There are a lot more variables that need to be added to for an "AI general".
- There needs to be a system for simulating real-world battles. (Since we need to iterate the AI, afterall.) In WW2 the WATU was a good simulation of German submarine vs. Allied Convoy battles, but I imagine that ground battles are messier. Link for background: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVet82IUAqQ
- Autonomous directions. If a unit loses contact with the AI, what orders should they follow?
- Need to react quickly to changes in the effectiveness of weapons. If army-B has a Surface-to-air missile that has a 80% hit rate, rather than the estimated 40% hit rate, the AI needs to adapt.
- Different armies have different tolerances for causalities, both military and civilian.
I suspect you're getting downvoted because people don't like the idea of military-general AI. I don't really love it either, but it's going to happen. Hopefully we can encourage its programmers to include the Geneva convention rules for war.
- There needs to be a system for simulating real-world battles. (Since we need to iterate the AI, afterall.) In WW2 the WATU was a good simulation of German submarine vs. Allied Convoy battles, but I imagine that ground battles are messier. Link for background: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVet82IUAqQ
- Autonomous directions. If a unit loses contact with the AI, what orders should they follow?
- Need to react quickly to changes in the effectiveness of weapons. If army-B has a Surface-to-air missile that has a 80% hit rate, rather than the estimated 40% hit rate, the AI needs to adapt.
- Different armies have different tolerances for causalities, both military and civilian.
I suspect you're getting downvoted because people don't like the idea of military-general AI. I don't really love it either, but it's going to happen. Hopefully we can encourage its programmers to include the Geneva convention rules for war.