281 lines
17 KiB
Groff
281 lines
17 KiB
Groff
|
|
[============================================================================]
|
|
[ ]
|
|
[ Ogre Strategy and Notes ]
|
|
[ Part Two ]
|
|
[ ]
|
|
[============================================================================]
|
|
[Ogre Strategy and Notes Continued]
|
|
[============================================================================]
|
|
|
|
The Mixed Defense
|
|
=================
|
|
|
|
The Mixed Defense does not rely on any one class of armor or artillery;
|
|
instead, it is built around a varied armor force. Like the GEV-centered
|
|
defense, the Mixed defense calls for initial intercept forces to slow the
|
|
invading Ogre. Once the Ogre is slowed, though, the Mixed defense adopts
|
|
aunique attack style of its own. The Mixed defense's flexibility allows it to
|
|
throw a variety of weapons at the Ogre simultaneously.
|
|
Typically, defensive actions start with a group of GEVs attempting to
|
|
shoot away about one thired of the Ogre's tread sections (the "slow the Ogre"
|
|
phase of the attack). The first wave(s) of FEVs are backed up by a mixed
|
|
force of heavy tanks (placed closer to the Combine lines) and missile tanks
|
|
(placed closer to the CP). This mixed force is very flexible and can attack
|
|
both the Ogre's weapons systems and its tread sections. Finally, the "front"
|
|
mixed force is backed by an additional "rear" mixed force, typically formed of
|
|
missile tanks, missile howitzers, and infantry (some commanders choose
|
|
additional armor vehicles in lieu of howitzers). The "rear" mixed force
|
|
surrounds the Command Post with a protective ring of fire, and does its best
|
|
to stop and/or disarm the (presumably) badly damaged Ogre as it lumbers toward
|
|
the Command Post.
|
|
The precise strategy of the "rear" mixed force is to some extent
|
|
determined by the condition of the Ogre as it draws close to the Command Post.
|
|
If the Ogre has few tread sections remaining, the "rear" force can attack the
|
|
Ogre's weapons first, and then attack tread sections at the penultimate
|
|
moment. Most typically, the Ogre arrives with few weapons remaining, but with
|
|
a (fairly) healthy complement of tread sections intact. In this case, the
|
|
"rear" force throws almost all its firepower at Ogre tread sections,
|
|
addressing Ogre weapons later on.
|
|
The Mixed Defense relies on the same principle which makes the GEV
|
|
defense work; namely, striking the Ogre with a greater level of fire than the
|
|
Ogre can return. The GEV defense accomplishes this goal by using fragile but
|
|
fast vehicles which can fire on the Ogre and then escape beyond its range. The
|
|
Mixed defense accomplishes this goal by using all available units which may
|
|
vary in defensive firepower and firing range. Just as the GEV defense forces
|
|
the Ogre to decide which group of GEVs to pursue, the Mixed defense forces the
|
|
Ogre to decide which types of vehicles to pursue. The main idea is to force
|
|
the Ogre to make so-called "no-win" decisions, and to hit the Ogre with
|
|
crippling fire in the process.
|
|
Key Points: Many of the comments made about the Howitzer-and
|
|
GEV-centered defenses apply for the Mixed Defense. We menion a few specific
|
|
items the Mixed defense commander must watch.
|
|
Early Attack: It is very important to slow the Ogre before it crosses
|
|
too deeply into the Conflict Zone. The Mixed defense is in some ways more
|
|
sensitive to this problem than the GEV defense. If the Ogre runs into your
|
|
"front" mixed force at full speed, there is a real possibility that it will
|
|
sweep past your heavy tanks and then win the "footrace" to your Command Post.
|
|
Placement of the "front" mixed force is critical. If the force is placed too
|
|
far forward (toward Combine lines), your first wave of interceptors will not
|
|
have enough time to slow the Ogre. If your "front" mixed force is placed too
|
|
far to the rear (toward your Command Post), you will miss valuable
|
|
opportunities to make the Ogre pay for every one of its forward movements.
|
|
Experienced commanders try to arrange the firrst, second, and third wave
|
|
forces so that the Ogre is under continuous attack (i.e., there are absolutely
|
|
no moments of respite for the Ogre).
|
|
Middle Attack: it is important to keep your "front" and "rear" mixed
|
|
forces truly mixed. While we do not fully understand the Ogre's attack
|
|
algorithms, we believe the Ogre usually had a harder time dealing with varied
|
|
types of vehicles as opposed to clusters of identical vehicles (GEVs
|
|
excepted). The Mixed defense derives much of its flexibility from striking
|
|
the Ogre simultaneously with short and long range weapons. Don't lose this
|
|
advantage when you don't have to. Be wary of Ogres which seem to break off
|
|
their attack and instead maneuver diagonally across the Conflict Zone.
|
|
Experience has shown that this is often an Ogre ploy calculated to draw out
|
|
your forces. separating them into groups of fast, faster, and fastest
|
|
vehicles. Once the Ogre separates your force into distinct classes of
|
|
vehicles, it has a much easier time methodically eliminating one class of
|
|
vehicle at a time.
|
|
Final Attack: As mentioned under other defense sections, above, you must
|
|
have a keen sense of timing to know when to begin your all out drive to
|
|
immobilize the Ogre. Infantry are again required to play a critical, and
|
|
sadly, self-sacrificial role in shooting away Ogre tread sections. As the
|
|
Ogre closes on your Command Post, you must make sure that your infantry squads
|
|
are in correct position to intercept the Ogre. We remind you once again that
|
|
a disarmed but mobile ogre is a deadly weapon!
|
|
Comments: The Mixed defense is effective against both Mk III and Mk V
|
|
Ogres. Of the "classic" defense schemes mentioned here, the Mixed defense is
|
|
probably the easiest for an inexperienced commander to master. This is true
|
|
mostly because the Mixed defense offers extra flexibility in selecting targets
|
|
(at the mid-point of an invasion, both Ogre weapons and tread sections are
|
|
suitable targets), and because the mixed armored force tends to help the
|
|
commander recover from (small) tactical mistakes.
|
|
|
|
[============================================================================]
|
|
[Strategic Suggestions for Ogre AI Programmers]
|
|
[============================================================================]
|
|
|
|
Basic Strategy
|
|
==============
|
|
|
|
This manual addresses the particular type of cybertank mission where a
|
|
single "Ogre-class" cybertank invades an Alliance-occupied Conflict Zone on
|
|
its own. In such a mission the cybertank's prime directive is to eliminate
|
|
the Conflict Zone Command Post. As a secondary priority, the cybertank should
|
|
strive to eliminate all (or almost all) Alliance ground forces. As a final
|
|
priority, the cybertank should return to a friendly service center after
|
|
clearing the Zone.
|
|
Given these priorities, the cybertank's basic strategy revolves around a
|
|
deceptively simple question:
|
|
|
|
"How should the cybertank destroy the Alliance Command Post?"
|
|
|
|
The cybertank's attack algorithms must continuously review and reassess
|
|
this question as the attack proceeds. Ultimately, the cybertank's options
|
|
will be to take the Command Post either by firing weapons or by ramming the
|
|
Post directly. But this is a complex decision, a decision the cybertank can
|
|
make only in the later stages of its attack.
|
|
Experience has shown us a potential problem. Cybertanks can sometimes be
|
|
diverted from their primary goal (destruction of the Command Post) if they are
|
|
offered enough enticing opportunities to pursue secondary goals (e.g.
|
|
destruction of Alliance ground forces). While reaching secondary goals is
|
|
important, pursuit of secondary goals must never prevent the cybertank from
|
|
fulfilling its prime objective. As you prepare cybertanks for combat
|
|
missions, we suggest you install strong "initiative refocusing" blocks which
|
|
prompt the system to look again and again at the unit's primary objective.
|
|
This should help keep the cybertank focused on the task at hand.
|
|
|
|
Assessing Alliance Defenses
|
|
===========================
|
|
|
|
Alliance defense strategies are as numerous and varied as are our own
|
|
attack plans, However, experience has shown that Alliance defense strategies
|
|
usually fall into three fairly distinct categories. We describe these
|
|
categories below. We believe these descriptions will be useful for you as you
|
|
refine the cybertank's pattern-recognition and strategy-planning algorithms.
|
|
|
|
Howitzer-Centered Defense
|
|
=========================
|
|
|
|
Basic Characteristics: Howitzer-centered defenses arrange three or more
|
|
Howitzers as a protective screen shielding an Alliance Command Post, and are
|
|
arranged so that their circles of fire overlap. This overlap creates a broad,
|
|
deep area which the cybertank can penetrate only by exposing itself to
|
|
concentrated fire. The theory is that the cybertank will lose all of its
|
|
weapons and most of its mobility (or vice versa) as it struggles to break
|
|
through the howitzer line. Although the cybertank will eventually knock out
|
|
the howitzers, it will be so badly damaged in the process that it will become
|
|
easy prey for Alliance ground forces.
|
|
Response Strategy: The cybertank should determine early on if
|
|
howitzer-centered defense is being used. If so, the cybertank has several
|
|
options. One of the best is to enter the Zone only part way, then to spend
|
|
time moving laterally, thus drawing out Alliance mobile ground forces. The
|
|
key here is to deal with mobile armor units while they are outside of the
|
|
howitzer defense circle (if possible). Once a number of mobile units are
|
|
eliminated, the howitzers' "ring of fire" becomes much easier to penetrate.
|
|
The cybertank must study the arrangement of the howitzers, probing for
|
|
weak spots. In some cases, for example, the cybertank can all but bypass a
|
|
howitzer defense simply by taking a roundabout route to the Command Post. If
|
|
there are no apparent weak spots, the cybertank should, all other things being
|
|
equal, strive to attack whichever howitzer appears to form the cornerstone for
|
|
the entire line. The attack should be as simple and direct as possible,
|
|
minimizing the cybertank's exposure to fierce howitzer fire.
|
|
|
|
GEV-Centered Defense
|
|
====================
|
|
|
|
Basic Characteristics: In a GEV-centered defense, the defending
|
|
commander may well select GEVs as the only armor units he places in the field.
|
|
Even if he adds other types of units for balance, GEVs will be the dominant
|
|
element of his defense. The case for the GEV-centered defense is nearly an
|
|
inverse of the argument for the howitzer-centered defense. The howitzer
|
|
defense relies on tightly concentrated fire coming from a small number of
|
|
stationary units; the GEV defense relies on broadly distributed fire coming
|
|
from a large number of extremely mobile units.
|
|
At the start of a typical defensive "scramble," GEVs make individual "hit
|
|
and run" attacks on cybertank treads (with perhaps a few joint attacks on main
|
|
batteries). In theory, this approach enables GEVs to overwhelm the cybertank
|
|
with their superior speed, movement range, and numbers. The intent is to
|
|
trade off a few GEVs early on for a dramatic and swift cutback in the
|
|
cybertank's mobility. If the cybertank can be slowed. GEVs and infantry have
|
|
much more time to stop the cybertank (and attacks will be safer since the
|
|
damaged cybertank can't give pursuit). The GEV defense is based on the
|
|
assumption that GEVs can attack cybertanks and then escape to positions of
|
|
safety. As we shall see, this assumption is not always sound...
|
|
Response Strategy: The cybertank has the advantage of knowing where GEVs
|
|
are stationed before deciding where to enter the Conflict Zone. If possible,
|
|
use this advantage to enter the Zone at a point where GEV coverage is thin.
|
|
Once under attack, the cybertank must maneuver to cut off and eliminate small
|
|
groups of fleeing GEVs. This may entail lateral (or even reverse) movement
|
|
for the cybertank. This is one situation where it is unwise for the cybertank
|
|
to press straight toward the enemy's Command Post. Instead, a zig-zag pattern
|
|
enables the cybertank to trap fleeing GEVs before they can turn around to make
|
|
repeat attacks.
|
|
|
|
Standard Defense
|
|
================
|
|
|
|
Basic Characteristics: The standard Alliance defense deploys an even
|
|
blend of different types of armor along with infantry. Typical forces to
|
|
commit against a single Mk III cybertank might include: 20 Sqauds of Infantry,
|
|
2 Howitzers, 2 Heavy Tanks, 2 Missile Tanks, and 4 GEVs. The standard defense
|
|
is very flexible, and enables the Alliance commander to resist the cybertank
|
|
in several ways. The defense can be optimized to target either cybertank
|
|
treads or weapons. The standard defense is perhaps the most difficult for the
|
|
cybertank to "read," since the defense permits Alliance Commanders to mask
|
|
their intentions until the last moment before their units close on the
|
|
cybertank. If skillfully managed, a standard defensive force can bring
|
|
numerous types of weapons to bear on the cybertank simultaneously.
|
|
Response Strategy: Our cybertanks do quite well against the standard
|
|
defensive force provided only part of that force is engaged at any given
|
|
moment. It is often useful for the cybertank to play a waiting game, using
|
|
some lateral movement to draw the Alliance's faster units forward. The main
|
|
idea is to string out Alliance forces across the length of the Conflict
|
|
Zone. In this way, the cybertank can tackle separate groups of armor rather
|
|
than attempting to forge its way straight through a highly concentrated group
|
|
of armor units. As the cybertank encounters small groups of armor, it should,
|
|
where possible, take the added precaution of "sideslipping" past the edges of
|
|
the groups. The sideslip maneuver helps keep the cybertank from being
|
|
trapped, and helps ensure that the cybertank will arrive at the enemy Command
|
|
Post with adequate mobility and firepower in reserve.
|
|
|
|
Entry to the Conflict Zone
|
|
==========================
|
|
|
|
Alliance commanders almost always locate Command Posts at the rear edge
|
|
of the Conflict Zone, near the Center. Thus, to minimize travel distance
|
|
across the Zone, and to permit greater flexibility of movement within the
|
|
Zone, the cybertank should usually enter from a central location. There are a
|
|
few exceptions to this rule. Some Alliance Commanders run the standard
|
|
defense by placing both their Command Post and the bulk of their defensive
|
|
forces in a rear corner of the Conflict Zone. When facing forces deployed in
|
|
this way, the cybertank might benefit from entering the Zone at the opposite
|
|
front corner of the Zone. In this case, an entry from the opposite corner
|
|
tends to lure Alliance forces away from their strong position near the Command
|
|
Post.
|
|
|
|
Use of Missiles
|
|
===============
|
|
|
|
Because missiles are the most powerful and longest range weapons in the
|
|
cybertank arsenal, many AI programmers instruct cybertanks to hold at least a
|
|
few missiles in reserve to handle contingencies arising late in the attack.
|
|
On an intuitive level this strategy makes sense, but recent combat analysis
|
|
by Combine intelligence indicates that the strategy simply does not work. In
|
|
far too many cases, missiles are destroyed without ever leaving their
|
|
launching tubes. Thus, the latest Combine doctrine holds that missiles should
|
|
be held back only so long as the cybertank's "conventional" guns are able to
|
|
handle nearby Alliance armor units. In all other cases, the missiles should
|
|
be treated like any other weapon in the cybertank arsenal, and should be used
|
|
as needed. This does not mean that missiles should be used haphazardly (e.g.,
|
|
to attack a single squad of infantry). It does mean that missiles can and
|
|
should be used on a wide range of appropriate targets (e.g., to destroy
|
|
Command Posts, or to eliminate Howitzers or armor units blocking the
|
|
cybertanks path). Over a century ago, the first builders of nuclear weapons
|
|
said it best: "Use 'em or lose 'em."
|
|
|
|
Use of Terrain
|
|
==============
|
|
|
|
Since both Mk III and Mk V cybertanks are free to move over all but the
|
|
most difficult land surfaces, most AI programmers give little attention to
|
|
terrain (apart from avoiding such obvious hazards as full-size bomb craters
|
|
and swamps). To be blunt, this is a mistake. While terrain does little to
|
|
affect the cybertank, it does affect the cybertank's enemies (in particular,
|
|
very few vehicles can cross huge piles of battlefield rubble the way a
|
|
cybertank can). In many cases, the cybertank can use rubble or bomb craters
|
|
to block pursuit from Alliance armor units.
|
|
Some AI programmers send cybertanks along the very edges of impassable
|
|
areas. The theory is that, in following this path, the cybertank can be
|
|
attacked from one side only. This approach carries some merit. However,
|
|
recent Combine combat analysis shows that the "edge" movement is not a good
|
|
solution. The cybertank must trade freedom of movement for (relative) safety.
|
|
The tradeoff is not a good one. We suggest you program cybertanks to search
|
|
for travel paths which lie somewhere between the center and the perimeter of
|
|
the Conflict Zone.
|
|
|
|
[============================================================================]
|
|
|
|
[End of Part 2]
|
|
|
|
xxxx |