[============================================================================] [ ] [ 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