AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy

AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> AI Opponent Discussion

Message

wfzimmerman -> AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (12/2/2006 8:58:20 PM)
A general comment about all the AI threads and discussion so far. Everything seems to be focused on "location, location, location". What ever happened to the military principle that the goal is to destroy the enemy's forces? Shouldn't the AI be looking primarily for vulnerable concentrations of enemy forces? and have its priorities set by which forces are the most important to destroy? I realize that the AI design is doing some prioritizing based on unit type, but the overall impression I have is that everyone posting here seems to have an overwhelming focus on taking locations as opposed to destroying enemy forces wherever they may be. Once you destroy the enemy's army, it's easy to get objective hexes... Am I imagining things, or is this a real issue in WIF play? Fred

Klingon -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (12/2/2006 9:16:04 PM)

The goal of military operations is to bring a rapid and successful conclusion to the war, not to destroy the enemy's forces; Sun Tzu understood this very well. Granted, you can win the war by destroying the opponent's forces, but this is a very sloppy way to do it. Achieving objectives is usually more important than destroying forces.

III. ATTACK BY STRATAGEM

1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of allis to take the enemy's 
country whole and intact; to shatter anddestroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to
 recapture anarmy entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a 
company entire than to destroy them.

2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supremeexcellence; supreme 
excellence consists in breaking the enemy'sresistance without fighting.

3. Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy'splans; the next best is to 
prevent the junction of the enemy'sforces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army
 in thefield; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walledcities.

4. The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly beavoided. The preparation
 of mantlets, movable shelters, and variousimplements of war, will take up three whole 
months; and the pilingup of mounds over against the walls will take three monthsmore.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17405/17405-h/17405-h.htm

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (12/2/2006 9:27:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman A general comment about all the AI threads and discussion so far. Everything seems to be focused on "location, location, location". What ever happened to the military principle that the goal is to destroy the enemy's forces? Shouldn't the AI be looking primarily for vulnerable concentrations of enemy forces? and have its priorities set by which forces are the most important to destroy? I realize that the AI design is doing some prioritizing based on unit type, but the overall impression I have is that everyone posting here seems to have an overwhelming focus on taking locations as opposed to destroying enemy forces wherever they may be. Once you destroy the enemy's army, it's easy to get objective hexes... Am I imagining things, or is this a real issue in WIF play? Fred Conquering countries removes the country's forces from the map (for the most part). Victory cities have strategic importance in that they influence the operational and tactical choices available to a player. If you hold Gibraltar and Suez, then the enemy can not enter/exit the Med. While that doesn't destroy the enemy navy, it certainly reduces its ability to annoy you. A common tactic is to leave a few units behind as treats for the enemy to destroy. That gains you time to repair a breach in your line, bring up reinforcements, and build more units. Gaining a material advantage in chess by eliminating enemy pieces is THE standard way to win. But care must be taken to stay focused on the prize - taking the enemy king.

Froonp -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (12/3/2006 12:50:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman A general comment about all the AI threads and discussion so far. Everything seems to be focused on "location, location, location". What ever happened to the military principle that the goal is to destroy the enemy's forces? Shouldn't the AI be looking primarily for vulnerable concentrations of enemy forces? and have its priorities set by which forces are the most important to destroy? I realize that the AI design is doing some prioritizing based on unit type, but the overall impression I have is that everyone posting here seems to have an overwhelming focus on taking locations as opposed to destroying enemy forces wherever they may be. Once you destroy the enemy's army, it's easy to get objective hexes... Am I imagining things, or is this a real issue in WIF play? Fred There is one moment in WiF where what you say applies unconditionally and totally, this is the moment when Germany goes after Russia, and also the moment when Russia is on the offensive and go against Germany. Those fights are 95% after killing enemy units, position is only good if it allows killing more enemy units. Except those, the rest of the fights you do in WiF are more at conquering countries to eliminate them from the map, or taking good positions for defense / offense, to achieve the first objective.

trees -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (12/3/2006 1:13:52 AM)
actually it's all about the economy, youknow

CBoehm -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (12/3/2006 1:54:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp There is one moment in WiF where what you say applies unconditionally and totally, this is the moment when Germany goes after Russia, and also the moment when Russia is on the offensive and go against Germany. Those fights are 95% after killing enemy units, position is only good if it allows killing more enemy units. To some extend ...I feel completely OPPOSITE (atleast in the short term tactics) ...For the allies IMO the most effective strategy is to constantly open and expand fronts to tie up more and more Ge units rather than to try to break an existing front ...ofcause in reality its a mix of both, the wallies force Ge to strech his units thin so that eventually he will be too weak at a point and you smash him ....my point is simply that tactically expanding a front by 1 hex will on avarage force Ge to commit something appoaching 1.5 extra corps ...so for USSR to force Ge backwards it will often be more effective to build 12-20 corps for 30-40 bp or so, extending the front by 10 hexes and forcing Ge to either commit a comparable number of corps or retreat to a shorter line ...ofcause at some point when you cannot strech the line more ...you MUST kill him ...but tying up corps is often almost as good as killing them ...and certainly IMO an extremely effective tactic to employ by the US - CW in 41-42 ...then when you have fronts in Greece, Yougoslavia, Bulgaria, Italy France, Denmark ...and you run out of places to extend then you must be more direct, but until then I find the indirect approach often more effective than direct assault even though its always the threat of direct assault that forces Ge to commit more than one corps per hex ... example: I once managed to liberate NEI and South China with the US in 42 ...with only having done 3 attacks vs. actual corps having failed all miserably having rolled pure "1"... ITS NOT WHAT YOU KILL - ITS WHAT YOU DO (capturing territory and hampering productiong by taking either factories/resources or getting better bases for targeting cps ...is often much much more important that killing a few measely bps, but again no rules witout exceptions)

coregames -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (12/3/2006 6:26:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CBoehm ITS NOT WHAT YOU KILL - ITS WHAT YOU DO From the middle of the game on, you are probably right. Early in the game, however, due to the low production multiples, on-board forces are much more important, especially for the Axis. Obviously some risks have to be taken, but if a power only produces with a few BP, each unit lost early in the game is proportionately much more expensive to replace.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (12/3/2006 7:56:32 AM)
The side with the numeric advantage wants to extend the line (# of hexes in the front line) to reduce the weaker side's strength per hex. The stronger side can then concentrate his extra strength against a point (preferably a weak point) in the enemy's line's and break through. This is true of Germany in France in 1940 - Germany invades Belgium to extend the French line - and Germany in Russia in 1941/2. When the balance of power shifts and Germany becomes the weaker side, then the Allies want to extend the front line. I consider this a basic principle of tactical combat and already have it as such for the AIO. Of course the weaker side is anxious to shorten the front line. Tricky bits are when the end of the front line is hanging; as it is in North Africa and possibly in northern USSR, if the Axis pushes past Leningrad. ========= The value of combat units/build points depends on how it affects the balance of power. When the on-map strength totals are low, then individual units can have a major impact. When they are high, it takes more units to shift the balance of power. The AIO logic does this by unit type/combat type: air-to-air, naval surface, naval air, submarines versus ASW, land, and armor (for example). So, adding/removing a Chinese fighter can have a major effect early in the war. Building multiple strategic bombers if the enemy does not have AA and/or fighter protection for his factories, can also be effective. And so on.

Froonp -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (12/3/2006 11:46:09 AM)
quote: The side with the numeric advantage wants to extend the line (# of hexes in the front line) to reduce the weaker side's strength per hex. The stronger side can then concentrate his extra strength against a point (preferably a weak point) in the enemy's line's and break through. This is true of Germany in France in 1940 - Germany invades Belgium to extend the French line - and Germany in Russia in 1941/2. When the balance of power shifts and Germany becomes the weaker side, then the Allies want to extend the front line. I consider this a basic principle of tactical combat and already have it as such for the AIO. Of course the weaker side is anxious to shorten the front line. Tricky bits are when the end of the front line is hanging; as it is in North Africa and possibly in northern USSR, if the Axis pushes past Leningrad. There are times in Russia, where there is no frontline. Barbarossa 41 is usually such a time. And when the German is in such a situation, he does not targets objectives, nor positions, but he simply goes rampant and targets at destroying the Red Army, whereever it is. The German can achieve this in M/J & J/A 41.

trees -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (12/3/2006 2:57:33 PM)
I thought Fred brought up a very interesting and classical strategy question. The difference with WiF is that it is not a purely operational level game; in addition to destroying the enemy's forces you also have to destroy their ability to replace those forces. For example if the Axis invade Russia and steadily kill Red Army units but never advance fast enough to cut off some factories before they get railed to Siberia, they've done little to damage the Russian economy in the long run. A lot of the Russian resource base is a long way from the Axis but their industrial base is right there in front of them. So location, location, location really is important in WiF.

Froonp -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (12/3/2006 3:49:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: trees I thought Fred brought up a very interesting and classical strategy question. The difference with WiF is that it is not a purely operational level game; in addition to destroying the enemy's forces you also have to destroy their ability to replace those forces. For example if the Axis invade Russia and steadily kill Red Army units but never advance fast enough to cut off some factories before they get railed to Siberia, they've done little to damage the Russian economy in the long run. A lot of the Russian resource base is a long way from the Axis but their industrial base is right there in front of them. So location, location, location really is important in WiF. There can't be a "steadily Red Army destruction" without a "fast advance". Both happens, the first create the second. I just want to point out that in this special case, the German is not driven forward by position gaining, but only by Red Army destroying. I agree that you need to destroy the ability to replace lost force, the need to hit the economy, but I wanted to stress out that in the Special case of the 1941 Barbarossa where there is no frontline, the German must "know how to go crazy" after the Red Army, and not si�mply try at achieving positions. Sure, the Dniepr must be crossed asap, but there after, the Red Army must be hunted down. The factory line will be reached while doing that. The Red Army too, when the tide has turned, must know how to fight an attritionnal war against the German, that is make a lot low odd assaults without weakening itself. Very often on the Russian front, battles are thought not only for position, but very often only for weakening the enemy on the long run.

trees -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (12/3/2006 9:49:36 PM)
I mean German players who methodically siege the Russian cities at the best odds possible, without taking much risk. The Russians leave forward just enough units to cover the rail lines needed to move the factories. This can be a fair amount of units. The Germans kill all these units and arrive past the factory line at last, only to discover more new units coming at them (or maybe still running away, there's not much of value after the factory line). A summer of 41 that kills 15 or more Russian Infantry units but doesn't stop a single factory from going east is a failed Barbarossa, location does matter. It's the Russian players choice how many units get killed; an INF, GARR, or MIL for a factory is an easy trade.

wosung -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (12/3/2006 10:22:49 PM)
Playing around with CWIF I found out that "location" can also be important for preventing the Russian players new units to arrive in a city near the front. Anyway, I think that's no small part of the war in the East in WIF: To get the reinforcement up front. And I found it astonishingly difficult even for the Russians in their home country, with most of the West Russian cities in German hands. Regards

composer99 -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (12/7/2006 2:11:25 AM)
The Axis objective is to expand as much as is possible and secure their victories by knocking out either the CW or the USSR as an effective fighting force. Failing that, their goal to consolidate their defensive perimeters and withstand the ensuing Allied onslaught through to the end of the game. The Allied objective is first to blunt, hinder, and otherwise delay the Axis offensives in the early to mid game, secondly to transform their economic advantage into military terms, and finally to conquer the Axis, preferably before the J/A 1945 turn. Either side should certainly, if the opportunity arises, attempt to secure an automatic victory (easier for the Allies than for the Axis). The destruction of enemy war materiel is certainly a key part of achieving those objectives, but it should not be considered an end in itself. For example, in a Barbarossa, while it is true that the Axis must destroy as many units as they can (hopefully at least 50bp per summer turn), their principal objectives are to conquer Baku in the south and reach (or even breach) the Ural mountain line in the north - as this will not only result in lots of dead Russians but will also probably shatter Soviet production and deliver the desired knockout blow. Destroying the Red Army is a fine goal, but unless you can also reach the distant factory/resource refuges they will eventually be able to make good their losses and come marching back into Europe. As another example, the Axis campaign against the CW convoy lines (assuming they are not pursuing a Sealion strategy) may be about sinking CW convoys (and the odd escort or two), but its principal purpose is to consolidate the Axis defensive perimeter(s) by forcing the CW to waste production, existing forces, and activity limits on defending and rebuilding convoys and convoy pipelines (as well as effecting an overall lowering of CW production for as long as possible).

coregames -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (12/7/2006 11:14:36 AM)
quote: There can't be a "steadily Red Army destruction" without a "fast advance". Both happens, the first create the second. I just want to point out that in this special case, the German is not driven forward by position gaining, but only by Red Army destroying. Patrice has a point. Advance is important, and penetration into the Russian position is the best way to cut off their units, especially if option 47 (isolated reorganization) is in effect. This being the case, the farther the Germans can penetrate enemy lines, the more Russian forces will be cut off and eventually destroyed. If the choice of how to advance is between long-term positional gains versus short-term destruction of enemy forces, I agree the latter should have higher priority. Factories are the exception to this obviously.

bredsjomagnus -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (8/10/2007 2:55:14 PM)
Im about to begin the barbarossa scenario with a friend, and planning my strategy it came to my mind that if the german player surrounds as many russian units as it can but then don�t kill them off (so they can�t be rebuilt) would that be a possible strategy?[&:] And if so does the AI in MWIF tend to use it in any way? If there is now way for the USSR player to get his/her units back, I can�t see no reason why the german player should destroy them. Destroying them would only help USSR. /Magnus

Froonp -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (8/10/2007 3:54:24 PM)
There are reasons for Germany to destroy them. To keep them surrounded, you need to keep some units around, units that won't be available elsewhere. It you surround them and don't kill them, if the Russian comes back in the future, and break your surrounding, then he will suddenly be stronger with these extra units. Your surrounding units will themselves be out of supply most of the time, unless you devote an HQ for that, so they won't be able to kill the surrounded unit if the need arose, without sending an HQ and more units, which may be a problem while you would be occupied to something else. Your surrounding units are un the surrounded units ZoC, and don't count as antipartisan units... Well, there are reasons, and the surrounded unit ought to be worth it, to be kept surrounded.

bredsjomagnus -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (8/10/2007 4:26:48 PM)
Ok thanks. I forgot to write that we might use the option 47: "You can only turn a unit face-up if it can trace a path to a primary supply source for that unit". Do I need to guard surrounded russian units anyway, using this opiton? Of course you are right that the surrounded units might cause a problem later when the russians come back. But do the russians get time to counter attack in the "One kick..." scenario? /Magnus

Froonp -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (8/10/2007 4:33:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus Ok thanks. I�forgot to write that we might use the option 47: "You can only turn a unit face-up if it can trace a path to a primary supply source for that unit". Do I need to guard surrounded russian units anyway, using this opiton? I assumed that this option was in play, but why would they be face-down ? If face down, they can be reorganized by long ranged russian LND. And if they are not, and you do not guard them, why wouldn't they dash to somewhere, changing hex control on the way and possibly cutting supply ? Well, enemy units behind you lines are always a problem, whatever. quote: Of course you are�right that the surrounded units might cause a problem later when the russians come back. But do the russians get time to counter attack in the "One kick..." scenario? I don't know, I never play anything else that 1939 Campaign.

bredsjomagnus -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (8/10/2007 4:41:46 PM)
Ok mayby it was a bad idea after all [:)]. Didn�t think about the reorganisation by air, and as you mentioned, one wouldn�t want to have enemy units going wild behind the front lines. Thanks. /Magnus

Froonp -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (8/10/2007 5:11:50 PM)
It's not a bad idea, it's just that it is not that simple, and generaly it is only done for a couple of key units, such as Zhukov for example.

Zorachus99 -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (8/11/2007 8:10:24 AM)
quote: III. ATTACK BY STRATAGEM 1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of allis to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter anddestroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture anarmy entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them. 2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supremeexcellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy'sresistance without fighting. 3. Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy'splans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy'sforces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in thefield; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walledcities. 4. The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly beavoided. The preparation of mantlets, movable shelters, and variousimplements of war, will take up three whole months; and the pilingup of mounds over against the walls will take three monthsmore. Applicable in every sense. quote: The side with the numeric advantage wants to extend the line (# of hexes in the front line) to reduce the weaker side's strength per hex. The stronger side can then concentrate his extra strength against a point (preferably a weak point) in the enemy's line's and break through. This is true of Germany in France in 1940 - Germany invades Belgium to extend the French line - and Germany in Russia in 1941/2. When the balance of power shifts and Germany becomes the weaker side, then the Allies want to extend the front line. I consider this a basic principle of tactical combat and already have it as such for the AIO. On both counts Steve is spot on with his operational understanding. However I look at this from a different light regardless of the front. #1 If I have only operational advantage, I attack to kill units, shorten the line, and/or take fortress cities. #2 If I have a operational and strategic advantage I take another tack entirely. A) Attack to lenghten the line, usually to divide the enemy army. Stretching the opponent is supremely useful, as well as a success brings angles to either widen the gap or force the enemy to retreat. B) Organize a strategic reserve behind the front in the area of the push. I dislike having the entire line reorganize itself simply to push units into the gap. If you can ooze units into a hole, do it, and use the strategic reserve to do so, while continuing to attack. C) If a breakthrough is acheived I will advance into a city behind the lines even if OOS if air cover is nearly assured. You may lose an armor unit, but the enemy army can be completely disrupted counterattacking as an army as a result of this enemy position destroying sacrifice. 6-10 flipped enemy units is a large meal that will increase your superiority from perhaps 1.5/1 to 3/1 operationally in the area.. Of course try to support any breakthrough, but sometimes the counterattack will hurt (but in a good way). [;)] Regardless, the basic upshot is that unless you have a reserve of about 6 units in France and 10 units in Russia you won't be able to acheive strategic objectives, only tactical ones. Tactical objectives will win France in time, however it will only serve to make the Russian bear stonger long term. No all people agree with these ideas, but for me they work pretty well.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (8/11/2007 11:21:28 AM)
I do not find a reserve of units (i.e., units kept out of the front line) all that important in WIF, primarily because units can exit from a EZOC and redeploy somewhere else along the line. By leapfrogging units left or right it is often possible to build an attacking force anywhere you desire. The process is to thin the line where not attacking and accumulate the excess units at the point of attack. For other games (e.g., those with locking ZOCs) a reserve is much more vital. In WIF what usually is much more important in determining the attacking force are those units which have not yet become disorganized. Preserving (keeping organized) units that are good on the attack, such as armor, is crucial to a successful offense. But those units can be in the front line and do not have to be a separate reserve force. One reserve group that I do try to maintain is a tactical air reserve, but I do not believe that to especially noteworthy, since most players do it.

Zorachus99 -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (8/11/2007 7:13:47 PM)
The reason I mentioned it is, if there is a spectacular breakthrough on the line, and you don't have 10 corps in reserve to exploit it, instead of a potentially strategic opportunity, you are relegated to killing units while you steal from other parts of your army to run toward the hole (often in poor order). While I ususally don't hold the reserve far off the line, I use this quite often when my unit density it satisfactory on other parts of the line. Stretching hexes north into the arctic is usually a losing proposition for the Germans. If your opponent chooses where the line is stretched, he has the initiative for all effective purposes. Regadless of how I play, your understanding of how the units should be used is excellent unto itself and should make a challenging AIO once it learns to stand up on it's own. Gotta learn how to walk [:)]

hakon -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (8/11/2007 10:28:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zorachus99 The reason I mentioned it is, if there is a spectacular breakthrough on the line, and you don't have 10 corps in reserve to exploit it, instead of a potentially strategic opportunity, you are relegated to killing units while you steal from other parts of your army to run toward the hole (often in poor order).� While I ususally don't hold the reserve far off the line, I use this quite often when my unit density it satisfactory on other parts of the line.� Stretching hexes north into the arctic is usually a losing proposition for the Germans.� If your opponent chooses where the line is stretched, he has the initiative for all effective purposes.� Regadless of how I play, your understanding of how the units should be used is excellent unto itself and�should make a challenging AIO once it learns to stand up on it's own.� Gotta learn how to walk��[:)] A 10 corps reserve is a lot in 1941, and not much at all in 1944. As the was drags on, crucial areas tend to become double-lined (2 rows of units) in most places, in my experience. Due to a very short front, france can also afford such luxery in 1940 along the initial line, even if it usually doesnt help that much. If you talk about 1941 barbarossa, I have trouble seeing how keeping 10 units in reserve benefits german (the attacker). What it does, is to allow the USSR to shorten the line, which means that she can have 2 rows of units in the critical spots, preventing breakthroughs. A 1942 barbarossa would be very different of course. In a 1941 barbarossa, my experience with Germany is that numeical superiority is crucial. I would usually much rather have 5 more inf of 6 factors each than 3 more mech of 8 factors each. I also alway build all my militia prior to m/j 40, making the bad ones do garrison duty, and bringing the better ones to the front. If I dont have this numerical superiority, I find that I cant always move my units into enemy zoc, where a zoc defense is presented, as it overstretches my line. (My ambition is to press easy on a line from the Black sea to Moscow, often leaving Leningrad pocketed for a while). By streatching the russians this far, lots of attack opportunities are usually created, in my experience. And as long as I kill far more units than she produces, this has an escellating effect, which means that I can go on attacking all the time through winter and into the summer of 1942.

YohanTM2 -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (8/12/2007 6:46:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CBoehm To some extend ...I feel completely OPPOSITE (atleast in the short term tactics) ...For the allies IMO the most effective strategy is to constantly open and expand fronts to tie up more and more Ge units rather than to try to break an existing front I must agree with you sir. When I won the Canadian WiF championship a decade ago in Calgary it was actually my CW partner who caused the win. He invaded France in 1942 with no hope of success. BUT, it tied up enough GE units that I was able to drive a breakthrough in 42 as Russia and destry his lines by J/A.

composer99 -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (8/13/2007 3:53:15 PM)
We are currently engaged in something to that effect in our WiF game: we have invaded France earlier than normal (summer '43), and while we can probably effect a breakthrough somewhere, it will take some time and playing around. But in the meantime, the line facing the USSR in Poland (the German didn't do Barb) and Prussia is quite thin. So thin, in fact, that the Red Army is going through East Prussia to flank it, production multiple bonus notwithstanding.

BlackStarWizard -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (8/13/2007 8:29:12 PM)
As tree pointed out - it's all about the economy. There are many situations when targeting units is extremely important. For example: 1. When you are able to strike at units the enemy needs to execute his strategic plans. - Examples are AMPHs, Paras, Transports, Blitzkrieg units if few are at hand etc. What you are doing here is delaying your enemy's operations. 2. When you see that your opponent has left powerful and expensive units in a vulnerable position. - Examples of this are carriers in port within reach of your bombers, concentrations of unescorted convoys, ARM stacks exposed to carpet bombing etc. In this case what you are really destroying is the resources your enemy will have to spend in rebuilding those units - you are weakening his economy.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (8/13/2007 9:01:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pazuzu As tree pointed out - it's all about the economy. There are many situations when targeting units is extremely important. For example: 1. When you are able to strike at units the enemy needs to execute his strategic plans. - Examples are AMPHs, Paras, Transports, Blitzkrieg units if few are at hand etc. What you are doing here is delaying your enemy's operations. 2. When you see that your opponent has left powerful and expensive units in a vulnerable position. - Examples of this are carriers in port within reach of your bombers, concentrations of unescorted convoys, ARM stacks exposed to carpet bombing etc. In this case what you are really destroying is the resources your enemy will have to spend in rebuilding those units - you are weakening his economy. Welcome to the forum.

composer99 -> RE: AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy (8/15/2007 8:40:20 PM)
I wouldn't say that it's all about economies, any more than it's all about killing enemy forces or about positioning. What it's all about is capturing objective hexes. You play the positioning game to stretch the enemy lines, you launch attacks to destroy enemy units, and you engage in strategic submarine or air warfare to degrade their economies, all with the purpose of seizing the objectives that they hold or to protect your own.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

7.953125