except the USSR).
• South Atlantic: South Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, all countries that border same (e.g., western Africa, and eastern South and Central America).
• Indian: Indian Ocean, Red Sea, Southern Ocean, all countries that border same (e.g., eastern Africa, western Australia).
• Northeast Pacific: Hawaii to Alaska and the North American west coast.
• South Pacific: eastern Australia to western South America.
• Western Pacific: Kamchatka to Singapore to the Marshals.

Areas of Operations (AO)
Within each TO are Areas of Operations (AO), which come in 3 types:
1. All sea (wet)
2. All land (dry)
3. Coastal hexes (damp)

Here is my first pass on AOs for each TO.
• Asia: central USSR, Siberia/Mongolia, China inland, USSR Pacific coast.
• Europe: eastern North America (inland and coast), North Atlantic Ocean, Murmansk pipeline, European invasions (Bay of Biscay, North Sea, Baltic Sea, and coastal hexes for same), western Europe, Scandinavia, eastern Europe (up to the Urals).
• Mediterranean: Western Med, Italian Coast, Eastern Med, Black Sea, coastal hexes for each of those 4 sea areas.
• South Atlantic: eastern Central/South America, South Atlantic, western Africa.
• Indian: Red Sea, Indian Ocean, Southern Ocean, eastern Africa, Middle East (excluding countries with a Mediterranean coastline), India, western side of Southeast Asia, western side of Australia.
• Northeast Pacific: north eastern Pacific Ocean, western North America, Alaska, Hawaii,
• South Pacific: southern Pacific Ocean, eastern Australia, New Zealand, islands in the South Pacific, western Central and South America.
• Western Pacific: Western Pacific (including various seas from Singapore to Rabaul), Chinese coast, eastern side of Southeast Asia, French Indochina, Japan, Borneo, New Guinea, Marshals, and other island groups in that area of the Pacific Ocean.

Sea Area Groups and Land Regions
AOs are broken down farther, with Wet AOs composed of Sea Area Groups (SAG), Damp AOs composed of coastal hexes (Regions), and Dry AOs composed of all land hexes (Regions). A dry AO is defined by one or more countries, or regions within a country. A damp AO is defined by the sea area it abuts and the country owning the coastal hexes.

For example, the West Med AO consists of these Regions:
• Western Med,
• Spanish-West Med coastline,
• Gibraltar,
• Algeria-West Med coastline,
• Libya-West Med coastline,
• Tunisia-West Med coastline,
• Malta,
• Sardinia/Corsica-West Med coastline,
• French-West Med coastline,
• Italy-West Med coastline.

The intent here is to have an exhaustive and mutually exclusive definition of TOs, AOs, SAGs and Regions. These will encompass all 70,200 hexes without any overlap.

II. Who: Decision Makers

There are 8 types of decision makers, and each major power gets one of each type:
• Grand Strategist
• Commander in Chief
• Manufacturing Council
• Foreign Liaison
• Joint Chiefs of Staff
• Admiralty
• General Staff (Army)
• Air Force General Staff

All of these have global responsibilities for their major power. The last 3 all have subordinates to which they delegate some decision making. The Admiralty assigns a Rear Admiral to each TO and a Fleet Admiral to each wet AO. The General Staff assigns a Field Marshal to each TO, an Army Group Commander to each dry and damp AO, and a General to each Region. The AF General Staff assign an Air Marshal to each TO. An Air Marshal controls 3 Air Fleets: strategic bombing fleet (which he controls directly), naval bombers (which is controlled by the Rear Admiral for the TO), and land bombers (which are controlled by the Field Marshal for the TO).

The way this works is that a TO has a Rear Admiral, Field Marshal, and Air Marshal. A wet AO has an Admiral. Damp and dry AOs each have a Army Group Commander. For finer grained decisions on land there are Generals. As a concrete example of this, the Germans start with one Field Marshal for all of Europe and two Army Group Commanders: AO Western Europe and AO Eastern Europe. The AGC for Western Europe defends against France and the AGC for Eastern Europe takes out Poland. Since these AOs consist of a single Region, there is no need to create Generals.

III. What: Decision Maker Tasks

I have 146 decision points defined for the AIO and for most of them I have worked out how the decisions will be made. Here are some examples of decision points:
// ****************************************************************************
// Joint Chiefs of Staff decisions.
// ****************************************************************************
dmtJCS:
begin
JCS := TJointChiefsOfStaff(Self);;

case TaskIndex of
1: JCS.DecActionChoice;
2: JCS.EstImpulsesleft;
3: JCS.DecReinforcements;
4: JCS.DecReserves;
5: JCS.DecRailMoves;
6: JCS.DecSupplyUnits;
7: JCS.DecReplacements;
8: JCS.DecStrategicBombing;
9: JCS.DecFieldMarshals;
10: JCS.DecAttackOpportunities;
11: JCS.AllocateLimitedActivites;
12: JCS.DecCoordInvasionsPara;
13: JCS.DecOffensiveChit;
end;
end;
// ****************************************************************************
// Air Marshal decisions.
// ****************************************************************************
dmtAM:
begin
AM := TAirMarshal(Self);;

case TaskIndex of
1: AM.DecPilots;
2: AM.DecCarrierAir;
3: AM.DecAirAssignments;
4: AM.EstAirCombat;
5: AM.DecAirArrangement;
6: AM.DecAirAbort;
7: AM.DecAirResults;
8: AM.DecBounce;
9: AM.DecAirPositioning;
10: AM.DecEscInterceptGroundSupport;
11: AM.DecEscInterceptGroundStrike;
12: AM.DecEscInterceptAirReorg;
13: AM.DecEscInterceptAirTransport;
14: AM.DecEscInterceptPortAttack;
15: AM.DecEscInterceptStrategicBombing;
16: AM.DecEscInterceptCarpetBombing;
17: AM.DecEscInterceptParadrop;
end;
end;

================================================
One of my main goals is to be able to define land regions and sea area groups such that they can be assessed as: friendly controlled, enemy controlled, contested, or empty/neutral. That will permit an analysis of front lines moving forward and backward so the army group commanders can plan offensives and fall back positions. Each region can be measured for the strength each side has present and whether reinforcements are needed.

Basically I am thinking that strategic decisions can be made by the 8 primary decision makers and handed off to the decision makers for each TO. Operational decisions can be made at the TO level and handed down to the AO decision makers. Tactical decisions will be in the hands of the SAG and Region commanders. This command structure flows in both directions. The lowest level makes measurements and passes its information upward. When it reaches to top as a summary report, the primary decision makers (starting with the Grand Strategist) then make strategic decisions and pass those down to the lower levels. At the bottom, tactical decisions are made based on instructions received from above. Ideally all decisions follow a coherent master plan.

==================================================

What I need to do now is redistribute some of these based on my modified command structure for the air, naval, and land commanders.

But before I do that, I am interested in any comments on the above.

[warspite1]

Steve

Using an example of a recent AAR that was posted, can you let me know:

You have two AGC`s - one for Poland and one for France. Set up for both areas is as per one of the options that Peter has been working on. All good so far.

What happens when the CW force is "spotted" heading for Denmark? i.e. how do the various decision makers work to:

- Decide how many forces, Land, air (and possibly sea) to commit to this threat?
- Is the threat best cut off by invading Denmark first - or waiting for the CW to do so (if indeed thats the target)?
- Where do those forces come from? Is a General created for the "Danish Front"? or does AGC West pick this up?
- At what stage does the manufacturing council decide whether this new unexpected development needs an alternative build plan?
- If the German commit naval forces and they get beaten (thus the Germans suffer early unexpected naval losses), how does the decision making process decide whether to replace these, or continue with the land and air units that Germany need for the French campaign?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Steve

Using an example of a recent AAR that was posted, can you let me know:

You have two AGC`s - one for Poland and one for France. Set up for both areas is as per one of the options that Peter has been working on. All good so far.

What happens when the CW force is "spotted" heading for Denmark? i.e. how do the various decision makers work to:

- Decide how many forces, Land, air (and possibly sea) to commit to this threat?
- Is the threat best cut off by invading Denmark first - or waiting for the CW to do so (if indeed thats the target)?
- Where do those forces come from? Is a General created for the "Danish Front"? or does AGC West pick this up?
- At what stage does the manufacturing council decide whether this new unexpected development needs an alternative build plan?
- If the German commit naval forces and they get beaten (thus the Germans suffer early unexpected naval losses), how does the decision making process decide whether to replace these, or continue with the land and air units that Germany need for the French campaign?

Some of your questions here are off-topic in they ask about production priorities. The top 8 decision makers funnel their priorities to the manufacturing council which adjudicates who gets what according to the strategic plan.

But on topic was your question about Denmark. That would be part of the European Invasions AO. What I missed in my rather quickly written example is that there would have to be a German AGC for that AO too. As a separate country, Denmark would be its own region (but not multiple regions). The AGC could create two generals, one to deal with threats to Germany (e.g., Kiel) and one to deal with Denmark. However, since these are all so close together the AGC should handle it without creating subordinates.

Subordinates are only created when necessary (e.g., China doesn't need any Rear Admirals, the USSR doesn't need a Field Marshal for the South Pacific). Also, subordinates should only be created when two different tasks are at hand. If there is really only one problem area then that is handled directly.

I see most of the TOs as having no one assigned by most of the major powers. Only the US and CW have a true global presence throughout the war. Then within each TO there might be many empty AOs, with no decision makers involved. As the war progresses, some areas will heat up and need decision makers assigned. When they cool off, the decision makers will disappear. This all mimics how things occurred historically, which is one of the main reasons I favor this design.