Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Convoy Route for CW

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> AI Opponent Discussion >> RE: Convoy Route for CW Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Convoy Route for CW - 9/12/2007 4:48:50 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		the above responses illustrated several more good reasons to have a bit of supply in the Med; you'll likely be fighting in the West Med anyway while in the East Med the Eagle and a couple BBs can cover it adequately until the Luftwaffe comes to visit.

also good if the Axis cut the rail link back to Rabat


I have a CW CP plan that delivers 12 resources and 3 oil to the UK to max their factories but only leaves one CP in reserve. It delivers one NEI oil to Singapore and one to India.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 181
RE: Convoy Route for CW - 9/12/2007 8:07:49 PM   
Jimm


Posts: 607
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Largely, whether the CW can attempt a surprise attack on the Italian fleet and invade Sardinia will be contingent on what CVPs it has, whether the Italians declare war first, what defences they put in Sardinia (the wise Italian will probably have something to avert the possibility of surprise conquest), whether the US entry effect will be really detrimental (if the US, after the Allied declaration of war on Germany and the USSR occupation of East Poland, still has some sweet chits in the entry pool, they won't want the CW buggering them up even more), and whether or not the Italians have their 6-range FTR on the map (be careful if they do, go to town if they don't!).

The CW basically has to decide whether it is dealing with an aggressive Italy or not, and, if so, head them off at the pass by beating them to the punch if it can.


The Italians have a lot of bases to cover early doors because of their particular vulnerability to being conquered, and if they plan on being aggressive themselves then some, like Sardinia, may well not be well covered.





(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 182
RE: General thoughts on strategy for CW - Knock Out Italy - 9/25/2007 5:35:46 PM   
npilgaard

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/3/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
I'm going to post a few distilled thoughts on CW convoy production and defences for the AI as I do not think we have gone into detail on this subject yet.


Excellent posts analyzing the CW convoy aspect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
Building Convoys
then it might be able to get away with not building many cps, just bludging off the free ones it gets for minor DoWs and the US, but it won't be able to do much else other than ship resources to the UK.

This is a viable strategy, imho (at least I often end up doing just that, despite intentions beforehand on building plenty of convoys )

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
I would suggest the following build plan:
39 - build 2 cps per turn
40 - build 3 cps per turn
41 - build 4 cps per turn
42 - build 5 cps per turn
43 - same as 42

Adjust to taste and strategic requirements, but be warned - going lower than these recommended levels may make things difficult in the late game, as we shall soon see.

Why Build so Many Convoys?
Don't we want pointy bits, too? Of course. But what are these convoys for?


It looks like a somewhat high convoy build (especially when more than 2-3 per turn) - a significant amount of BP are spent on this. Imho, the CW convoy build plan should depend on the overall CW strategy, with a 'high-convoy-build' strategy as the one suggested being one (interesting) option, but not a fixed part of CW strategy in every game.

Some of the things determining the convoy build include:

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
(1) Replacing losses worldwide.


Essential in every game, imho.

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
(2) Enabling the CW to ship lent resources & build points to France/Free France, the USSR, and China.

These are all nice to do (I don't know about China, though. Have never tried that. I can see it is important to keep China from being conquered, but as soon as Japan is at war with CW it is almost impossible to keep a convoy line open to China. Also, imho
China is a sideshow and not worth spending to many resources/units on).
LL to FF: a nice option to build up a decent FF force, but not necessarily a choice which is taken in every game - depends on FF home country, overall CW strategy etc.
LL to USSR: again nice, but the magnitude could vary a lot from game to game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
(3) Enabling the CW to receive lent resources & build points from the US and (occasionally) France/Free France.

Not a must, but a nice option imho.

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
(4) Ship, without substantial interruption, resources to the UK for production and oil where needed worldwide for saving.


This is a must, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
(5) Have the reserves to be able to keep throwing out convoys for supply in places like the Med, North Sea, or South China Sea (if playing with Limited Overseas Supply).

Whether playing with LoS or not plays an important part in the later stages of the game - if LoS then there must always be reserves available for supply.

Other things:
- overall Euroaxis strategy: a '41 Barbarossa usually means less sub warfare, while e.g. a '42 Barbarossa means that the Axis can usually do a lot of convoy hunting in '41. An axis Sea Lion may force the CW to spent BP on lots of other stuff than convoys... at least for a while.
- Axis builds: more subs of course means a fiercer Battle of Atlantic
- overall CW strategy. An early offensive CW strategy against Italy could require BP, thus not enough BP to go for a 'full' convoy/ASW/NAV program. Being more defensively orientated in the early game (maybe focusing on convoy lines, LL to USSR etc) leaves more BP for convoys. How much LL to USSR (if any...) plays a large role in determining the CW convoy production.
- which minor countries are DoW'ed by the axis - Netherlands, Greece, Norway etc. provide a nice convoy boost to the CW.
- optional rules:
ships in flames: the convoy lanes can be tailored better, since it can be done with 1-CP units, and not only 5-CP units.
convoys in flames, cruisers in flames: lots of initial cruisers, but no free ASW from convoys and BBs no ASW value, so escort ships may need to be built (imho CW can otherwise often do without having to built new no-BB SCSs)
oil: requires tankers, meaning more convoy/tankers must be built to assure that there are reserves of both types.

And probably more...

_____________________________

Regards
Nikolaj

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 183
RE: General thoughts on strategy for CW - Knock Out Italy - 4/17/2008 11:10:03 PM   
npilgaard

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/3/2006
Status: offline 		Regarding strategic bombing - whether to spread out or to concentrate on a few targets:

The main factor here is (German) FTR defense.
If lots of FTRs cover the German factories (as is usually the case):

In later stages of the game where plenty of long range allied FTRs and high-strat-factor LNDs are available it is often fine to fly massive raids with FTR escort over multiple-factory or oil-stored hexes (especially if plaing with factory destruction)

In the earlier stages, where FTR escort is unavailable or scarce spreading out is often better, imho.
With few strat factors (4-9) halving them due to extended range or night missions means only 1 column shift, which is offset by a +1 bonus if uninterceptet.
This means that it can be better to target a far-away factory (fx Poland) if no FTR-cover there).
Also, even when extended and night bombing (or in rain etc) 6+ factor bombers will still bomb at the 2-3 column, meaning a 40% chance of success.

So early on, when outgunned in the air over Germany, it is preferable to spread out, seeking undefended targets at extended range, or medium defended targets at night missions (at extended range better than engaging heavily defended targets at short range, imho).
Often it is possible to target multiple factories near each other only defended by 1-2 FTRs, thus allowing some of the strat bombers to get through uninterceptet, while the other draw the enemy FTRs (and those bombers may consider aborting after a single round of combat if the odds are to bad)

One tactic is to let the US strat bombers (with reasonable high A2A) fly in the first impulse, drawing the German FTRs, and then the CW strat bombers afterwards.
Alternatively, mix US and CW bombers, with a US bomber in front

When the long range German night-fighters show up night missions are much less of an option. Since those FTR3s are often orange they are vulnerable to escorting allied non-orange FTRs, so a few long range FTRs ready for this (if available) is handy.

Depending on German FTR cover spreading out seems ok to me still at this time, although if it is possible to get well escorted heavy raids over the German Ruhr-cities or other multiple factory hexes that is not a bed choice either.

_____________________________

Regards
Nikolaj

(in reply to npilgaard)
Post #: 184
RE: General thoughts on strategy for CW - Knock Out Italy - 4/18/2008 12:43:24 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline 		Another thing to consider about strat bombing Germany : It is often interesting to strat bomb a german target, just to engage the German fighter protecting it, without really caring for the target itself. Destroying a German fighter is worth the mission, this is more BP damage than you can achieve on the factory itself.

(in reply to npilgaard)
Post #: 185
RE: General thoughts on strategy for CW - Knock Out Italy - 4/18/2008 6:19:32 AM   
SemperAugustus

 

Posts: 257
Joined: 1/9/2005
Status: offline 		As long as the AI knows necessary number of convoys, expected losses, replacement time for losses plus a fixed convoy "slack" it should be able to work out the convoy needs. No need for a fixed construction schedule.

Is this something the AI will do?

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 186
RE: General thoughts on strategy for CW - Knock Out Italy - 4/18/2008 7:27:35 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus

As long as the AI knows necessary number of convoys, expected losses, replacement time for losses plus a fixed convoy "slack" it should be able to work out the convoy needs. No need for a fixed construction schedule.

Is this something the AI will do?


Yes. And it can use the recent past to estimate the number of convoy losses likely in the future - in order to start building replacements.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to SemperAugustus)
Post #: 187
RE: General thoughts on strategy for CW - Knock Out Italy - 4/18/2008 11:06:52 AM   
npilgaard

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/3/2006
Status: offline 		An additional comment on allied strat bombing:

If going for a heavy strat campaign it is very useful to have a number of HQs in Britain to reorg the AC when they return home.
Before main invasion of Europe, CW (and often US) usually have 'spare' HQs and can do an air-impulse per turn (or at least combined).

That will increase effectiveness of the strat bombing campaign significantly, as the German FTRs usually are either not reorganised or only in few numbers, since Germany have need for the HQs/non-air impulses elsewhere.

If playing with variable reorg cost this strategy is somewhat less effective, since only half as many LNDs can be reorganised by the allies.

Also, for this strategy to take full effect, building strat bombers must be made a priority for both CW and US.

In addition to harming the German production (and/or, if playing with oil rule, oil reserves) this will force Germany to keep a lot of FTRs in Germany for protection, thus relieving the USSR air force somewhat.

Also, often players tend to use the strat bombers as tactical bombers/ground strikers to lend a hand at land combats. However, if that is done to frequently the strat bombing campaign will suffer, so that is another consideration.
If going in for a full strat bombing campaign, then strat bombers should only be used for ground strikes at decisive moments, imho (eg D-day, invasion of Italy)
One additional use, though: at late way (late '44 and '45) it can be effective (at least so I have heard - it has not been tried to full effect in our games yet) to send in huge wings of strat bombers (25+ factors) doing carpet bombings on front line hexes, which are to be attacked afterwards - removing just a single unit means easier attack afterwards (especially if a corps is removed), and it means that the remaining 2 units in the hex will both be killed in case of a successful attack (thus the German ARM cannot be saved to reappear next turn). If CW has concentrated on AC build, then a combined CW air / US land offensive can be a good weapon against the tough German lines.

_____________________________

Regards
Nikolaj

(in reply to npilgaard)
Post #: 188
RE: General thoughts on strategy for CW - Knock Out Italy - 4/18/2008 11:33:37 AM   
SemperAugustus

 

Posts: 257
Joined: 1/9/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Yes. And it can use the recent past to estimate the number of convoy losses likely in the future - in order to start building replacements.


No risk of one-off large losses or lack of losses skewing build priorities?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 189
RE: General thoughts on strategy for CW - Knock Out Italy - 4/18/2008 12:44:42 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Yes. And it can use the recent past to estimate the number of convoy losses likely in the future - in order to start building replacements.


No risk of one-off large losses or lack of losses skewing build priorities?

Well, you get to decide on builds every turn, so if the pipeline seems low, it can be pumped up rather quickly. Conversely, if there is a glut, then cut back on building convoys. Gearing limits aren't too much of a problem since the major powers with convoy pipelines are usually building naval units too.

This is a typical operations research problem where you want to maintain a set stock level (i.e., convoys in reserve) and deal with fluxuations in sales (# of convoys lost).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to SemperAugustus)
Post #: 190
RE: AI for MWiF - Commonwealth - 5/29/2008 8:22:24 PM   
wfzimmerman


Posts: 660
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline 		I am doing the CW setup for the Day of Infamy scenario and I have a question.

I notice that Pago Pago, which is a victory city, begins as CW controlled.

Does it make sense for the DIV to put a weak DIV there and hope that Japan never gets that far?

If the CW abandons Pago Pago, presumably it would be easy for the US to move in and control it. While if the CW always has a unit in Pago Pago, I assume that they would still control it no matter how many units

If Japan never attacks Pago Pago, the CW has a 1945 victory city for the price of having one division sit there for the whole game.

Does this make sense, or am I misunderstanding something about the rules?

_____________________________

Contribute to the Steve H. thank you book! http://www.nimblebooks.com/wordpress/2009/04/contribute-to-the-wargamers-wwii-quiz-book/

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 191
RE: AI for MWiF - Commonwealth - 5/29/2008 9:54:31 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

I am doing the CW setup for the Day of Infamy scenario and I have a question.

I notice that Pago Pago, which is a victory city, begins as CW controlled.

Does it make sense for the DIV to put a weak DIV there and hope that Japan never gets that far?

If the CW abandons Pago Pago, presumably it would be easy for the US to move in and control it. While if the CW always has a unit in Pago Pago, I assume that they would still control it no matter how many units

If Japan never attacks Pago Pago, the CW has a 1945 victory city for the price of having one division sit there for the whole game.

Does this make sense, or am I misunderstanding something about the rules?


US can never move in and take control of a CW hex. USA can only get control of Pago Pago after it has been captured by an axis power.

So if Japan never attacks Pago Pago CW has a victory city without having to commit a unit.

2.5
Changing control
Control of a hex changes when:
• an enemy land unit (except for partisans ~ see 13.1, and supply
units ~ see 22.4.10) enters it (the major power entering with the
most factors if more than one); or
• an island, territory, minor country or major power is conquered
(see 13.7.1); or
• France is declared Vichy (see 17.); or
• it is a communist Chinese-controlled city entered by a nationalist
Chinese land unit or vice versa; or
• during the liberation step you return control to the original owner
(see 13.7.5, reversion).


< Message edited by Orm -- 5/29/2008 9:56:19 PM >

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 192
RE: AI for MWiF - Commonwealth - 5/29/2008 10:18:13 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the US controls Pago Pago. It certainly does in 1939 scenarios. Is this different in Day of Infamy?

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 193
RE: AI for MWiF - Commonwealth - 5/29/2008 10:29:22 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the US controls Pago Pago. It certainly does in 1939 scenarios. Is this different in Day of Infamy?

It is not different. Pago Pago is US in Day of infamy, the scenario rulebook has no exception.
wfzimmerman, when you say that you are "doing the CW setup for the Day of Infamy scenario", are you talking about WiF, or MWiF ? If it is MWiF, this is a bug, and this is for the playtesting Forum.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 194
RE: AI for MWiF - Commonwealth - 7/17/2008 10:04:20 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		The following are the convoy set-ups I use for the CW. There is the Standard set-up and the Food in Flames set-up.

Note that in both set-ups, CW is getting 12 resources & 4 oil to the UK. Additional reserves can be generated if Caribbean oil is sent to Canada instead.

Standard Set-Up
2 Australian resources are sent to Canada through the Pacific (10 cp).
2 Indian resources are sent to UK, routed around South Africa (16 cp).
3 African resources are sent to UK via Cape St. Vincent-Bay of Biscay (12 cp).
1 Br. Guyana resource is sent to UK joining up with African resource route (4 cp).
3 Venezuelan & 1 Trinidad oil are sent to UK via Caribbean & joining up with Canada route (16 cp).
6 Canadian resources/oil are sent to UK over N. Atlantic (18 cp).
Reserves: 5 cp. These can be used to ship NEI & Persian oil to India/Singapore.

Food in Flames Set-Up
1 Australian resource is sent to Canada through the Pacific (5 cp).
1 Australian resource is sent to UK along southern edge of map & up Africa (9 cp).
Otherwise, this set-up is identical to the above set-up.
Reserves: 4 cp.

Additional Resources
The Dutch Guyana & Belgian Congo resources are usually made available in 1939-1940. This allows more Caribbean oil to be saved, either in UK or in Canada.

Ideal Convoy Line - Guaranteed Lines
By 1942, I hope to have the following convoy lines:
4 Canadian resources/oil being shipped to UK (to Faeroes' Gap) (12 cp).
2 Guyana resources (British & Dutch) sent to UK (via East Coast - FG route) (10 cp).
4 African resources (incl. Belgian) sent to UK (via East Coast - FG route) (28 cp).
These lines will probably be a must. That leaves 5 resources to go to UK from somewhere to make up remainder of resources.

Hypothetical Mid-Game Lines
These convoy lines will depend on who is lending resources to CW and whether they want to ship Caribbean oil to Canada (1 sea area away thanks to US) or to UK.
Also, the Indian/Aussie Food in Flames/trans-Pacific lines are hypothetical while there is the threat of Japanese action.
Finally, it is assumed that routes going up Africa cross the Atlantic to Mouths of the Amazon to ship up across to UK via the North Atlantic (to avoid Cape St. Vincent & Bay of Biscay).
1 Senegalese resource sent to UK (lent from Free France once Senegal is Free French) (6 cp).
x resources from USA (lent from US) (3x cp).
1-2 resources from India to UK (10-20 cp).
1 resource from Australia to UK (11 cp).
1-2 resources from Australia to Canada (5-10 cp). This route may be (or ought to be) provided by the US' cp.
1-2 extra reources/oil from Canada to UK (3-6 cp). This depends on resources coming from Australia going to UK.
1-4 oil going from Caribbean to UK (4-12 cp).

If not using Food in Flames, eliminating the convoy shipping from India/Australia is not a bad idea.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 195
RE: AI for MWiF - Commonwealth - 7/17/2008 10:19:54 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

The following are the convoy set-ups I use for the CW. There is the Standard set-up and the Food in Flames set-up.

Note that in both set-ups, CW is getting 12 resources & 4 oil to the UK. Additional reserves can be generated if Caribbean oil is sent to Canada instead.

Standard Set-Up
2 Australian resources are sent to Canada through the Pacific (10 cp).
2 Indian resources are sent to UK, routed around South Africa (16 cp).
3 African resources are sent to UK via Cape St. Vincent-Bay of Biscay (12 cp).
1 Br. Guyana resource is sent to UK joining up with African resource route (4 cp).
3 Venezuelan & 1 Trinidad oil are sent to UK via Caribbean & joining up with Canada route (16 cp).
6 Canadian resources/oil are sent to UK over N. Atlantic (18 cp).
Reserves: 5 cp. These can be used to ship NEI & Persian oil to India/Singapore.

Food in Flames Set-Up
1 Australian resource is sent to Canada through the Pacific (5 cp).
1 Australian resource is sent to UK along southern edge of map & up Africa (9 cp).
Otherwise, this set-up is identical to the above set-up.
Reserves: 4 cp.

Additional Resources
The Dutch Guyana & Belgian Congo resources are usually made available in 1939-1940. This allows more Caribbean oil to be saved, either in UK or in Canada.

Ideal Convoy Line - Guaranteed Lines
By 1942, I hope to have the following convoy lines:
4 Canadian resources/oil being shipped to UK (to Faeroes' Gap) (12 cp).
2 Guyana resources (British & Dutch) sent to UK (via East Coast - FG route) (10 cp).
4 African resources (incl. Belgian) sent to UK (via East Coast - FG route) (28 cp).
These lines will probably be a must. That leaves 5 resources to go to UK from somewhere to make up remainder of resources.

Hypothetical Mid-Game Lines
These convoy lines will depend on who is lending resources to CW and whether they want to ship Caribbean oil to Canada (1 sea area away thanks to US) or to UK.
Also, the Indian/Aussie Food in Flames/trans-Pacific lines are hypothetical while there is the threat of Japanese action.
Finally, it is assumed that routes going up Africa cross the Atlantic to Mouths of the Amazon to ship up across to UK via the North Atlantic (to avoid Cape St. Vincent & Bay of Biscay).
1 Senegalese resource sent to UK (lent from Free France once Senegal is Free French) (6 cp).
x resources from USA (lent from US) (3x cp).
1-2 resources from India to UK (10-20 cp).
1 resource from Australia to UK (11 cp).
1-2 resources from Australia to Canada (5-10 cp). This route may be (or ought to be) provided by the US' cp.
1-2 extra reources/oil from Canada to UK (3-6 cp). This depends on resources coming from Australia going to UK.
1-4 oil going from Caribbean to UK (4-12 cp).

If not using Food in Flames, eliminating the convoy shipping from India/Australia is not a bad idea.

Thanks.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 196
RE: AI for MWiF - Commonwealth - 7/18/2008 5:05:49 PM   
Edfactor


Posts: 106
Joined: 6/13/2008
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		Wow lots of stuff to consider for the CW.

#1 i'd say is to keep your production high, by guarding your convoys well and building CP's (which can be converted to Transports later on if need, or is that an optional rule?)

#2 build air units, Nav and long range fighters are keep to keeping control of the med, a determined axis can wrest control from you - but dont make it easy.

#3 strategic decisions like airstriking the italian fleet and what to commit to France (i often see 2 HQ's and several ground units) are intricately tied in with builds.

You need to have a list of possible options for the CW which can be considered.  Such as guarding murmansk for the Russian - maybe not a common thing but its something i think the AI should consider and do on rare occasions.  Another thing to think about is attacking Japan - ive seen a lazy Japan w/o any convoy escorts and almost no extra CP's loose over half their production to a suprise attack from the CW.  

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 197
RE: AI for MWiF - Commonwealth - 7/18/2008 9:49:16 PM   
sajbalk


Posts: 264
Joined: 7/11/2005
From: Davenport, Iowa
Status: offline 		Guarding your convoys well is always a concern until perhaps 1943 or at least a Germany engaged in the Russian campaign. However, this is often at cost of oil/gas and action limits. Thus there is always a balancing act to follow. The oil rule regarding converting CP to TRS is gone as of the 6th edition (1995 or so).

You certainly do want to keep control of the Med., but if the Axis are determined, they can dominate any one sea area with land based air. The longer range FTRs are generally ineffective at air to air combat, so you must hope, before the CVPs get stronger or American FTRs enter, that the Axis do not find.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Edfactor

Wow lots of stuff to consider for the CW.

#1 i'd say is to keep your production high, by guarding your convoys well and building CP's (which can be converted to Transports later on if need, or is that an optional rule?)

#2 build air units, Nav and long range fighters are keep to keeping control of the med, a determined axis can wrest control from you - but dont make it easy.




_____________________________

Steve Balk
Iowa, USA

(in reply to Edfactor)
Post #: 198
RE: AI for MWiF - Commonwealth - 7/18/2008 11:31:58 PM   
christo

 

Posts: 99
Joined: 11/24/2005
From: adelaide, australia
Status: offline
I disagree. Even though the Beaufighters are an orange 5 air to air, the are mostly up against 1 or 2 factor ATA bombers. If the Axis want better fighter cover, they have to play in a lower box giving you suprise points. The FTR3 are critical to the CW maintaining a presence in the MED.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sajbalk


The longer range FTRs are generally ineffective at air to air combat, so you must hope, before the CVPs get stronger or American FTRs enter, that the Axis do not find.




(in reply to sajbalk)
Post #: 199
RE: AI for MWiF - Commonwealth - 7/19/2008 12:01:34 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: christo
I disagree. Even though the Beaufighters are an orange 5 air to air, the are mostly up against 1 or 2 factor ATA bombers. If the Axis want better fighter cover, they have to play in a lower box giving you suprise points. The FTR3 are critical to the CW maintaining a presence in the MED.
quote:

ORIGINAL: sajbalk
The longer range FTRs are generally ineffective at air to air combat, so you must hope, before the CVPs get stronger or American FTRs enter, that the Axis do not find.


I agree with christo.
But I also agree with Steve, in the sence of when the Axis is in low box with their normal FTR, if they find the Beaufighters will be better advised to hide behind the Gladiators from the Carriers.

A 5 A2A orange fighter is maybe worse than a 3 A2A non orange FTR.

(in reply to christo)
Post #: 200
RE: AI for MWiF - Commonwealth - 7/19/2008 4:11:04 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		I really like the new "Global Economy" option that replaces Food in Flames (In the 2008 Annual). But I would have to throw out my CW conv set-up entirely. I think the CW could get all three bonus Production Points at start if they set up right, but I haven't looked into it too closely yet.

I also think that option might suggest some new thinking for Italian strategy as well.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 201
RE: AI for MWiF - Commonwealth - 7/20/2008 3:41:01 AM   
sajbalk


Posts: 264
Joined: 7/11/2005
From: Davenport, Iowa
Status: offline 		I should think that the CW would qualify for 4 extra. From E. European map, they could get Cyprus or S. Africa. American map is covered. India and Australia add the balance.

Have not tried this option yet.



_____________________________

Steve Balk
Iowa, USA

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 202
RE: AI for MWiF - Commonwealth - 7/20/2008 5:00:31 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline 		Great new Avatar, Steve.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to sajbalk)
Post #: 203
RE: AI for MWiF - Commonwealth - 7/21/2008 5:33:35 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		well Mr. Balk the wrinkle you might not expect on that thought is that the South African resources are actually on the Asian map, since you use the locations on the 5 'Classic' maps (perhaps a bit tricky to explain to MWiF players, but I presume that won't be a worry for the first version as these new optionals won't be included). The CW could get the 4th map via Cyprus and Greece however, which is quite possible at points in a WiF game.

I like the new option. The Axis get some goodies on the front end with a production point for Japan and Germany from turn one. But if the CW were to get all four bonus PPs, that would be 24 BP / year from 1943 on, definitely something to think about. The US and Russia would get some eventually too. As the USA in a no-Gibraltar game I'd play for Senegal to go Vichy and then grab Portugal too.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 204
RE: AI for MWiF - Commonwealth - 7/21/2008 5:36:38 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		I start building the CW FTR3s in J/F 40. The Beaufighters aren't the best, but you have to empty the pool to get to the Mosquitoes, etc. It's all about the box # ... which means it's all about the FTR3s. Once the carrier planes get splashed, they end up in a big pool of counters hard for the CW to put to use.

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 205
RE: AI for MWiF - Commonwealth - 7/22/2008 4:02:19 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		CW normally gets 22 production points without any 'Global Economy' (or for MWiF Food in Flames) bonuses. If it could get up to 4, that would give it 26 production points or 39 bp in 1943+! (Enough to actually afford an o-chit per turn and still build stuff in quantity in the late game, even if it can't compete with the 'big boys' of the Allied side).

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 206
RE: General thoughts on strategy for CW - Knock Out Italy - 7/22/2008 8:56:56 PM   
Edfactor


Posts: 106
Joined: 6/13/2008
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Another thing to consider about strat bombing Germany : It is often interesting to strat bomb a german target, just to engage the German fighter protecting it, without really caring for the target itself. Destroying a German fighter is worth the mission, this is more BP damage than you can achieve on the factory itself.



well the bombers cost more, the bombers are going to loose their pilots more often because of being over enemy territory, and the bombers are going to be on a bad air to air combat table. So this only really works if you can get a fighter thats superior to the defending aircraft.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 207
RE: General thoughts on strategy for CW - Knock Out Italy - 7/22/2008 9:27:43 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edfactor
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Another thing to consider about strat bombing Germany : It is often interesting to strat bomb a german target, just to engage the German fighter protecting it, without really caring for the target itself. Destroying a German fighter is worth the mission, this is more BP damage than you can achieve on the factory itself.



well the bombers cost more, the bombers are going to loose their pilots more often because of being over enemy territory, and the bombers are going to be on a bad air to air combat table. So this only really works if you can get a fighter thats superior to the defending aircraft.

Sure, I was not talking about fighting German Fighters with the bombers alone.
But what I wanted to say is that you should strat bomb, even if you're not that "superior" to the enemy. I would up to -1.

(in reply to Edfactor)
Post #: 208
RE: General thoughts on strategy for CW - Knock Out Italy - 7/22/2008 11:17:06 PM   
Edfactor


Posts: 106
Joined: 6/13/2008
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		Another good reason to keep up heavy air builds, especially early in the game. I have always been in favor of a large british airforce, its useful over germany, conducting an invasion or contesting the mediteranean.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 209
RE: General thoughts on strategy for CW - Knock Out Italy - 7/23/2008 4:56:10 AM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1665
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline 		Yeah, but you have to be careful and watch what Jerry is doing.  If he's building stuff that could be used in an invasion or investing heavily in subs you're going to want to adjust your builds.  All those pretty planes won't help if they're not enough ground units to stop Sea Lion, or enough replacement CPs or ASW to handle a big wolfpack.

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to Edfactor)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> AI Opponent Discussion >> RE: Convoy Route for CW Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.125