Re: FH Machine People

On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Laserlight wrote:

> >your proposed AI rules seem to neglect this aspect; for instance,
nowhere
> >is there any provision for concentrating your forces on a single
enemy
> >target, as i usually do when i play. i see no reason why that
couldn't be
> >added, but i think it would be very hard. good luck!
> 
> You could have planning tiers:
> 1st tier: Engage closely/skirmish/fightin withdrawal
> 2nd tier: Squadrons disperse fire among small targets/concentrate fire
on
> large targets
> 3rd tier: individual ship maneuvers

that's all very well, but then you have to have the 1st tier communicate
with the 2nd tier somehow. perhaps something like:

1st tier (by fleet)
 - decide on STALK, CONFRONT, SLAY ;-)
2nd tier (by squadron)
 - if STALK: pick a target area for fire, move to keep range open
 - if CONFRONT: pick a target area for fire, move towards it
 - if SLAY: helm free, weapons free
3rd tier (by ship)
 - move
  - if a target area picked, turn towards it
  - if helm free, turn towards highest priority target
  - figure out whether to speed up or slow down
 - fire
  - if a target area picked, pick a target in it and shoot it
  - allocate all remaining weapons to priority targets

the hard part might be figuring out how to decide the top-level mode.

plus, you'd need some sort of negotiation between squadrons in the fleet
and ships in the squadrons to ensure that you didn't end up with every
ship in the fleet converging on one cruiser and mashing it whilst the
rest
of the enemy fleet is ignored.

for completeness (and to irritate the hell out of the rest of the
imperial
staff, who've seen them far too many times by now), i include the
"standard orders" i've been using in our ongoing PBEM. they are sort of
a
toolkit for giving orders, so i just say "HMS Repulse: T-5 (Bismarck),
T-1, T-2", and the orders are spelled out fully elsewhere.

----- BEGIN QUOTED SECTION -----

* Definitions

All working weapons (including PDS) are by default "free", ie not 
committed to anything.

If multiple conflicting orders are given for one ship, the order
specified
first takes priority. i'll try to avoid this.

* Standard Fire Order T-1

"if there are attacking fighters, commit all free PDS and class 1
batteries to self defence. firstly, a class-1 should be allocated to
each
attacking heavy fighter group, if possible. all free self-defence
weapons
should then be allocated, PDS first and class-1s afterwards. attacking
fighter groups should be allocated a battery on the basis of their type:
torpedo first, attack second and all others last. if there are spare
batteries left, repeat the allocation with those free batteries."

[this could be done better, especially the stuff about allocating
class-1s to heavy fighters]

* Standard Fire Order T-2

"ignore ships of mass under 50. each free weapon should engage the
largest
available target in the 0-12 range band. if there isn't one, engage the
largest available target in the 12-24 range band. if there isn't one,
engage the largest available target in the 24-36 range band. if the
weapon
still has no target, repeat the selection procedure, but without the
directive to ignore small ships."

[in our PBEM, my ships are fairly big, and the restriction on size is to
avoid wasting fire on corvettes]

* Standard Fire Order T-3 (ADFC ship only)

"if there are fighters within range of PDS (using ADFC for control), use
all free PDS against fighters. prioritise torpedo, then attack, then
standard fighters. try to allocate one PDS to each group in order, and
if
there are spare PDS, go round again."

* Standard Fire Order T-4 (ADFC ship only)

"given a specified ship to defend which is in ADFC range, engage
fighters
attacking it using all free PDS. prioritise torpedo, then attack, then
standard fighters. try to allocate one PDS to each group in order, and
if
there are spare PDS, go round again."

* Standard Fire Order T-5

"given a specified ship, fire at it all free weapons which are in range
and arc."

----- END QUOTED SECTION -----

i don't think this is too much of an intelligence leak, but if it is, i
am
sure admiral wikan will let vader know.

"You have mailed GZG-L for the last time, captain ..."

> >> The Machine People would have no missiles
> 
> >could you explain the reasoning behind this?
> 
> a) any material which could go into missiles, could also go into
another
> ship
> b) for solitaire, I'd have to be the Machine People side guessing
where to
> place the missiles to hit the Alarishi ships, also played by me.  It
gets
> tough to maintain the schizophrenia needed.

you'd have to have a deterministic mechanical rule for missile aiming;
something like "three inches closer to me than his projected endpoint".
it
should be better than this, but then i'm no SML ace.

> c) if I want fragile missile-bearing ships, I'll fight Islamics. 
Machine
> People gives me a chance to square off with a completely different
type of
> opponent--sort of like NSL, but more so.

machine people might also go for the ubership approach; i'm vaguely
thinking of the berserkers (?) out of larry niven (?), or that big ship
out of that book by the guy who wrote honor harrington (didn't read it,
just looked at the cover). the one with the moon in.

Tom