Slitherine

quote:

The AI will be easy.

quote:

So, if I am playing against an historical Axis AIO, there is no need to defend Malta at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

So I think I should develop about what I mean by historical AI and answer some of the comment.

quote:

The AI will be easy.

Yes, it will be easier. First, I don't care. I don't have tens years of practice of Wif. Second, I never say that there should not be an optimized AI. You can see the historical AI as the easy one, and the non historical optmized acording to the elite player experiences as the hard AI.

quote:

So, if I am playing against an historical Axis AIO, there is no need to defend Malta at all.

Here, there is a false conception about what is an historical AI. It would be stupid to rely purely on a define set of event, considering that even the historical leader did consider other option. So i think that an attack on Malta is still inthe historical psychology. What is not is Italy waiting for Germany to start its war. Italy did decide to start the war by themselves (but again we can make some randomness as to the exact date of attack or a point where Italy won't attack the CW if it is too well garisonned, but they shoud go for it if the historical condition are there). Other Example are US Germany first strategy and Japan not attacking USSR (if they have lost the first border war) and not attacking CW early or Hitler declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor.

Thought again, historical leader psychology does not mean that the AI should be set to follow the exact pattern of history. Actually, I thing that if the player is doing too well (that is going to a point where historical reaction cannot be guessed) a trigger should pass some or all AI to optimized AI. Actual plan (like USSR plan to attack germany) should still be avialable to an historical AI.

quote:

As a programmer, I insist on tight definitions of what I am suppose to code.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

I was not sure that reducing the stategic option of the AI would simply or not the programming of the AI. I won't mind if it is not in the first game.

What I would like is to be able to face an AI that "try" (emphasize the "try") to mimmic the historical leader strategic thinking and believes. Otherwise I am quite open.

quote:

As a programmer, I insist on tight definitions of what I am suppose to code.

You remind a friend of mine when I request some program to help for our games...

I understand your concern, even thought I know good part about WWII and game theory, I thought that someone with more historical knowledge of WWII and WiF should be chosen to make a tight definition. That why I was voluntarily vague.

One of the limitation, I really find, is that some of the thinking to be pertinent take into account what will happen after the game (Patton in Flame :p) and somehow that should be important for the game but this is not for this thread.

Shannon, I am curious of your definition of an historical AI?

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

What AI people should want is an AI that can beat them.

quote:

I struggle to see how the AI tries to mimic history without making things
predictable

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

To Warspite1 :

I think you understand my definition (as the points you raised tend to prove it). Your developpement is interesting to definine the decision tree of the country.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

Have you seen the latest post from Steve on the AI (General) thread? The point I think is that Steve has decided on which way the AI will go and all efforts should be devoted to assisting that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paerhc

Hi, I am new to the forum as registered member, although I have been following the development of this game and I look forward to it's release.. This is my first question and I appologize if this question already have been answered. Will Days of Decision be in the computergame when it is released?

I'm not very good at World in flames, but I really like the game.


Paerhc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak
A common example for WWII is leadership of Japan. One can agrue that Japan sign peace with China and chose a pacific way rather than challenge an open that it cannot beat (I think that Japan get more VP this way). Historically, the Japanese leadership cannot chose this option because it is not in their mindset. By the way this is a restriction put on the player and no one complain...

quote:

That's a pretty interesting thought, like that of Germany offering the Ukrainians an alliance and not(or holding off from)trying to kill them all while they helped Germany defeat Stalin. It wasn't the mindset. Such callous brutality would not be fair to omit. It's interesting how China served the same sociopolitical purpose for Japan as the USSR did for Germany.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

quote:

That's a pretty interesting thought, like that of Germany offering the Ukrainians an alliance and not(or holding off from)trying to kill them all while they helped Germany defeat Stalin. It wasn't the mindset. Such callous brutality would not be fair to omit. It's interesting how China served the same sociopolitical purpose for Japan as the USSR did for Germany.

Actually, I think that part of the Nazi politics is lost in most game. The need for there policies that are never portrait in games due to poltical correctness, was actually costly on economy and rail capacity. I would like to see this portrait with an option to play non-nazi Germany without the hinderance of the nazi doctrine (well and without the SS, thought they would get more whermacht unit). That would show how bad nazi doctrine was.

AS for DoD. The game it would be nice to have it anyway in a later expansion.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

If you want to play a non-Nazi version that`s easy; after setting up the board and the pieces, prepare for the first turn. At this point, the Germans and the French/British governments agree a compromise solution to put right the problems (real or perceived) that were caused by the Treaty of Versailles. The two sides shake hands and put their counters away. The Japanese, now realising they would face the full wrath of the un-molested British Empire, the USA and the French Empire, decide to seek a compromise solution in China. All Chinese, American and Japanese counters are then put away.

The End.

quote:

What are the German war aims - smash the French? the British? what?

quote:

Do the Soviets even enter the war.

quote:

Although I have never played it, I like the idea of DOD as I imagine you can use it to get completely new ahistorical situations if you ever need a break from the historical version. However, even this must - and I`m sure does - use the basic and most important features of the thirties - the most cruicial being the existence of Hitler and the Nazis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

quote:

If you want to play a non-Nazi version that`s easy; after setting up the board and the pieces, prepare for the first turn. At this point, the Germans and the French/British governments agree a compromise solution to put right the problems (real or perceived) that were caused by the Treaty of Versailles. The two sides shake hands and put their counters away. The Japanese, now realising they would face the full wrath of the un-molested British Empire, the USA and the French Empire, decide to seek a compromise solution in China. All Chinese, American and Japanese counters are then put away.

The End.

Nice, but I don't think it would have gone this way. Germany was wanting to attack Poland any way, and England/France would not allow a redisign of the Dantzig Corridor so war was a high possibility even without nazi germany. If it was acceptable to give Dantzig back to German then it would have been given at the time. Second, I think that a war with the USSR was a possibility bu less likely. We consider nazi as ultimate evil today it was not so at the time it was just a nationalist dictatorship not very different from the 2nd Reich that fought in WWI.

quote:

What are the German war aims - smash the French? the British? what?

Anyway bottom line is that the Weimar republic had plan to attack Poland and its military establisment was preparing for it before Hitler rise to power.

You have pointed out a lot of good question that it will change. My point is about pedagogy. As I do think that Germany would have gone to war, I think it is a good way to give the player the possibility to fight a non-evil Germany and see the benefit that it would be. Has I really think that nazi doctrine domaged a lot the german war effort.

quote:

Do the Soviets even enter the war.

Definetly yes, the Soviet of the time are expansionnist they would have enter the war either by themselves or been attack by Germany over tension on the baltic states I think. I remind you that the Soviet lauch an invasion of Poland even before WWII.

quote:

Although I have never played it, I like the idea of DOD as I imagine you can use it to get completely new ahistorical situations if you ever need a break from the historical version. However, even this must - and I`m sure does - use the basic and most important features of the thirties - the most cruicial being the existence of Hitler and the Nazis.

Yes DoD assumme that Germany is Nazi, CW is Democracy and Soviet is communist. For the other there is an optional rule that allow them to change side after a coup d'état / several political drift).

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
Also, it was only once they had their deal with Hitler and the latter had begun the war that the Soviets began their own territorial expansion - which I should add was, until the Red Army marched into the Balkans and Central Europe in 1944-1945, limited to regaining Tsarist imperial territory. Stalin was a revanchist in that respect more than an expansionist. And, like Poland, Rumania and Hungary, which all had revanchist ambitions at the expense of their neighbours from 1938-1940, the USSR even had to cut a deal with Germany to make it happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
Also, it was only once they had their deal with Hitler and the latter had begun the war that the Soviets began their own territorial expansion - which I should add was, until the Red Army marched into the Balkans and Central Europe in 1944-1945, limited to regaining Tsarist imperial territory. Stalin was a revanchist in that respect more than an expansionist. And, like Poland, Rumania and Hungary, which all had revanchist ambitions at the expense of their neighbours from 1938-1940, the USSR even had to cut a deal with Germany to make it happen.

I don't think the Finns would agree with this(nor the Poles -though they were in the Tsar's empire).

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

I think Finland was lucky that the Russian General Mannerheim decided they worth more than russian and protect the Finnish interest and independance with a rare success, otherwise Finland would have been turn into a puppet state.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

mistake

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

mistake

Hey warspite, your warspite have ping corners.
Why not take this one (GIF format -- please keep it as GIF)

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
To be sure, the USSR wanted to spread Soviet Communism world-wide. That's why they went to so much effort to encourage and support Communist parties and revolutionaries elsewhere. But the failure of the invasion of Poland in the '20s had diminished their appetite for external expansion via traditional military aggression.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Mannerheim was Finnish .