Last week I posted an appeal to the wargaming community and backers of The General Staff Wargaming System that I needed more maps and Orders of Battle (OOBs). The General Staff Wargaming System is designed to handle any conflict in the Black Powder era and the machine learning AI needs as much input as possible.
The five layers that make up a General Staff map.
The General Staff Army Editor makes it pretty easy to create four of the five layers of a map file (see above). The problem is the beautiful background image that the user sees on screen (the computer AI couldn’t care less about the visual map). I’ve been able to locate a lot of great maps; especially from the American Civil War and the US Library of Congress but we still need more.
Waterloo from Glenn Drover (Forbidden Games) and Jared Blando. Click to enlarge.
A couple of days ago I received an email from the famous game designer, Glenn Drover (Forbidden Games), who offered us the use of three maps that he had researched and were drawn by artist Jared Blando. Here’s a link to Forbidden Games’ site. Please check out their fantastic board games!
Ligny from Glenn Drover (Forbidden Games) and Jared Blando. Click to enlarge.
The three battlefield maps were Waterloo, Ligny and Quatre Bras.
Quatre Bras from Glenn Drover (Forbidden Games) and Jared Blando. Click to enlarge.
What is especially amazing is how well these three maps fit the style that I’ve wanted to create for General Staff.
In addition to these three great maps, which we will definitely be using for the battles of Waterloo, Ligny and Quatre Bras, I’ve received emails from a number of other wargamers who have offered to research OOBs; especially some in another language.
I am completely blown away (I know it’s a cliche, but I don’t have any other words) by the kindness and generosity shown me by the wargaming community. Thank you very much!
How a map of the battle of Antietam looks to us humans. Screen shot from the General Staff Map Editor. Click to enlarge.
How the computer sees the same map (terrain and elevation). This is actually a screen shot from the Map Editor with the ‘terrain’ and ‘elevation’ layers turned on. Click to enlarge.
Computer vision is the term that we use to describe the process by which a computer ‘sees'1)When describing various AI processes I often use words like ‘see,’ ‘understand,’ and ‘know’ but this should not be taken literally. The last thing I want to do is to get in to a philosophic discussion on computers being sentient. the world in which it operates. Many companies are spending vast sums of money developing driverless or self-driving cars. However, these AI controlled cars have had a number of accidents including four that have resulted in human fatalities.2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_self-driving_car_fatalities The problem with these systems is not in the AI – anybody who has played a game with simulated traffic (LA Noir, Grand Theft Auto, etc.) knows that. Instead, the problem is with the ‘computer vision’; the system that describes the ‘world view’ in which the AI operates. In one fatality, for example, the computer vision failed to distinguish a white semi tractor trailer from the sky.3)https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/30/tesla-autopilot-death-self-driving-car-elon-musk Consequently, the AI did not ‘know’ there was a semi directly in front of it.
In my doctoral research I created a system by which a program could ‘read’ and ‘understand’ a battlefield map4)TIGER: An Unsupervised Machine Learning Tactical Inference Generator http://www.riverviewai.com/download/SidranThesis.html. This is the system that we use in General Staff.
The two images, above, show the difference in how a human commander and a computer ‘see’ the same battlefield. In the top image the woods, the hills and the roads are all obvious to us humans.
The bottom, or ‘computer vision’ image, is a bit of a cheat because this is how the computer information is visually displayed to the human designer in the General Staff Map Editor. The bottom image is created from four map layers (any of which can be displayed or turned off):
The four layers that make up a General Staff map.
The background image layer in a General Staff map is the beautiful artwork shown in the top image. The place names and Victory Points layer are also displayed in the top image. The terrain and elevation layers are described below:
The next three images are actual visual representations of the contents of memory where these terrain values are stored (this is built in to the General Staff Map Editor as a debugging tool):
Screen shot from the Map Editor showing just terrain labeled as ‘water’. Click to enlarge
Screen shot from the General Staff Map Editor showing the terrain labeled as ‘woods’. Click to enlarge.
Screen shot from the General Staff Map Editor showing the terrain labeled ‘road’. Click to enlarge.
A heightmap for Antietam. This is a visual representation of elevation in meters (darker = lower, lighter = higher). Click to enlarge.
To computers, an image is a two-dimensional array; like a giant tic-tac-toe or chess board. Every square (or cell) in that board contains a value called the RGB (Red, Green, Blue5)Except in France where it’s RVB for Rouge, Vert, Bleu ) value. Colors are described by their RGB value (white, for example, is 255,255,255). If you find this interesting, here is a link to an interactive RGB chart. General Staff uses a similar system except instead of the RGB system each cell contains a value that represents various terrain types (road, forest, swamp, etc.) and another, identical, two-dimensional array, contains values that represent the elevation in meters. To make matters just a little bit more confusing, computer arrays are actually not two-dimensional (or three-dimensional or n-dimensional) but rather a contiguous block of memory addresses. So, the terrain and elevation arrays in General Staff which appear to be two-dimensional arrays of 1155 x 805 cells are actually just 929,775 bytes long hunks of contiguous memory. To put things in perspective, just those two arrays consume more RAM than was available for everything in the original computer systems (Apple //e, Apple IIGS, Atari ST, MS DOS, Macintosh and Amiga) that I originally wrote UMS for.
So, not surprisingly, a computer stores its map of the world in which it operates as a series of numbers 6)Yes, at the lowest level the numbers are just 1s and 0s but we’ll cover that before the midterm exams. that represent terrain and elevation. But, how does a human commander read a map? I posed this question to Ben Davis, a neuroscientist and wargamer, and he suggested looking at a couple of studies. In one article7)https://www.citylab.com/design/2014/11/how-to-make-a-better-map-according-to-science/382898/, Amy Lobben, head of the Department of Geography at the University of Oregon, said, “…some people process spatial information egocentrically, meaning they understand their environment as it relates to them from a given perspective. Others navigate more allocentrically, meaning they look at how other objects in the environment relate to each other, regardless of their perspective. These preferences are linked to different regions of the brain.” Another8)https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251187268_USING_fMRI_IN_CARTOGRAPHIC_RESEARCH reports the results of fMRI scans while, “subjects perform[ed] navigational map tasks on a computer and again while they were being scanned in a magnetic resonance imaging machine.” to identify specific, “involvement or non-involvement of the brain area.. doing the task.”
So, how computers and human commanders read and process maps is quite different. But, at the end of the day, computers are just manipulating numbers following a series of algorithms. I have written extensively about the algorithms that I have developed including:
“Algorithms for Generating Attribute Values for the Classification of Tactical Situations.”
“Implementing the Five Canonical Offensive Maneuvers in a CGF Environment.”
“Good Decisions Under Fire: Human-Level Strategic and Tactical Artificial Intelligence in Real-World Three-Dimensional Environments.”
“Current Methods to Create Human-Level Artificial Intelligence in Computer Simulations and Wargames”
Human Level Artificial Intelligence for Computer Simulations and Wargames.
An Analysis of Dimdal’s (ex-Jonsson’s) ‘An Optimal Pathfinder for Vehicles in Real-World Terrain Maps’
These papers, and others, can be freely downloaded from my web site here.
As always, please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions or comments.
When describing various AI processes I often use words like ‘see,’ ‘understand,’ and ‘know’ but this should not be taken literally. The last thing I want to do is to get in to a philosophic discussion on computers being sentient.
I‘m used to learning a lot when researching a battle but nothing prepared me for the ‘what ifs’ of Little Bighorn. My doctorate is in computer science but I have been an American Civil War buff since I was about five years old. I’m very familiar with brevet Major General George Armstrong Custer’s achievements during the Appomattox campaign where he commanded a division that smashed Pickett’s right flank at Five Forks. I knew that after the war Custer returned to his previous rank in the U. S. Army of Lt. Colonel, that he fell under a cloud with U. S. Grant, was stripped of his command, and had to beg for it back from President Grant, himself, at the White House.
Brevet Major General George Armstrong Custer taken May 1865. Credit: Civil war photographs, 1861-1865, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division. Click to enlarge.
And, of course, I knew of the debacle at the Little Bighorn.
After I wrote UMS, the first computer wargame construction system, users began to send me Little Bighorn scenarios that included Gatling guns. I assumed that these were science fiction ‘what if’ scenarios. such as a story I read back in the ’60s about what if Civil War units had automatic weapons from the future. But, recently, while reading Stephen Ambrose’s Crazy Horse and Custer I learned that General Alfred Terry, Custer’s superior and the commander of the expedition, had indeed offered Custer not just three Gatling Guns (manned by troops from the 20th Infantry 1)The Guns Custer Left Behind; Historynet https://www.historynet.com/guns-custer-left-behind-burden.htm ) but four extra troops from the 2nd U. S. Cavalry. Custer turned down Terry’s offer of reinforcements and more firepower with these infamous words:
“The Seventh can handle anything it meets.” – Custer to Terry
Photo taken by F. Jay Haynes of one of the Gatling guns that were available to the 7th Cavalry. Click to enlarge.
Screen capture of the Order of Battle of the 7th US Cavalry with the addition of 3 Gatling guns and 4 companies of the 2nd US Cavalry. Click to enlarge.
As for the battle of Little Bighorn, itself, I didn’t know much more than the broad outline that Custer and his command were killed to the last man by an overwhelming number of Native American warriors (this, of course, wasn’t correct as members of Reno’s and Benteen’s columns survived). Custer, himself, was the text book image of hubris and became the butt of late night comedians and humorous pop songs. But the reality turned out to be much more complex and nuanced.
Custer had a reputation of being dashing, headstrong, and gallant; the iconic description of a cavalry commander. The traditional narrative of the disastrous battle of Little Bighorn is that Custer impulsively attacked a vastly superior enemy force; possibly propelled by a belief that Native American warriors were no match for organized cavalry armed with 45-70 trap door carbines. Indeed, Napoleon’s maxim was that, “twenty or more European soldiers armed with the best weapons could take on fifty or even a hundred natives, because of European discipline, training and fire control.” 2)“Crazy Horse and Custer” p. 425 Stephen Ambrose To make matters worse, Custer had pushed the 7th mercilessly and by the time they arrived at the battlefield both men and horses were exhausted.
Custer’s plan of attack is also widely condemned as overly optimistic. He split his command of 616 officers and enlisted men of the 7th cavalry into three battalions. If the four companies of 2nd Cavalry had come along, Custer’s force would be 30% larger.3)Ibid The main force led by himself would be the right flanking column, Reno would have the left flanking attack column and Benteen and the pack train would be in the middle. Custer also drastically underestimated the Native American force at about 1,500.
In theory, Custer’s plan of attack wasn’t that bad:
If Custer was up against a force that was only two or three times his size and
If Reno had pressed home his attack drawing the Native American warriors east toward him and
If Custer had been able to cross the Little Bighorn above the Native American camp and
If Custer had been able to attack the village while the warriors were engaged with Reno
Custer might have, indeed, had a great victory that would have propelled him to the US Presidency (as he had hoped). But none of these suppositions were correct.
Screen shot of the General Staff Scenario Editor where the battle of Little Bighorn scenario is being set up. Not the Order of Battle of the 7th Cavalry (with attached units of the 2nd Cavalry and Gatling guns) on the left. Units are positioned by clicking and dragging them from the Order of Battle Table on the left onto the map. Click to enlarge.
So, the question remains: what value for Leadership would you give to Custer?
Screen shot of the General Staff Army Editor showing the slider that sets the Leadership value for a commander. What value would you give Custer? Click to enlarge
By the way, there will be three separate Little Bighorn scenarios for the General Staff Wargaming System: historically accurate Order of Battle for the 7th Cavalry, the 7th Cavalry plus four companies of the 2nd US Cavalry and 7th Cavalry plus four companies of the 2nd US Cavalry and 3 Gatling guns.
We asked you for your Top 30 battles that you would like to see included free with General Staff for supporters of our Kickstarter campaign. We have previously announced the first twenty vote-getters. Today we are announcing the next five. One of the interesting features of General Staff is the ability to combine any two armies with a map to create a scenario. We use this feature for two day battles (such as Wagram and 2nd Bull Run) effectively creating two completely different battles (with two different armies) but using the same battlefield map.
This map of the battle of Alma was created only two years after the battle. Click to enlarge.
The battle of Alma is our first foray into the Crimean War. The Russians, though outnumbered, have the heights with their guns entrenched in heavy fortifications. The British and the French suffer numerous communication breakdowns. The battle seesawed back and forth until a final assault by the Highland Brigade carried the day and the Russians broke and fled from the battlefield. Playing the Allies will test your ability to coordinate attacks via messengers. Playing the Russians will require skillful coordination of counterattacks.
Wagram was a two day battle with the first day involving crossing the Danube. Click to enlarge.
On May 21st and 22nd Napoleon had attempted to cross the Danube at Lobau Island only to be turned back by Archduke Charles. Now, after over a month of preparations and reinforcements, Napoleon was ready to try again.
We present two distinct scenarios for the battle of Wagram: the first representing the situation on July 5th and Napoleon’s second attempt at crossing the Danube and establishing a beachhead and the second the battle of July 6th in which Archduke Charles attempted a double envelopment of Napoleon’s army. Only Napoleon’s hastily created ‘grand battery’ of artillery, a desperate cavalry charge and a counterattack by MacDonald’s corps saved the day. The Austrians eventually broke and fled the battlefield and sued for an armistice which ended the 1809 war.
Plan of the second Battle of Bull Run Va. Showing position of both armies at 7 p.m. 30th Aug. 1862. From the Library of Congress. Click to Enlarge
After General George McClellan’s disastrous Peninsula campaign, President Lincoln appointed Major General John Pope to lead the newly formed Army of Virginia and was tasked with the missions of protecting Washington D.C. and clearing the Shenandoah Valley of Confederates. McClellan, who never responded promptly to orders even in the best of circumstances, simply ignored commands to begin transferring his army from the peninsula southeast of Richmond up to Pope in front of Washington. Lee, knowing that McClellan had a bad case of the ‘slows’ took advantage of his interior lines to rapidly move his forces north to destroy Pope before McClellan’s troops could reinforce him.
The battle on the old Mananas battlefield began on August 28, 1862 with Jackson (commanding the left wing) shelling the passing Union column of King’s division (which included the soon to be famous Iron Brigade). The Iron Brigade, though outnumbered, attacked and fought Jackson’s famous division to a standstill. However, Jackson’s attack was primarily a feint employed as a ‘fixing force’ for an envelopment maneuver; Longstreet’s corps was expected to appear on the Union’s unprotected left flank.
On the second day, August 29th, Pope attempted to initiate a double envelopment against Jackson. However, Longstreet had now appeared on the battlefield at exactly the wrong place for Pope’s envelopment maneuver. The day was marked with incredibly poor communications between Pope and his subordinates and ended mostly as it began with neither side gaining or losing much ground.
The third day, August 30th, began with Longstreet’s counterattack on the Union’s exposed left flank. Again, incredibly poor communications between Pope and his subordinates turned a bad situation into a disaster. Unlike the first battle of Bull Run, the Union army fell back on Washington in an orderly column through an extremely limited avenue of retreat over Bull Run.
We continue our list of the thirty most desired 18th and 19th century battles (as voted on by you) with numbers sixteen through twenty. All thirty scenarios will ship with General Staff, as well as the Army Editor, the Map Editor and the Scenario Editor to early supporters of General Staff on Kickstarter. After Kickstarter these scenarios, and the software editing suite, will be available as digital downloads (DDL).
The battle of Shiloh created for the Topographical Engineers in 1866. From the Library of Congress. This is a great image. Please click to greatly enlarge.
If you have ever visited the site of the battle of Shiloh (Pittsburg Landing, Tennessee) your first thoughts were probably, “how could two large armies fight in this forest?” There are, of course, clearings where significant events took place and where the Union encampments were attacked, but Shiloh is mostly deep forest cut with ravines and a few paths and roads.
Shiloh was also a two-day battle with the first day ending as a major Confederate victory and the second a Union triumph. Grant’s Army of the Tennessee was bivouacked alongside the Tennessee River after its victories at Forts Donelson and Henry. Union commanders, including Sherman, ignored reports of Confederate activity in the vicinity. When the Confederates attacked on April 6 the Union forces were overwhelmed.
Plaque on the Shiloh battlefield indicating the location of Grant’s HQ. Click to enlarge.
On the evening of April 6-7, 1862 a terrific thunderstorm fell across the battlefield. Grant’s headquarters had been taken over as a field hospital and so he retreated to a tree where he stood in the rain holding a lantern in one hand and smoking a cigar. Grant’s subordinate commanders had decided that the battle was lost and that the army’s only hope was to abandon the artillery and baggage and ferry the troops across the river. Nobody wanted to approach Grant and, eventually, Sherman was induced to talk to him. He found Grant under this famous tree.
Not knowing exactly how to start the conversation he began by saying to Grant, “Well, Grant, we certainly had the Devil’s own day.”
“Yes,” said Grant, the end of his cigar glowing in the dark, “Going to whip ’em tomorrow, though.”
The Confederates ordered an attack against Grant’s troops at dawn. Grant ordered an attack on the Confederates an hour before dawn. The rest is history.
Positions in the morning of Day 2 of the battle of Eylau. Click to enlarge.
Though Eylau is listed as one of Napoleon’s great victories on the Arc de Triomphe, in reality it was a massacre in a blizzard that ended in a slight French tactical victory and a minor Russian strategic success.
Two large armies (the French and the Russian / Prussian armies were approximately the same size at 75,000 troops) occupied parallel ridge lines separated by a valley. It was February in Poland and the weather was freezing and snowy. Obviously, the weather conditions greatly effected troop speeds. It is very easy in General Staff to adjust unit speeds to reflect various weather conditions (see here).
At a critical juncture Napoleon ordered Murat to charge the Russian center with his 11,000 strong force. Though this was one of the largest cavalry charges of all times, this dubious honor actually belongs to the Polish and German cavalry at the battle of Vienna September 12, 1683 with an estimated force of 20,000.
Murat’s famous cavalry charge at Eylau painted by Jean-Antoine-Siméon Fort. Click to enlarge.
Murat’s charge stabilized Napoleon’s center and the Russian and Prussian troops withdrew from the battlefield that night. The French were too exhausted to pursue. After the battle, the late arriving Marshal Ney famously observed: “Quel massacre! Et sans résultat” (“What a massacre! And without result”).
The battle of Leuthen. Positions after Frederick the Great’s right flank envelopment maneuver. Click to enlarge.
At the battle of Leuthen, Frederick the Great performed a classic envelopment maneuver that crushed a much larger Austrian force. There are many ways to describe an envelopment maneuver but this clip from the movie Animal House has always been a favorite:
While distracting your opponent (“Greg, look at my thumb!”) you clock your enemy with a roundhouse punch.
In military terms, the distraction is called the ‘fixing force’ and the roundhouse punch is, “the enveloping force.” Frederick the Great assigned a small ‘fixing force’ to distract his enemy while the main force traveled behind a hill, hidden from sight.
The artificial intelligence (AI) for General Staff ‘knows’ the envelopment maneuver and prefers it over all forms of attack. Below are figures describing the implementation of the envelopment maneuver from one of the author’s papers:
Figures from the author’s, “”Implementing the Five Canonical Offensive Maneuvers in a CGF Environment,” illustrating the TIGER AI’s implementation of the envelopment maneuver. Click to enlarge.
The AI is keenly aware of 3D Line of Sight (see here) and will take advantage of intervening terrain (as did Frederick the Great) to hide its maneuvers. You have been warned.
The French are surrounded at the battle of Sedan. Click to enlarge
The battle of Sedan ended the Franco Prussia war when the French army (commanded by Emperor Napoleon III) was surrounded and captured by the German and Bavarian army (commanded by Helmuth von Moltke). As a scenario this will obviously turn on, “Can the French break out of the trap?”