A novel approach is provided for evaluating the benefits and burdens from vehicle modularity in fleets/units through the analysis of a game theoretical model of the competition between autonomous vehicle fleets in an attacker-defender game. We present an approach to obtain the heuristic operational strategies through fitting a decision tree on high-fidelity simulation results of an intelligent agent-based model. A multi-stage game theoretical model is also created for decision making considering military resources and impacts of past decisions. Nash equilibria of the operational strategy are revealed, and their characteristics are explored. The benefits of fleet modularity are also analyzed by comparing the results of the decision making process under diverse operational situations.

Deep reinforcement learning has achieved many recent successes, but our understanding of its strengths and limitations is hampered by the lack of rich environments in which we can fully characterize optimal behavior, and correspondingly diagnose individual actions against such a characterization. Here we consider a family of combinatorial games, arising from work of Erdos, Selfridge, and Spencer, and we propose their use as environments for evaluating and comparing different approaches to reinforcement learning. These games have a number of appealing features: they are challenging for current learning approaches, but they form (i) a low-dimensional, simply parametrized environment where (ii) there is a linear closed form solution for optimal behavior from any state, and (iii) the difficulty of the game can be tuned by changing environment parameters in an interpretable way. We use these Erdos-Selfridge-Spencer games not only to compare different algorithms, but test for generalization, make comparisons to supervised learning, analyse multiagent play, and even develop a self play algorithm.