Tag Archives: AI

General Staff will Ship in 2022

A few of Grant’s unsuccessful attempts to take Vicksburg. Map from West Point Atlas of American Wars. Library of Congress. Click to enlarge.

Grant took Vicksburg on his sixth attempt. He first tried a direct movement, east of the Mississippi, against the city but was forced to turn back after Confederate General Van Dorn’s raid destroyed his supply base. Sherman next attempted a direct assault and failed at Champion’s Bluff. Grant then tried to cut Vicksburg off from the Mississippi by digging a great canal across the neck of a giant oxbow. Unusually low water levels in the river that year caused another failure. Grant also tried more canal digging and river clearing at Lake Providence and the Yazoo Pass without luck.

Col. Theodore Lyman, a staff officer of the Army of the Potomac, wrote of Grant, “He habitually wears an expression as if he had determined to drive his head through a brick wall, and was about to do it. I have much confidence in him.”

Grant finally succeeded with his brilliant amphibious landing south of Vicksburg followed by a series of ‘must win’ battles that concluded with besieging the city on May 22, 1863. Confederate General Pemberton surrendered Vicksburg on July 4, 1863.

The General Staff: Black Powder Wargaming System is comprised of four separate programs: the Army Editor, Map Editor, Scenario Editor and the actual Game Engine, itself. The first three have been done for some time (it’s what I use to produce scenarios for testing the AI). They were written in C# using Microsoft’s Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) which is often used for creating desktop business applications. This decision made sense because the Army, Map and Scenario Editors function not unlike a suite of business applications that create and share data with a common look and feel. However, while WPF was a good development decision for the Editor programs it turned out not to be a great tool for creating the Game Engine.

A flow chart of the General Staff: Black Powder Wargaming System. Files created in the Army Editor and the Map Editor are combined in the Scenario Editor to create a scenario or simulation. Click to enlarge.

What the Game Engine does is it takes data created in the three Editor programs, displays them in a visually exciting way, enables the user to make input (orders), and simulates those orders (as well as the AI’s orders) and the resulting combat to the highest degree of accuracy possible. That sounds like a lot, but it really isn’t. And the heavy lifting that the Game Engine is being asked to do is all visual: making everything look good on the screen.

Recently, I’ve been looking at Grand Tactician: Civil War which is an immersive voyage into 19th century American typography, cartography, tactics and grand strategy. I eagerly look forward to having the time to do more than gaze upon it in amazement 1)Full disclosure, the developers were kind enough to give me a review copy of Grand Tactician and, damn, it looks fantastic.. I reached out to Ilja on their development team and he convinced me that we should complete the General Staff Game Engine in Unity (which is what they used for Grand Tactician). What they accomplished visually with Grand Tactician was precisely the look and feel that I wanted for General Staff 2)I’m talking about the typography and the UI, not thousands of tiny 3D soldiers on the battlefield; which look really great, but, General Staff is not that kind of a wargame..

Consequently, we are officially announcing that we are abandoning writing the General Staff: Black Powder Game Engine in WPF and, instead, will be creating it using the Unity engine. We believe that this will produce a far superior visual experience 3)Please note: we will not being using Unity to create a 3D simulation with tiny soldiers. I like playing those kind of games, but that’s not what General Staff is..

Because Unity is designed to facilitate the creation of computer games, this move will greatly accelerate the completion of the General Staff Game Engine and will allow us to ship General Staff: Black Powder this year.

I am certainly not U. S. Grant, though I like to think I have some of that bulldog determination. Like Grant before Vicksburg, I’ve had to acknowledge that our first attempt will not succeed and we’re moving on to another plan. I am sorry for the delay in the release of General Staff and am confident that, with Unity, we will soon be reporting some good news.

I am also very excited to announce that my good friend, Damien, will be joining the team to specifically work in Unity completing the General Staff Game Engine. Damien lives in Ireland and has been a devout wargamer since playing Arnhem on the ZX Spectrum. When not enjoying a Guinness or a Jamesons, he’ll be playing tabletop or computer games, whether that means pushing cardboard counters across hex boards, drawing LOS between badly painted miniatures on the tabletop, or day-long sessions in front of a computer – where he particularly enjoys playing against a challenging, non-cheating AI. Damien is a 28 year veteran of the IT industry, having worked on everything from telecoms, healthcare and financial systems, across Mainframes, Linux, Unix and Windows, and co-inventor of two messaging system patents. He has a particular passion for language processing and domain specific languages, originating from his interest in the elegance of recursive descent compiler construction.

References

References
1 Full disclosure, the developers were kind enough to give me a review copy of Grand Tactician and, damn, it looks fantastic.
2 I’m talking about the typography and the UI, not thousands of tiny 3D soldiers on the battlefield; which look really great, but, General Staff is not that kind of a wargame.
3 Please note: we will not being using Unity to create a 3D simulation with tiny soldiers. I like playing those kind of games, but that’s not what General Staff is.

Why Machines May Kill Us In Our Sleep

An amazing screen capture of the AI’s solution to a problem. It has found a 1 pixel gap between the data and the edge of the screen and is exploiting it to successfully find an ‘open flank’ of Red. Click to enlarge.

Professor Alberto M. Segre was my thesis advisor and one day he said to me, “You know when your AI is really working because it will surprise you.” Today I got to have one of those weird surprises.

The screen shot (above) is a visual representation of what the AI is up to. You won’t get to see this in the actual game. The program that’s running is called the AI Editor which is a bit of a misnomer because you don’t actually edit the AI in it; you mostly just get to observe what it’s doing. There’s a lot of stuff going on in the above image. There are multiple layers visually displaying different types of data (check out the blog – Layers: Why a Military Simulation is Like a Parfaitfor more information about these). But, what interests us are the AI layers: Battle Groups, Objectives, and that thin yellow line that snakes from a group of blue units, crossing Antietam Creek at the Middle Bridge and then, amazingly, exploiting a data anomaly to reach its goal: a point far behind enemy lines.

Some background on the situation:

The map of the Antietam Battlefield (screen shot) with terrain and elevation layers displayed. Click to enlarge.

Underlying all the clutter from the first screen capture, top, is the battle of Antietam (above). The map has been rotated 90 degrees to the left so north is now pointing to the left; east is at the top of the screen.

After adding Blue (Union) and Red (Confederate) units to the map in their historical positions at 0600 September 17, 1862 the AI performed a tactical analysis from the perspective of Blue.

The AI ‘strategic’ analysis for Antietam playing Blue (Union).

The above are a list of Predicate Statements all of which the AI knows to be true. Statements preceded by the logical sign ∴ (therefore) are conclusions, or inferences, derived from the predicate statement referenced in the brackets. It is this analysis that determines if the AI will be on the offensive or defensive and what its objectives will be.

Next, the AI performs Range of Influence (ROI) calculations for the entire observable battlefield. I plan on doing a video about this later, but for now the darker the red (in the topmost screen capture) the more – and more powerful – weapons the Red army can bear on that point.  The AI next divides all the units on the map into a forest of minimum spanning trees called Battle Groups. I want to do a video about this, too. However, if you can’t wait, these subjects are covered in my paper, Implementing the Five Canonical Offensive Maneuvers in a CGF Environment (free download).

Again, referring to the top screenshot you can see the AI’s calculations to this point:

  • It has determined it (Blue) will be on the offensive.
  • It has calculated enemy ROI.
  • It has assigned objectives to the first Battle Group.

Flanking Algorithm published in, “Algorithms for Generating Attribute Values for the Classification of Tactical Situations”. Click to enlarge.

Now the AI needs to determine if the enemy has an ‘open or unanchored flank’. In Algorithms for Generating Attribute Values for the Classification of Tactical Situations I published the Algorithm for Flanking Attribute Value Function (right). It basically comes down to this: can the AI trace an unbroken path from the center of the Blue Battle Group to a specific point (called the Retreat Point) far behind enemy lines without crossing into ‘No Go Areas’ (water, swamp) or entering any area controlled by Red’s ROI (literally the red areas in the topmost screen shot).

The reason that I was using Antietam as a test case for anchored / unanchored flanks is because years ago I had analyzed the battle for my doctoral thesis and knew it to be a classic example of anchored flanks; Lee’s left flank rests on the Potomac and his right flank is anchored on the Antietam. Granted, the Confederate flanks were held by Stuart’s cavalry with a little horse artillery support but they were still, by definition, anchored flanks.

Due to an error in the data that made up the Antietam terrain map a 1 pixel (about 3.8 meter wide) strip of ‘no terrain’ was inserted at the far right hand edge of the map (see blow up of screen capture, right; it’s the thin line between the water, represented in red, and the brown edge of the map). This meant there was a ‘land bridge’ across Antietam Creek where none existed in real life. A digital parting of the Red Sea, if you will. But, by the rules of the game the AI perfectly performed its function. There was no error in the AI – again, the AI performed better than I had dared hope – the error was with the data set.

And that’s how fifty years from now I can see a cyber-detective standing over the chalk marks around a body saying, “Yeah, the machine performed perfectly, brilliantly, in fact. But, the error in the data set killed him.”

It’s already happened in real life. For cars with autopilot the data set of the world in which it operates is crucial. However, “against a bright spring sky, the car’s sensors system failed to distinguish a large white 18-wheel truck and trailer crossing the highway, Tesla said. The car attempted to drive full speed under the trailer, “with the bottom of the trailer impacting the windshield of the Model S”, Tesla said.” The driver died. The AI functioned perfectly. But, the error in the data set killed him.

So, I fixed the error in the data set (probably caused by not using the right values in InkScape when I converted the Antietam Water.bmp into paths) and imported it back into the Antietam map using the General Staff Map Editor, saved it out, and ran the AI Editor again and saw this:

The AI did not display a yellow path from the center of the Blue Battle Group to the Red Retreat Point because none existed. Instead, it just wrote the first Predicate Statement in the Tactical Analysis stack: “Red’s flanks are anchored”.

Again, the machine was performing perfectly. And its results were no longer surprising.

Addendum

I recently got to experience this again (though this time it was caused by a different data bug) when I was reviewing the AI’s decisions at the battle of Manassas:

Because the Range of Influence was not calculating the very bottom row the AI found another, perfectly legal, way to reach its goal. Screen shot from the General Staff AI Editor. Click to enlarge.

In this instance, the error in the database was caused by the Range of Influence (basically a map of what red and blue can see and hit) not calculating the very last row. Consequently, the AI was able to legally trace a path from the blue forces in the northeast to their goal at the bottom of the map.

After this bug was corrected the AI performed as expected:

The AI correctly sees going around red’s left flank as the solution to the problem. Screen shot from General Staff AI Engine. Click to enlarge

In the above screen shot the AI has demonstrated the correct solution to the tactical problem facing blue at Manassas on July 20, 1861 (the day before the actual battle). Red’s left flank is unanchored. It’s wide open. Note how the AI identifies the one choke point (Sudley Springs Ford) in the plan.

So, the AI surprised me again. I think it’s looking pretty good. When you play against it, watch your flanks.

Schwerpunkt

I first encountered the German word Schwerpunkt in Major General F. W. von Mellenthin’s Panzer Battles many years ago. The word has a number of definitions but, for our purposes, we’ll use, “the point of maximum effort;” or the point where we should hit the enemy’s lines with all our strength. For von Mellenthin it was the point where his panzers would smash through the Allied lines in the 1940 Western Front blitzkrieg.

Many years later, when I was working on my doctoral research on tactical AI, I realized that calculating the Schwerpunkt was crucial for any offensive algorithm (it’s also a good thing to know your weak points when planning a defense). On every battlefield there is at least one Schwerpunkt but calculating that point first involves numerous algorithms to analyze the terrain, elevation, unit positions, 3D Line of Sight (3DLOS) and range of influence (ROI) of these units.

TIGER1)Tactical Inference GEneratoR was the program created from my doctoral research that performed battlefield analysis. Later, with a DARPA grant, it was expanded into MATE 2)Machine Analysis of Tactical Environments. One problem, that was discussed in my last blog post, was that after analysis MATE would come to the conclusion that some forces should not attack in specific situations (for example, Lee at Gettysburg). However, for General Staff,  we need an AI that will attack when we want it to.

My solution was to create the General Staff AI Editor (this may be rolled into the General Staff Scenario Editor for convenience) which allows the scenario designer to specify objectives for each army’s battle groups.

Screen shot of Antietam with battle groups, range of influence and objectives displayed. Blue indicates areas within Blue forces Range of Influence (ROI); meaning that their weapons can fire on these locations. The darker the color the more firepower they can concentrate at that location. The same is displayed for Red forces. Note that areas under both Red and Blue ROI cancel each other out (based on accuracy and firepower). Click to enlarge.

This output is just for debugging and won’t be displayed during the actual game but you can see how MATE made it’s decision to place the Schwerpunkt for Blue Battle Group #1. MATE starts by making a series of statements. These are  similar to predicates used in predicate logic but every statement is known to be true. MATE then constructs hypothetical syllogisms by combining these statements. In the series, below, MATE identifies the opposing force that must be dealt with to achieve its assigned objective, does strength analysis of the two opposing forces, determines if the defender has anchored or unanchored flanks, calculates the slope of the attack, etc., and then calculates the Schwerpunkt after analyzing the enemy’s flank positions, supporting forces and if the attacker has an unrestricted avenue of attack.

Screen shot of the output from the General Staff AI Editor showing the analysis for Blue Battle Group #1 at Antietam. The top section, “Statements about the tactical situation,” are the results of MATE algorithms that analyze unit positions, strengths, 3D Line of Sight, etc. The bottom section, “Tactical Analysis,” are conclusions drawn from the above statements. Click to enlarge.

The Schwerpunkt for Blue Battle Group #1 is displayed on the map as a blue square.

Screen shot from the General Staff AI Editor showing the location of Blue Battle Group #1s schwerpunkt (marked by a blue square). Click to enlarge.

I have written before 3)https://www.general-staff.com/antietam-ai/ about the American Civil War battle of Antietam and I frequently use it as a ‘baseline’ for my AI work. This is because I am very familiar with the battlefield having walked it numerous times, as well as having studied it in depth. So, I know the area that MATE has indicated where Blue Battle Group #1 (Union I and XII corps) should concentrate their attack: west of the West Woods at J. R. Jones’ Confederate Division’s exposed left flank.

The original caption, “Photograph shows four Union soldiers looking at dead Confederate soldiers on Miller Farm, looking toward the west woods on September 19, 1862.” From the US Library of Congress. Click to enlarge.

Many years ago I had an accountant who would apply what he called, ‘the Reasonable Test’, to Profit & Loss statements. He would look at the P&L statement and ask out loud, “does this look reasonable?” Is this a reasonable number for income? Is this a reasonable number of expenses? So, I ask, “is this a reasonable place for the Union I Corps to attack at Antietam?” And, I have to conclude, yes, it is. I can’t mathematically prove that this is the best place to attack; but I think it’s pretty good. In general, MATE will always attempt to outflank enemy positions and, I think, this is a very solid approach to offensive tactics. Indeed, I’m reminded of Wellington’s comments about Napoleon’s tactics at Waterloo, “Never did I see such a pounding match. Both were what the boxers call gluttons. Napoleon did not manoeuvre at all. He just moved forward in the old style, in columns, and was driven off in the old style.” 4)“Wellington: The Years of the Sword,” p, 488 Longford, Elizabeth For MATE, pounding is a last resort. This is the case at Burnside’s Bridge:

MATE analysis for Blue Battle Group #4 (Union IX Corps) at Antietam. Note that MATE recognizes the choke point (Burnside’s Bridge) and orders up an artillery barrage before the assault. Click to enlarge.

In the Tactical Analysis section (above) look at statement #8: “Blue Battle Group #4 has a severely restricted Avenue of Attack (Bridge).” MATE recognizes that there is no way to maneuver around to the objective (Snavely’s Ford is not on this battle map so there really isn’t any other option except over the bridge). Frontal Assault is MATE’s maneuver of last resort. Consequently, MATE first orders up the artillery to positions within distance (> 50% accuracy as set in the General Staff Army Editor for these units) and with a clear Line of Sight (3DLOS) of the target. MATE will order the artillery to bombard enemy forces that control the bridge for an hour before ordering an infantry assault).

Let’s look at MATE’s analysis of First Bull Run:

Screen shot from the General Staff AI Editor showing objective set for Union forces at the battle of First Bull Run. The Union Schwerpunkt is the blue square to the west of the Confederate left flank. Click to enlarge.

Here Blue Battle Group #2 (Heeintzelman’s and Hunter’s Union divisions) are assigned the objective of capturing the Henry House Hill (historically accurate). MATE set’s their Schwerpunkt to the west of the Confederate left flank. This is very close to Union commander McDowell’s original strategy. Again, MATE will attempt to outflank strong positions rather than attack them directly. MATE is not a pounder.

MATE’s analysis for the Union’s right flank: they have an unrestricted Avenue of Attack and Red’s left flank is unanchored. Click to enlarge.

MATE recognizes that the Confederate’s left flank is unanchored and is a perfect target for an envelopment maneuver and places the Schwerpunkt at the end of Red’s line appropriately.

I still have work to do on MATE’s ability to construct defensive lines and that will be the next thing to add to the AI. But, as you can see, great progress has been made. I believe that the MATE tactical AI is unique and I know that there is nothing similar even among the wargames used by US and NATO allies. As always, please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions or comments.

References

References
1 Tactical Inference GEneratoR
2 Machine Analysis of Tactical Environments
3 https://www.general-staff.com/antietam-ai/
4 “Wellington: The Years of the Sword,” p, 488 Longford, Elizabeth

What’s Taking So Long?

This is what a brilliant game publisher looks like: Marten Davies. I was looking for a photo of Marten from the ’80s and I found this 2019 photo (credit: University of Texas). This is exactly what he looked like in ’87. He hasn’t aged a day.

Marten Davies, my first publisher and still a close friend, was painfully accurate when he said, “Take any time estimate that Ezra gives you and multiply it by three.” Now, in my defense, Marten probably said that because I had a contractual obligation to deliver UMS: The Universal Military Simulator in some insanely short period of time like six months and I actually delivered it in eighteen. To my credit I delivered a #1 game (Europe and US). To Marten’s credit, he was very easy to work with and it remains the best experience of my career. The bottom line was that Marten knew that I needed more time to make a better game and he made sure I got it.

So, what’s the hold-up? Well, that would be me, again.

Specifically, it’s the AI.  As many of you know, I’ve been working on AI for wargames for a long time and I was hoping to turn General Staff into a showcase for my work. Some of this has been accomplished 1) Antietam & AI . These are the algorithms that I’ve written about in my doctoral thesis and in various published papers.

The MATE2)Machine Analysis of Tactical Environments, see http://riverviewai.com/ set of tactical AI routines built upwards from low level routines; like 3D Line of Sight (3DLOS) 3) https://www.general-staff.com/tag/3d-line-of-sight/ , Range of Influence (ROI), and least weighted path algorithms 4) https://www.general-staff.com/tag/least-weighted-path-algorithm/ to battlefield analysis 5) Algorithms for Generating Attribute Values for the Classification of Tactical Situations.: http://riverviewai.com/papers/Algorithms-Tactical_Class.pdf , to selection of objectives 6) https://www.general-staff.com/antietam-ai/ , and the implementation of offensive maneuvers 7) Implementing the Five Canonical Offensive Maneuvers in a CGF Environment.:http://riverviewai.com/papers/ImplementingManeuvers.pdf to achieve those objectives.

So, given a list of objectives the AI can implement a tactical plan (Course of Action, or COA); but the AI doesn’t have any comprehension of the greater strategic picture. For example, MATE’s analysis of Gettysburg is that Blue8)MATE always labels the attacker as blue (Confederates) should not attack because Red (Union) has interior lines, a superior defensive position, and greater troop strength.

MATE representation of Gettysburg: Confederates (blue), Union (red). MATE screen shot. Click to enlarge,

MATE output analysis of Gettysburg. Confederates (BLUEFOR) should not attack because REDFOR (Union) has interior lines, a superior defensive position, and greater troop strength.

But, what the AI doesn’t understand is that the Confederates were desperate for a victory on Union soil which required them to attack at Gettysburg.

Screen capture of the Battle of Little Bighorn in the General Staff Scenario Editor. Click to enlarge.

Or consider the tactical positions at the battle of the Little Bighorn (above). My goal is to write a human-level tactical AI and, clearly, the historical attack (splitting forces) by Blue (7th Cavalry) against the far superior Red (Native American) forces was very ill advised (perhaps calling into question the definition of ‘human-level tactical AI’).

After a lot of thought I realized that I needed to create an AI Editor program. You use the Army Editor to create armies for the General Staff Wargaming System, the Map Editor to create maps, the Scenario Editor to place armies on the map and now you use the AI Editor to quickly and easily select strategies for an army. For example:

Screen shot of the General Staff AI Editor being used to program AI strategies for the Union forces at Antietam. Click on a battle group and select strategies from the drop down menus. Click to enlarge.

The AI Editor is very easy to use. You just load a scenario (created in the Scenario Editor, of course) tell the AI to separate the units on the field into battle groups (this creates unique groups based on proximity rather than the Order of Battle hierarchy) and then select strategies from the drop down menus. It’s important to note that these units won’t follow the direct paths between objectives; those are just there to show the order of Objectives. The MATE AI algorithms will be engaged to actually move units on the battlefield and implement tactical maneuvers like envelopment and turning attacks. Also, note the AI Editor creates one set of strategies that the AI will follow, if so instructed, when you actually play a simulation. You will also have the  option to let the Machine Learning algorithms select strategies as well though these may not follow historical strategies.

It took less than a minute to set up Custer’s strategy at Little Bighorn:

Screen shot from the General Staff AI Editor showing Custer’s historical strategy at Little Bighorn. Click to enlarge.

With the creation of the AI Editor the last piece is in place for the General Staff Wargaming System. We now have nine battlefield maps with more on the way (we’re hoping to ship the finished game with about 20 battlefield maps) and fifteen armies (we hope to have about sixty when we’re finished). We’re now registered with Steam and are getting our ‘store’ set up. We will be using Steam for player vs. player games. With a bit of luck we’re hoping to start player vs. player testing in about sixty days.

As always, please feel free to contact me directly with questions, comments or complaints. I’m sorry for the delay, but we’re creating something that hasn’t been done before and that always takes a bit longer.

References

References
1 Antietam & AI
2 Machine Analysis of Tactical Environments, see http://riverviewai.com/
3 https://www.general-staff.com/tag/3d-line-of-sight/
4 https://www.general-staff.com/tag/least-weighted-path-algorithm/
5 Algorithms for Generating Attribute Values for the Classification of Tactical Situations.: http://riverviewai.com/papers/Algorithms-Tactical_Class.pdf
6 https://www.general-staff.com/antietam-ai/
7 Implementing the Five Canonical Offensive Maneuvers in a CGF Environment.:http://riverviewai.com/papers/ImplementingManeuvers.pdf
8 MATE always labels the attacker as blue

Antietam & AI

MATE AI selected Objectives for Blue, 3D Line of Sight (3DLOS) and Range of Influence (ROI) displayed for the Antietam: Dawn General Staff scenario. Screen shot from General Staff Sand Box. Click to enlarge.

The author walking across Burnside’s Bridge in 1966 (age 12).

I have been thinking about creating an artificial intelligence (AI) that could make good tactical decisions for the battle of Antietam (September 17, 1862, Sharpsburg, Maryland) for over fifty years. At the time there was little thought of computers playing wargames.1)However, it is important to note that Arthur Samuel had begun research in 1959 into a computer program that could play checkers. See. “Samuel, Arthur L. (1959). “Some Studies in Machine Learning Using the Game of Checkers”. IBM Journal of Research and Development.” What I was envisioning was a board wargame with some sort of look-up tables and coffee grinder slide rules that properly configured (not sure how, actually) would display what we now call a Course of Action (COA), or a set of tactical orders. I didn’t get too far on that project but I did create an Antietam board wargame when I was 13 though it was hardly capable of solitaire play.

The Antietam scenario from The War College (1992). This featured 128 pre-rendered 3D views generated from USGS Digital Elevation Model Maps.

In 1992 I created my first wargame with an Antietam scenario: The War College (above). It used a scripted AI that isn’t worth talking about. However, in 2003 when I began my doctoral research into tactical AI I had the firm goal in my mind of creating software that could ‘understand‘ the battle of Antietam.

TIGER Analysis of the battle of Antietam showing Range of Influence of both armies, battle lines and RED’s avenue of retreat. TIGER screen shot. Appears in doctoral thesis, “TIGER: A Machine Learning Tactical Inference Generator,” University of Iowa 2009

The TIGER program met that goal (the definition of ‘understand’ being: performing a tactical analysis that is statistically indistinguishable from a tactical analysis performed by 25 subject matter experts; e.g.. active duty command officers, professors of tactics at military institutes, etc.).

In the above screen shot we get a snapshot of how TIGER sees the battlefield. The darker the color the greater the firepower that one side or the other can train on that area. Also shown in the above screen shot is that RED has a very restricted Avenue of Retreat; the entire Confederate army would have to get across the Potomac using only one ford (that’s the red line tracing the road net to the Potomac).  Note how overlapping ROIs cancel each other out. In my research I discovered that ROIs are very important for determining how battles are described. For example, some terms to describe tactical positions include:

  • Restricted Avenue of Attack
  • Restricted Avenue of Retreat
  • Anchored Flanks
  • Unanchored Flanks
  • Interior Lines
  • No Interior Lines

A Predicate Statement list generated by MATE for the battle of Antietam.

Between the time that I received my doctorate in computer science for this research and the time I became a Principal Investigator for DARPA on this project the name changed from TIGER to MATE (Machine Analysis of Tactical Environments) because DARPA already had a project named TIGER. MATE expanded on the TIGER AI research and added the concept of Predicate Statements. Each statement is a fact ascertained by the AI about the tactical situation on that battlefield. The most important statements appear in bold.

The key facts about the tactical situation at Antietam that MATE recognized were:

  • REDFOR’s flanks are anchored. There’s no point in attempting to turn the Confederate flanks because it can’t be done.
  • REDFOR has interior lines. Interior lines are in important tactical advantage. It allows Red to quickly shift troops from one side of the battlefield to the other while the attacker, Blue, has a much greater distance to travel.
  • REDFOR’s avenue of retreat is severely restricted. If Blue can capture the area that Red must traverse in a retreat, the entire Red army could be captured if defeated. Lee certainly was aware of this during the battle.
  • BLUEFOR’s avenue of attack is not restricted. Even though the Blue forces had two bridges (Middle Bridge and Burnside’s Bridge) before them, MATE determined that Blue had the option of a wide maneuver to the north and then west to attack Red (see below screen shot):

MATE analysis shows that Blue units are not restricted to just the two bridge crossings to attack Red. MATE screen shot.

  • BLUEFOR has the superior force. The Union army was certainly larger in men and materiel at Antietam.
  • BLUEFOR is attacking across level ground. Blue is not looking at storming a ridge like at the battle of Fredericksburg.

MATE AI selects these objectives for Blue’s attack. General Staff Sand Box screen shot. Click to enlarge.

We now come to General Staff which uses the MATE AI. General Staff clearly has a much higher resolution than the original TIGER program (1155 x 805 terrain / elevation data points versus 102 x 66, or approximately 138 times the resolution / detail). In the above screen shot the AI has selected five Objectives for Blue. I’ve added the concept of a ‘battle group’ – units that share a contiguous battle line – which in this case works out as one or two corps. Each battle group has been assigned an objective. How each battle group achieves its objective is determined by research that I did earlier on offensive tactical maneuvers 2)See, “Implementing the Five Canonical Offensive Maneuvers in a CGF Environment.” link to paper.

As always, I appreciate comments and questions. Please feel free to email me directly with either.

References

References
1 However, it is important to note that Arthur Samuel had begun research in 1959 into a computer program that could play checkers. See. “Samuel, Arthur L. (1959). “Some Studies in Machine Learning Using the Game of Checkers”. IBM Journal of Research and Development.”
2 See, “Implementing the Five Canonical Offensive Maneuvers in a CGF Environment.” link to paper.