Tag Archives: Little Bighorn

Seeing Old Battlefield Maps in a New Way

Leave a reply

Previously, I’ve written about maps and layers in General Staff (here). A General Staff map is made up of background, elevation, terrain, slope, units, AI, water and road layers. Recently, while working with scans of very old battlefield maps, I discovered an amazing effect.

The battle of Vitoria. From, an “Atlas to Alison’s History of Europe: Constructed and Arranged, Under the Direction of Mr. Alison. 12 volume History of Europe (An Attractive And Complete Set Of Books Comprising Alison’s Europe).” The maps are made by W & A K Johnston Ltd, one of the major map publishing houses of the 19th century. William Johnston (1802–1888) and his brother Alexander Keith Johnston (1804–1871) originally trained as engravers, and founded the firm in 1826. The atlas, prepared by A K Johnston, was published by Wm Blackwood & Sons around 1850. Thank you, Mike Oliver for this background information on this map and the atlas that it came from. Click to enlarge.

The above map comes from a wonderful atlas illustrating numerous Napoleonic era battles. These are the kinds of maps that inspired General Staff. As a kid I used to look at similar maps (and, of course, The West Point Atlas of American Wars) and imagine commanding units on the battlefield. The problem with maps like these is that they don’t actually contain any data that computers can use. Humans can look at the above map and see hills, valleys, towns and rivers. But, to a computer, this is just another image. The process of converting this map into computer usable data involves the General Staff Map Editor.

Ed Kuhrt, my old friend, superb musician, talented jeweler (he made my wife’s heart-shaped diamond ring), and excellent artist made this height map from the original map (above) using PhotoShop; though he could have used the General Staff Map Editor and a digitizing tablet as well.

Height – or elevation – map produced by Ed Kuhrt from the Vitoria battlefield map. Click to enlarge.

A slider and checkbox for adjusting the visibility (transparency) of the Slope Layer in the Map Editor.

Prior to this Andy O’Neill had just implemented precalculating slopes. In my original work with least weighted paths and slopes I calculated slope ‘on the fly’. Andy, quite correctly, realized that these values could be calculated in advance and stored as part of the map data. This, of course, would save time when calculating optimal paths for units (and also calculating combat equations which involve slope). Consequently, Andy added another visual layer – a slope layer – to visualize the slopes (see right).

It was while working in the Map Editor with the Vitoria battle map, and adjusting the sliders for the various layers that I discovered this amazing effect:This map (above) certainly reminds me the plastic 3D maps we used to see back in grade school. I think they look fantastic. Here are some more:

This map is from the US Library of Congress and can be downloaded here.

Trenton map with slope and elevation increased. Click to enlarge.

Fantastic map of the Little Bighorn battlefield done shortly after the battle. Click to enlarge.

Little Bighorn battlefield with slope and elevation emphasized. Click to enlarge.

Battlefield of 1st Bull Run from the West Point Atlas of American Wars Volume 1. Click to enlarge.

1st Bull Run battlefield with slopes and elevation emphasized. Click to enlarge.

What’s Taking So Long?

22 Replies

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

“What Ifs” at Little Bighorn

9 Replies

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.

References

References
↑1 The Guns Custer Left Behind; Historynet
https://www.historynet.com/guns-custer-left-behind-burden.htm
↑2 “Crazy Horse and Custer” p. 425 Stephen Ambrose
↑3 Ibid

Free Scenarios Eleven Through Fifteen!

Leave a reply

We continue our list of the most requested (as voted by you) scenarios with numbers eleven through fifteen. These scenarios will be included as a reward to General Staff Kickstarter backers. For more information about when the Kickstarter campaign will begin see this page. After the Kickstarter campaign they will be available as digital download content.

Scenarios number 12 and 13 are excellent examples of the flexibility of the General Staff Wargaming System. In the Little Bighorn with Gatling Guns scenario we can use the built in ability to modify unit speeds (see this video) to modify the horse artillery speed to properly reflect that “condemned cavalry horses” that pulled the guns. In the Isandlwana scenario we can use the built in ability to modify the attack matrix to represent that the Zulu regiments were armed with assegai iron spears and cow-hide shields.

Map of the Battle of the Little Bighorn to accompany the report of Lieutenant Edward Maguire of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Click to enlarge.

After the original UMS (see here) was released a number of users created Little Bighorn scenarios that included Custer’s famous Gatling guns. (For more information about Custer’s Gatling guns click here.) Custer, of course, refused to take the battery (either two or three guns) because he feared it would slow down his column. Instead, they traveled with Colonel John Gibbons’ column. In rejecting them, Custer wrote to his superior, General Terry, “The 7th can handle anything it meets.” Would they have made a difference? This should make for fascinating ‘what if’ simulation.

Photo taken by F. Jay Haynes of one of the Gatling guns that were available to the 7th Cavalry. Click to enlarge.

This map is from the Campbell Collection University of KwaZulu-Natal. We are working on getting a higher resolution image.

We have recently written about using the General Staff Wargaming System to create a Battle of Isandlwana simulation. Properly modeling disparate unit types (e. g. British line infantry versus Zulu regiments) could be a daunting task but General Staff allows for modifying attack matrices to reflect different unit types, armament and abilities.

The battle of Talavera from page 273 of History of the King’s German Legion. [With plates.], by BEAMISH, North Ludlow.. Original held and digitized by the British Library. Click to enlarge.

The first of our Peninsular War battles is Talvera and pits Sir Arthur Wellesley (who will be elevated to the Peerage with the title Viscount Wellington after Talvera) against the French King of Spain, Joseph Bonaparte. This is an especially interesting terrain where evenly matched armies fought where the British suffered approximately 25% casualties and the French 18%. Considered a tactical victory for the Anglo-Spanish.

The Battle of Blenheim August 13, 1704.

Blenheim was a decisive victory for the Duke of Marlborough and a crushing defeat for the Duc de Tallard and the French. The battlefield stretched from the banks of the Danube to a point some four miles to the north and west and contained varied terrain features including villages, swamps hills and ravines. . Over 100,000 troops were engaged by both sides. Blenheim was included in Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy’s, “Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,” where he wrote, “Had it not been for Blenheim, all Europe might at this day suffer under the effect of French conquests resembling those of Alexander in extent and those of the Romans in durability.”