Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-ai: February 2003:
[freeciv-ai] Re: Exploring madness

[freeciv-ai] Re: Exploring madness

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Gregory Berkolaiko <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Freeciv AI development <freeciv-ai@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [freeciv-ai] Re: Exploring madness
From: Ross Wetmore <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 15:51:36 -0500

Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
A more radical technique might be to introduce a strategic concept
such as "warcamp". A warcamp is something that can be placed
anywhere and moved at any time, maybe like a pseudo-unit. It has a
"capacity" in that a fixed number of units can signup to bodyguard
the warcamp. Military exploration (in force) can be handled by
exploring warcamps. They could also be used to manoeuvre armies
about the map and position them for attacks. The warcamp would
"disband" when everyone was collected near the target to free
them for military attack.

This is another very clever idea.  I was toying with such concepts for some
time, in my mind, but didn't define it as clearly.  However, the first priority
should be a strategic concept such as "target".  Right now each unit finds a
target for itself.  We need the goverment to select few targets and then
individual units to choose between these strategic targets and tactical
opportunities such as killing this cheeky diplomat who just walked past me!


A target might be nice, but it doesn't necessarily organize a
concerted strategic action by a number of units. There are a few
elements or embellishments missing (not that they couldn't be added).

Perhaps a warcamp could have an attack option. Instead of just
disbanding and letting the units figure out what to do, it could
assign the appropriate attack order to all its units.

The "elements" for collective actions like this include things
like ...

1)  Unit selection (not every unit can sign on)
2)  Unit staging (units mobilize at the appropriate launch point
    but do not proceed with an action as each one arrives but they
    wait until a trigger signal is given).
3)  Concerted or organized actioni when triggered (units are given
    their orders and/or queued for action in a well defined sequence
    - e.g. catapults soften defences, then knights charge and finally
    pikemen move in to capture and protect).

Target is just a small part of things, and may in fact change
during the staging phase given opportunistic tactical reevaluation.

Strategic objectives like mass units near location(X,Y) could be
handled by establishing a warcamp. If there were several warcamps
spread around key strategic objectives, then units might get a
tactical choice about which to join. When enough had mustered at a
given location, or the military advisor decided some action was
worthwhile that warcamp and/or any nearby ones could be given their
final targetting instructions.

In my mind target is a more well defined aka tactical concept,
while objective is a more conceptual or nebulous one. One sort of
needs some container to gather components for an objective and to
give a handle for tracking the (current) objective, any position
or requirements (as in massed firepower), and as a focus for final
targetting or execution decisions. I don't see this as a natural
extension of current individual unit actions, but rather the actions
of a new kind of entity/unit that servers to manage multiple units.

If you don't like warcamp, then try the term leader for the entity.
Different leaders will have different objectives and can be spread
around to compete for unit resources.

Anyway, some ideas to chew on ...


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]