ORIGINAL: Glen Felzien
As is obviously appearent, I am not a programing guru.
ORIGINAL: fuzzy_bunnyy
how, if at all, will a human player communicate long term strategic goals to the AI? I find that especially when playing the Axis all 3 countries should decide on what to do. If Japan decides to invade Siberia and Germany goes Sea Lion....yada yada, you get it. just wondering.
This was the original question I was trying to answer. Please allow me to better articulate my suggestion for a possible solution.
Regarless of what side Japan is on, Japan has to make a decision as to what overall strategy it wishes to pursue from the beginning of the game and during various points during the game. As an AIO, the player will not actively intereact in the decision making. There would be indirect interaction as the player and AIO use the game pieces to influence the others strategy. However, as an AIA (Japaen as an ally) there would need to be a direct method of interaction between player and AI thus those fancy tiltes representing possible strategic approaches. The titles simply represent the code behind that particular strategy.
I now referance my opening sentence when I ask the following: Why does the AIO and the AIA have to be different from a strategic point of view. Regardless of the side, a major power will have a host of possible strategic possiblities. These will not be any different if the power is an enemy or a friend. The only difference, as I imagine it, is the level of player AI interaction. I imagine a basic interection for strategic "diplomacy" as referred to in my previous post and a more detailed interaction when my units and the AIA's units share the same theatre.
So unless I have missed something brutally obvious, and goodness knows it has happened before, why cant the AIO and the AIA be fundamentally the same?
Here are some snippets from the design document for the AIO.
==========================================
Decision Makers
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 it 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 develop 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 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 for the GS is to decide about factory destruction.
The GS has no superior and his direct subordinates are the Manufacturing Council, the Commander in Chief, and Foreign Liaison.
---------------------
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). 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, the Commander in Chief has three related tasks. #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. #3.5, Make USSR border claims, is an initiative task, for the USSR player can choose it whenever he likes. #3.6, Respond to USSR border claims, is a responsive task, for the German player must answer the question immediately before the game can proceed.
3.4.1 Grand Strategist
Strategic
1.1 Develop and implement long-term strategic plan; (4 St)
1.2 Make all decisions regarding US entry actions and choices; s. 9.4, 13.3 (3 Re)
1.3 Make initiative choices (going first, rerolling); s.6 (2 Re)
1.4 Place US entry markers in pools (1 Re)
1.5 Place offensive and defensive markers (1 Re)
1.6 Choose between offense/defense markers and USSR reserve build points (2 Re)
1.7 Make all intelligence decisions (Re & In)
1.8 Decide whether to destroy factories (1 In)
1.9 Choose new home country (1 Re)
--------------------------
3.5 Process descriptions for individual tasks
3.5.1 Grand Strategist
Strategic
1.1 Develop and implement long-term strategic plan; (4)
The strategic plan provides answers to the following questions.
(1) Which victory cities, and other important hexes, should be taken and/or defended?
(2) On which major powers should the AIO declare war, when, and any associated conditions concerning same?
(3) On which minor countries should the AIO declare war, when, and any associated conditions concerning same?
(4) Which minor countries should the AIO align, when, and any associated conditions concerning same?
(5) Where are the expected areas of conflict, with whom, and what type of combat (land, naval, air, and/or convoys)?
(6) What is the master production plan by unit type and gearing limits? This needs to contain enough specifics that the Manufacturing Council can implement it.
(7) What are the strategic plan’s milestones and what is the time line for those milestones?
Each strategic plan is unique to a major power. That is, there are 8 sets of strategic plans, one set for each major power. Within a strategic plan set there are usually many options available. Sometimes these are major alternatives and sometimes these are separate little side decisions. It is important that the GS make a firm commitment to one major alternative and only change when: (1) forced to do so by failure, or (2) overwhelmingly attractive opportunities appear. The detailed strategic plans for each major power are in a separate document: Strategic Plans.
Once all the CV values are determined for the units they can be compared across units types using weights set by either the Grand Strategist or the Joint Chiefs of Staff. For example, the relative value of air units to land units might be reduced in the USSR-Germany conflict in Europe but increased in the USA-Japan conflict in the Pacific. Similarly, Germany might down play the importance of naval units if it has no intention of invading England. In the grand scheme of things, all CVs are not equal across all unit types and across all theaters of operation. They just provide a starting point for assessing the worth of a unit in a specific situation.
Conquering a country has enormous benefits in terms of CVs. It is the CV value of all the enemy units multiplied by the number of turns left in the game.
=======================================
There are separate threads for strategic plans for each major power in this forum. Some have been idle for a while now, but they all contain excellent material concerning strategic plans for the AIO.
One AIO talking to another AIO can refer to items 5, 6, and 7 (from the list immedaitely above) in terms of internal variables that are immediately understood and can be directly used to make adjustments. For example, each AIO has an internal evalutation of the relative importance of fighters to bombers, to naval air, and battleships to carriers to transports to convoys, and armor to submarines to strategic bombers to garrison units. There are a lot of numbers involved.
Presenting them to a human for review and modification is a game interface design problem. Controlling all the interactions between theose same variables is too.
Horace Greeley's advice to "Go West, Young Man" didn't mention the snakes, indians, desert, mountains, or any of the other details that had to be considered to actually follow that plan. Now think about the additional instructions that would be needed to send a robot on that mission.
There are a lot of details to a strategic plan. Communicating them in language both parties understand is much easier than having to do a translation.
