RE: AI for MWiF-Italy

RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (Full Version)

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

Message

Incy -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/16/2006 3:20:47 AM)
This all sounds like sound italian strategy to me. If there's something missing it must be the importance of establishing a safe aligned minor as a second home country. The best country would be Yoguslavia, wich has good defensive terrain, and a good map location. The best way to do this is to achieve naval dominance in east med in '41, and then invade greece (plus attack through the air/Bulgaria). If CW lets down the guard to allow an earlier conquest of greece, all the better, but this requires CW to have mispositioned/lost TRS. If a med strategy is pursued, don't mess with greece until the med is effectively closed (or so unsafe that CW won't risk to interfer). Personally I don't agree that an incompletely conquered Italy is of little value. Italy can still call land, naval and especially air, and the extra action limits can be of immense value to the axis. For this reason I prefer to not try to maintain garission vs. the allies (at least not after the US enters the fray), but rather defend Italy with germans land units, plus strong naval air power. I do fight hard for Rome and the factories, and even for Tripoli! (which people give away to easy!!) I tend not to take italian land actions, I prefer instead to use use the Italians land units where they mostly don't have to move, i.e. as coastal garrissions (but outside Italy). I concentrate the Italians in one area, to minimize coperation issues and allow a shift to land actions to respond to invasions in/near the italian zone of operation (which is usually west France or Denmark+Benelux) The Italians of course need to be backed by a strong nearby german force in case there is serious trouble. I like to enter the italians in the war early, and to have germany spend massively on LL to Italy. This allows for both a strong naval domination airforce, a strong sub force, and by the time of Barbarossa, a sigificant airforce that can deploy east. Italian air is much better than german air (maybe except the stukas) because it has action limits to rebase forward with german land units. If there are even remotely interesting italian air units in the pools, they should be built instead of/before german air units! By having 100% german land units defend Italy, the defence gets better and more mobile, both FTR cover and land units can be shiftet at the same time, and there are always real forces nearby. German O'chits/HQs can be used for counterattacks earlier, before bridgeheads get to large. A mixed Italian-german airforce can choose to either try to dominate the land OR to dominate the sea, which gives the allies a hard time covering both (especially when staying in high boxes to invade). If conquest does happen, almost all of the italians stay alive and fight on, which preserves the critical airforce!! (which can still do air actions). The all-german defence of italy also means there will be less gaps in the defence line due to Italian "defectors". To often have I seen crack german troops hoplessly lost far behind enemy lines after a failed attempt of holding the south (while the italians hang out in the north and get killed by conquest) quote: ORIGINAL: petracelli Have been reading through suggested strategy and building and would just like to add some thoughts. Italy to be able to survive especially if the Allies are going to come after her first if the med is not closed needs Nav and Ftr's to survive. It is all vey well saying it should commit a large number of air untis to Russia but if the Allies have Gib then you can expect Sardina to be under threat very early indeed. To able to avoid this situation then Italy needs' to build Nav and it needs them sooner rather than later closley follwed by Ftr's. If the Germans have gone for a 41 Barb they should be requesting the long range FW 190's to protect the Med sea zones. If Germany goes after Gib then all the Nav come sin very useful in clearing the Brits out of Cape St Vincent and then the Bay. With Gib in Axis hands Italy can then turn it's little eyes on the middle east and looking to align Iraq, far more likely than Turkey. As for DOWing at the start an early entry exposes your fleet but is conuteracted by allowing Germanty to send you much needed resources. Is very hard to programme as depends entirley on risk and reward, not forgetting USE entry chits. As always best to be aggressive in 1940 when the average is at it's lowest. Once the Allies have Gib back then it's time to defend Sardina and Malta if you have it and to have pletny of Ftr' and Nav to contest the Italian coast. regards Phil

Mziln -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/16/2006 5:47:49 AM)
Countries Italy can align: Persia, Iraq, and Yugoslavia.

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/16/2006 10:24:50 AM)
quote: By having 100% german land units defend Italy, the defence gets better and more mobile, both FTR cover and land units can be shiftet at the same time, and there are always real forces nearby. German O'chits/HQs can be used for counterattacks earlier, before bridgeheads get to large. A mixed Italian-german airforce can choose to either try to dominate the land OR to dominate the sea, which gives the allies a hard time covering both (especially when staying in high boxes to invade). If conquest does happen, almost all of the italians stay alive and fight on, which preserves the critical airforce!! (which can still do air actions). The all-german defence of italy also means there will be less gaps in the defence line due to Italian "defectors". To often have I seen crack german troops hoplessly lost far behind enemy lines after a failed attempt of holding the south (while the italians hang out in the north and get killed by conquest) 100% German land unit defending Italy ???? I think this is very bad for Italy, as only Italian units count for garrison ration, so Italy will be conquered as soon as Sicily falls. For me, this is a typical German abuse. The German player doesn't care of the Italian being conquered, if he can keep the little pale green cannon fodder units for him. But the Italian one cares, because now he has lost the game. I'll keep on saying that the Italian country should be played by an independent player, with a devoted ai that aims at achieving an Axis victory, through an Italian victory. This said, I agree that German units should come strongly in Italy to help defend Italy, and that there should be 2 defend zones in Italy : South of Florence, and North of Florence. South, the Italians must prevail, and north, the Germans must prevail. Indeed, idealy the north should never fall to the allies, and in last resort, the Alps and Trieste should stay a stop gap to the allies advance from the south. The longer the Allies will take to realize that an advance through the south is impossible, the longer they will shif forces elswhere, and these are valuable impulses and turns gained in front of the Wallies steamroller. But this advance beyond the Florence's mountains must really be impossible, or really try to be.

Incy -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/16/2006 5:53:32 PM)
I just happen to think the garrission is to dangerous, with to small a chance of success. Kind of like Stalin stuffing the border prior to Barbarossa :) Garission is just 1 of 4 surrender conditions. I prefer to instead fight for Tripoli and to defend and fight for Rome and the factories as well as I can. I do have italian air in Italy, so I do have some garission. But after the allies are ashore heavily (i.e. in Sicily), I don't try to maintain garission anymore. But on the other hand, no italians means more germans, and more germans means a stronger defence of what in my opinion matters the most, Rome and the Factories. No Rome/Factories, no italian surrender!!! I don't agree that this is german abuse of Italy, it's just sound play. As San Tsu wrote, better to deter your enemy from attacking than fighting and winning (or fighting and loosing..) You should not disregard that a strong defence of Italy coupled with a much smaller benefit from a conquest means the allies are much less likely to go for Italian conquest early. quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: By having 100% german land units defend Italy, the defence gets better and more mobile, both FTR cover and land units can be shiftet at the same time, and there are always real forces nearby. German O'chits/HQs can be used for counterattacks earlier, before bridgeheads get to large. A mixed Italian-german airforce can choose to either try to dominate the land OR to dominate the sea, which gives the allies a hard time covering both (especially when staying in high boxes to invade). If conquest does happen, almost all of the italians stay alive and fight on, which preserves the critical airforce!! (which can still do air actions). The all-german defence of italy also means there will be less gaps in the defence line due to Italian "defectors". To often have I seen crack german troops hoplessly lost far behind enemy lines after a failed attempt of holding the south (while the italians hang out in the north and get killed by conquest) 100% German land unit defending Italy ???? I think this is very bad for Italy, as only Italian units count for garrison ration, so Italy will be conquered as soon as Sicily falls. For me, this is a typical German abuse. The German player doesn't care of the Italian being conquered, if he can keep the little pale green cannon fodder units for him. But the Italian one cares, because now he has lost the game. I'll keep on saying that the Italian country should be played by an independent player, with a devoted ai that aims at achieving an Axis victory, through an Italian victory. This said, I agree that German units should come strongly in Italy to help defend Italy, and that there should be 2 defend zones in Italy : South of Florence, and North of Florence. South, the Italians must prevail, and north, the Germans must prevail. Indeed, idealy the north should never fall to the allies, and in last resort, the Alps and Trieste should stay a stop gap to the allies advance from the south. The longer the Allies will take to realize that an advance through the south is impossible, the longer they will shif forces elswhere, and these are valuable impulses and turns gained in front of the Wallies steamroller. But this advance beyond the Florence's mountains must really be impossible, or really try to be.

trees -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/17/2006 3:22:59 PM)
I think the idea of independent Italian strategy, in a face-to-face game, obviously depends on if it is a two-player or three-player Axis team. Since the AI will be singular I think it should maximize cooperation for the benefit of the Axis and forget country specific goals. The Axis have a tough row to hoe and a sentimental independent Italy won't gain them anything. The All-German defense of Italy, me likey and might try, though probably with such goodies as Italian Engineers left in Italy and some Italian Army in the Alps near the borders. Once the Allies get through struggling with serious 7-factor INF, GARR, and MECH/ARM corps Italy becomes sort of an Axis uber-minor and Luftwaffe assisstant for at least another year. Nice idea. The Russian stuff border options will need it's own thread or should be a big part of the Russian AI thread. If you do the math it soon becomes clear that a 1941 Barbarossa is a Russian choice to make. If Germany builds very many U-Boats, more than 2 BP airplanes, or other inefficient Garrison Point units like Engineers, they quickly fall behind a Russian build plan dedicated to stuffing the border, i.e. no fancy units for Persia nor Persian campaign and garrison, and the initial defense of Siberia left to the 'RES'erve units. If Germany sends much of anything to the Med (either units or Resources/BPs; serious implications for Italy here) they also fall behind; ditto for strong Partisan/U-boat base garrisons in the West. If the Germans go for 'No Bessarabia' and DoW Yugoslavia and activate Rumania on impluse 3 it is ridiculously easy to stuff the border from inside Mother Russia. It scares people that have never tried it (and is pretty boring) and the fall of 1941 can be a little dicey but General Mud/Winter will most likely ride to the rescue. But if the Germans are not prepared for it and their war machine spins it's wheels sitting in Poland in 1941....an unmolested Allied build-up will come back to haunt them. The resulting 1942 Barbarossa can be ferocious still but a lot depends on if the Axis accomplished anything of worth in 1941.

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/17/2006 4:01:23 PM)
quote: I think the idea of independent Italian strategy, in a face-to-face game, obviously depends on if it is a two-player or three-player Axis team. Since the AI will be singular I think it should maximize cooperation for the benefit of the Axis and forget country specific goals. The Axis have a tough row to hoe and a sentimental independent Italy won't gain them anything. I disagree. First, I think that AI won't be singular, and that each major power will have its own. Second, if you look at 24.1.2 where ADG shows the recommended player groupings, you never find Germany and Italy played by the same player, except in 3 players games where you have one player playing the whole Axis, and 2 players playing the Allies & Russia. Except 3 players games, all other grouping have Germany & Italy separated. For me its no wonder why. I agree that the Axis have a tough play, but I am saying that Italy must cooperate and still follow its own objectives. Italy must aim at making the Axis win, through an Italian victory, I know I already wrote it, but no one seem to think this is possible, and I think it is. Everyone sees the thing through the German eyes, and want the Italians sacrifice themselves to help the Germans to win, while it is entirely possible for Italy to play in a such a way that it will be the winning Axis power. It is exactly the same problem with CW / USA grouping, they both need to cooperate closely, but they need to have their own objectives and own will to win.

trees -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/17/2006 4:51:21 PM)
I think the only way Italy can win by itself is if the Allies choose to leave them for last, or if the Axis succeed in breaking the CW or Russia and Italy has a craftier bid than the Germans. Allied choices control Italy's fate more than Italian choices. Barring a closed Med and an Allied strategy selecting not to re-open it, the Allies can knock out Italy in any game they want so playing for what Italy can hold in 1945 seems questionable to me. The AI will be playing the entire euro-Axis at least, I would think (I know Steve is considering making Human-AI teams a possibility but I wonder how many people will want to team up with a player you can't communicate in complete sentences with, and how much additional work such interface coding would be). To make the europe-AI schizophrenic will make it easier to defeat. Italy's overriding desire would naturally be to take Gibraltar in every single game if you were to look at it from Italy's viewpoint only. This might not fit in with Axis grand strategy as a whole and if Italy is off working on it's independently evaluated goals the human Allied opponent will gain advantage from this. Asking Italy to take one for the team and subordinate it's interests to Axis interests makes for a stronger Axis. The strategies under discussion here are 'game' strategies to win this game and would obviously go against Italian national interests in a real war, but we are kibbitzing about how to win a game. I think what you are asking for Patrice is somewhat like asking for an 'historical' option for the AI which is something I would like as well; that AI would be weaker but still enjoyable to play against.

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/17/2006 6:13:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: trees I think the only way Italy can win by itself is if the Allies choose to leave them for last, or if the Axis succeed in breaking the CW or Russia and Italy has a craftier bid than the Germans. Allied choices control Italy's fate more than Italian choices. Barring a closed Med and an Allied strategy selecting not to re-open it, the Allies can knock out Italy in any game they want so playing for what Italy can hold in 1945 seems questionable to me. I do not agree with that. Italy can win if Italy prepares for that and play soundly, and manage to get as much German help as the German can muster. Even in an historic oriented game. I've got 2 personals examples of games where I played Italy & Japan, and I won both times, and each time the Allies tried to conquer Italy first. The first time, they got discouraged by Italy defenses, and diverted their attack on southern France, which was a fatal error because the time lost in the way lost their game, and next time, they invaded Italy, and conquered it incompletely, and Germany had closed the way north, so this led them nowhere. Italy, still in the game as an incompletely conquered major power had enough victory cities to make it. Each time there was a strong cooperation between Germany & Italy, with strong German lend least (kind of 6 RP + 2 OIL a turn at the very best). quote: The AI will be playing the entire euro-Axis at least, I would think (I know Steve is considering making Human-AI teams a possibility but I wonder how many people will want to team up with a player you can't communicate in complete sentences with, and how much additional work such interface coding would be). To make the europe-AI schizophrenic will make it easier to defeat. Italy's overriding desire would naturally be to take Gibraltar in every single game if you were to look at it from Italy's viewpoint only. I do not agree that Italy should ask for a Gibraltar strategy eveytime. Italy should bow to the general strategy chosen by Germany, but Italy can take its own gains from each strategy chosen by Germany, and it should take them, and not let the German take the for him, and not use his units to fulfill German's needs. My point, is not that Italy must be independent, and not help Germany, my point is that Italy must have its own goals, and pursue them, and not be the puppet of Germany. quote: This might not fit in with Axis grand strategy as a whole and if Italy is off working on it's independently evaluated goals the human Allied opponent will gain advantage from this. Asking Italy to take one for the team and subordinate it's interests to Axis interests makes for a stronger Axis. The strategies under discussion here are 'game' strategies to win this game and would obviously go against Italian national interests in a real war, but we are kibbitzing about how to win a game. I think what you are asking for Patrice is somewhat like asking for an 'historical' option for the AI which is something I would like as well; that AI would be weaker but still enjoyable to play against. That's not what I ask, even if I think this would be a good feature, from a game point of view. I ask that Italy thinks for itself. For example, I've seen 2 games where the Euroaxis closed the Med, and where all NAV losses where Italians, all land losses were Italians, and when it came down to take the Objective cities (in Egypt & Palestine), the German had a DIV amongst the Italian army to take them in front of them. The German player was effectively moving all the Italians counters (he had talked the Italian / Japan player to accept this), and he never cared about Italy making any goal. He only wanted to accumulate the most German Victory cities. I hate that, and I would hate an AI that maximize one major Power versus another. Each one must have his own goals.

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/17/2006 6:32:01 PM)
Thinking for itself : For example : If the German is for a Barb 41, I'll tell him : OK, I'll send you Balbo along with 3-4 planes to help you disrupt the Russians, and also a couple of land units, preferably MTN for winter attacks. I'll also rail move as many land units as I can in France or elswhere to provide garrison, even an HQ if needed, but when Italy get threatened, I might return some of them in Italy. And that's all. In exchange, I want the first and second Fw190 on the map to go in the Med to achieve air superiority in the Med, and all NAV & Me110 that you don't use. I also want (and the German would want this too) that Germany defends the north of Florence, so that it stay axis controlled when Italy falls. I'd also talk the German into letting me align Yugoslavia. I'll also ask for as much lend lease as he can spare, and I'll send him as many units I do not use to defend Italy, until Italy gets under pressure, and then, I'll delay the Allies as much as I can. But no way that I'll have all the Italian army in Russia, replaced by Germans in Italy. No way I would accept to let Italy get conquered easily, to allow Germany to use my army in Russia. A conquered Italy looses its force pool, looses its repair & construction ships, and looses it's production, and loose at least half the units lost in combat (not re buildable). As the Italian player, and the German player too, I refuse that Italy don't produce. Italy can produce at 15-20 BP in 42-43, and it would be a shame to let this go. If the German is for a Gib 41, I'll build accordingly, AMPH, ATR, PARA & MAR if possible, and I'll help him as much as I can, tranporting any units he wants anywhere, assaulting where he wants, but, thereafter for example, I'll ask to harvest the victory cities & oil of Middle East. I'll even lend OIL to the German if I achieve this, but I'll not let the German harvest all for himself. I'll use the Italian navy to attack the CW convoys, but not to the exclusion of using it to conquer lands that can give me something. Why not aim at taking Aden and then why not aim at India ? And why not South Africa ? Each of those lands can give me Objective cities, and moreover, taken them can make the Allies consider me in these places, and weaken his return to Gibraltar. Well, these are just examples to let you understand that I agree for cooperation, I even agree that Germany decides on the broad strategic objectives, and that Italy & Japan have to bow to them, but I disagree on sacrificing Italy to fulfilling Germany's ends.

trees -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/17/2006 7:22:31 PM)
That's what we need to discuss, actual examples, not generalities. Most of your examples are very good Axis play. Without examples we are just talking past each other. I think large-scale Italian participation in a 41 'Barb can come at the cost of an earlier Battle for Italy, but is a viable Axis strategy. I think the Middle East is a bigger key to the game than many people think, and I think Italy and the Euro-Axis should try to go there starting before Gibraltar falls and definitely after. But if the Axis can take Gib and Iraq and southern Persia, then Italy after that should help with the ongoing Russian campaign and the defense of conquered Europe. Further adventurism in the direction of India or South Africa will only be met by cheap CW Infantry units for little Axis gain; though it's fun in a multi-player Axis game that the Axis is already on its way to winning. Taking Aden will definitely somewhat help defend the Suez back-door to the Med but only somewhat, Bombay is as good a base for the CW; Aden should be very difficult to take against good CW play, which one should assume. Italians heading towards India or South Africa gain nothing, they probably can't conquer them nor hurt the Allies very much there, unless Japan is roaring over that way and we're off into hypothetical territory of playing past the Allied 'tipping point'. Letting German divisions take objective hexes is a Japanese/Italian player's fault and a famous part of multi-player gaming in general but is not as relevant to AI strategy. I think the previous examples of strategies to maximize the usefulness of Italy that Patrice objected to are applicable to perhaps more common games where the Allies didn't lose Gibraltar and the Italians are doomed anyway, and are only strategies affecting the last few turns of Italian existence. What people were suggesting were ways for the Axis to make the best of an inevitable situation. The Axis might be able to gain more benefit by gaming the Italian conquest rules rather than fight to the last Italian with the weaker Italian units. Italy will probably last longer with tough German corps in the critical areas (Rome, Naples, the boot-heel; the more the merrier) and the Germans would probably need something from Italy somewhere else (northern Europe, Russia) to help cover such a commitment.

Mziln -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/17/2006 7:38:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: trees I think the Middle East is a bigger key to the game than many people think, and I think Italy and the Euro-Axis should try to go there starting before Gibraltar falls and definitely after. But if the Axis can take Gib and Iraq and southern Persia, then Italy after that should help with the ongoing Russian campaign and the defense of conquered Europe. World in Flames scenario (Turn 1): USSR conquers Persia (see “Mother Russia thread/Mizlin # 67” and “AI for MWiF – USSR/Froonp post # 5”).

hakon -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 12:17:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp Thinking for itself : For example : If the German is for a Barb 41, I'll tell him : OK, I'll send you Balbo along with 3-4 planes to help you disrupt the Russians, and also a couple of land units, preferably MTN for winter attacks. I'll also rail move as many land units as I can in France or elswhere to provide garrison, even an HQ if needed, but when Italy get threatened, I might return some of them in Italy. And that's all. In exchange, I want the first and second Fw190 on the map to go in the Med to achieve air superiority in the Med, and all NAV & Me110 that you don't use. I also want (and the German would want this too) that Germany defends the north of Florence, so that it stay axis controlled when Italy falls. I'd also talk the German into letting me align Yugoslavia. I'll also ask for as much lend lease as he can spare, and I'll send him as many units I do not use to defend Italy, until Italy gets under pressure, and then, I'll delay the Allies as much as I can. If I was playing Germany in a game where we agreed on a 41 barbarossa, I would try to bargain for the following: - About 10-15 aircraft in 41, more in 42 if needed. - No land units, except balbo (for the USSR) and possibly Graziani(for France), all should stay in Italy, to secure garrions superiority over the Commonwealth/Free France. Mounitain units in particular, are needed in italy. Since I would want Italy to take mostly air impulses, I dont need any of her and units. Even Balbo often tends to have to rail in order to keep up with the front. Graziani would be sent to Italy if there would be threat of an invation ther. - For italy to stay out of africa alltogether, to preserve her army In return, I would offer: - 3-4 german fighters in summer 1941, way more in 1942, if needed, along with all nav in my possession. The blue stukas are particularily useful, as they can double as both nav and tactical. The FW190's would only be sent if Italy was already under direct threat, or if the USSR hadnt built enough fighters to contend her airspace. The range of those fighters are vital in the east, as long as the front it moving rapidly. - German garrison units stationed in italy, as needed. Usually about 5-10 in 1941, and more coming continously - At least 2 victory cities in Russia. - The benefit of aligning Estonia, Lithuania and Persia (provided Japan had not DOW'd her), to serve as spare home countries. Persia of course only if Germany was able to align Turkey. - Enough resources to fuel all her factories, along with enough oil to keep the aircraft flying. - Some LL build points, as needed. If I could not reach an agreement, aid to Italy would be quite limited, and in particular, Italy would gain no victory cities in eastern europe. Of course, if Italy would not want to really put an effort into a 1941 barbarossa, it is quite possible that I could be talked into a med strategy. I would not freely give away any victory cities in this case, of course.

hakon -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 12:39:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: trees I think the only way Italy can win by itself is if the Allies choose to leave them for last, or if the Axis succeed in breaking the CW or Russia and Italy has a craftier bid than the Germans. Allied choices control Italy's fate more than Italian choices. Barring a closed Med and an Allied strategy selecting not to re-open it, the Allies can knock out Italy in any game they want so playing for what Italy can hold in 1945 seems questionable to me. The AI will be playing the entire euro-Axis at least, I would think (I know Steve is considering making Human-AI teams a possibility but I wonder how many people will want to team up with a player you can't communicate in complete sentences with, and how much additional work such interface coding would be). To make the europe-AI schizophrenic will make it easier to defeat. Italy's overriding desire would naturally be to take Gibraltar in every single game if you were to look at it from Italy's viewpoint only. This might not fit in with Axis grand strategy as a whole and if Italy is off working on it's independently evaluated goals the human Allied opponent will gain advantage from this. Asking Italy to take one for the team and subordinate it's interests to Axis interests makes for a stronger Axis. The strategies under discussion here are 'game' strategies to win this game and would obviously go against Italian national interests in a real war, but we are kibbitzing about how to win a game. I think what you are asking for Patrice is somewhat like asking for an 'historical' option for the AI which is something I would like as well; that AI would be weaker but still enjoyable to play against. A lot of good points here, I think I agree with all of it. I would like to add the following. As I suggested in a separate thread, I would like the AI to be able to play as strongly as possible, and make use of every possible 'gamey' advantage it can. I realize that some people would find it distastefull that the AI acts to maximize it's win probability regardless of what was historically realistic. This is why i wanted the AI option "historical " in the first place, so that players could decrease the probability of these "gamey" tactics. When playing a game with no historical constraints, the strategy of Italy and Germany should be closely integrated. They should both work to maximize the total number of victory cities that they get to share at the end of the game. Any strategy that does this is optimal for both. It is a totally separate issue how to distribute these cities between them. In terms of victory points, it is as valuable for Italy to hold Leningrad and Paris at the end of the game as it is to hold Milan and Rome.

wosung -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 9:41:12 AM)
If MWIF wants to be a faithful adaption of WIF and if there gonna be an AIO, it would be great, if there would be an interface for inter-alliance negotiations. In this interface the human player could negotiate with its human and AIO alliance partners. This would be like the Italo-German bargains you just described: -For lending X HQ, Y Fighters to you, I want Z oil. -For the (non)commitment of X strong points in that theatre, I'll let you control this country. You'll find an example of such an elaborated diplomacy model in Crown of Glory. Regards

hakon -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 9:51:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wosung If MWIF wants to be a faithful adaption of WIF and if there gonna be an AIO, it would be great, if there would be an interface for inter-alliance negotiations. In this interface the human player could negotiate with its human and AIO alliance partners. This would be like the Italo-German bargains you just described: -For lending X HQ, Y Fighters to you, I want Z oil. -For the (non)commitment of X strong points in that theatre, I'll let you control this country. You'll find an example of such an elaborated diplomacy model in Crown of Glory. Regards Hmm. Sounds quite interesting. While such an interface will probably have limits, it does allow a human player to play just 1 of the Germany/Italy or CW/USA countries, while requesting (and granting) control over a few units that operate within his own theatre. Until now, I have always assumed that I would play both countries out of those 2 combinations, if I wanted to play in any way simmilar to the board game, while playing just 1 country would provide some kind of ironman mode if the AI was too easy to beat. I am a bit worried, though, that going down this path, will delay MWiF product 1. Maybe an idea for a future expansion?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 9:54:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wosung If MWIF wants to be a faithful adaption of WIF and if there gonna be an AIO, it would be great, if there would be an interface for inter-alliance negotiations. In this interface the human player could negotiate with its human and AIO alliance partners. This would be like the Italo-German bargains you just described: -For lending X HQ, Y Fighters to you, I want Z oil. -For the (non)commitment of X strong points in that theatre, I'll let you control this country. You'll find an example of such an elaborated diplomacy model in Crown of Glory. Regards Just a clarification here. AIO stands for AI Opponent. I think you are referring to an AI Assistant (AIA).

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 10:50:58 AM)
quote: If I was playing Germany in a game where we agreed on a 41 barbarossa, I would try to bargain for the following: - About 10-15 aircraft in 41, more in 42 if needed. - No land units, except balbo (for the USSR) and possibly Graziani(for France), all should stay in Italy, to secure garrions superiority over the Commonwealth/Free France. Mounitain units in particular, are needed in italy. Since I would want Italy to take mostly air impulses, I dont need any of her and units. Even Balbo often tends to have to rail in order to keep up with the front. Graziani would be sent to Italy if there would be threat of an invation ther. - For italy to stay out of africa alltogether, to preserve her army Well... it seems that we might not be playing the same game after all. I don't see how Italy could send 10-15 planes in 1941 to Barbarossa. I'm not even sure Italy has that total number of planes at this date. I've looked at previous games photos of the period, and wondered... Also, while I agree that staying out of Africa is preserving Italy's Army, but Tripoli is in Africa and is one of the 3 conditions necessary to conquer Italy. So defending it seems important to me. Moreover, in 1941 the Axis should still be on the offensive, and Italy can have views to Africa. quote: In return, I would offer: - 3-4 german fighters in summer 1941, way more in 1942, if needed, along with all nav in my possession. The blue stukas are particularily useful, as they can double as both nav and tactical. The FW190's would only be sent if Italy was already under direct threat, or if the USSR hadnt built enough fighters to contend her airspace. The range of those fighters are vital in the east, as long as the front it moving rapidly. - German garrison units stationed in italy, as needed. Usually about 5-10 in 1941, and more coming continously - At least 2 victory cities in Russia. - The benefit of aligning Estonia, Lithuania and Persia (provided Japan had not DOW'd her), to serve as spare home countries. Persia of course only if Germany was able to align Turkey. - Enough resources to fuel all her factories, along with enough oil to keep the aircraft flying. - Some LL build points, as needed. At least 2 victory cities in Russia ? Given that there are 3 victory cities in Russia, your bargain seems unrealistic to me. I agree with the first line, except that I doubt that German has as much FTR to save for Italy. I'd rather have said 2-3, most of these bing FTR3, with the He100 (6 A2A and 4 range), but this is not far from what you said. For the NAV, if Germany has some, we agree. For the blue Stukas, we don't agree, as I prefer to use them on the Russians. The range (6) and the TAC factor (4) are good there. But they can be sent to Italy later if needed, sure they are nice.

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 10:52:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wosung If MWIF wants to be a faithful adaption of WIF and if there gonna be an AIO, it would be great, if there would be an interface for inter-alliance negotiations. In this interface the human player could negotiate with its human and AIO alliance partners. This would be like the Italo-German bargains you just described: -For lending X HQ, Y Fighters to you, I want Z oil. -For the (non)commitment of X strong points in that theatre, I'll let you control this country. You'll find an example of such an elaborated diplomacy model in Crown of Glory. Regards I think that this must be considered. This is a great idea and a great proposition, now, how to implement it ?

gbirkeli -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 11:43:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: If I was playing Germany in a game where we agreed on a 41 barbarossa, I would try to bargain for the following: - About 10-15 aircraft in 41, more in 42 if needed. - No land units, except balbo (for the USSR) and possibly Graziani(for France), all should stay in Italy, to secure garrions superiority over the Commonwealth/Free France. Mounitain units in particular, are needed in italy. Since I would want Italy to take mostly air impulses, I dont need any of her and units. Even Balbo often tends to have to rail in order to keep up with the front. Graziani would be sent to Italy if there would be threat of an invation ther. - For italy to stay out of africa alltogether, to preserve her army Well... it seems that we might not be playing the same game after all. I don't see how Italy could send 10-15 planes in 1941 to Barbarossa. I'm not even sure Italy has that total number of planes at this date. I've looked at previous games photos of the period, and wondered... Also, while I agree that staying out of Africa is preserving Italy's Army, but Tripoli is in Africa and is one of the 3 conditions necessary to conquer Italy. So defending it seems important to me. Moreover, in 1941 the Axis should still be on the offensive, and Italy can have views to Africa. quote: In return, I would offer: - 3-4 german fighters in summer 1941, way more in 1942, if needed, along with all nav in my possession. The blue stukas are particularily useful, as they can double as both nav and tactical. The FW190's would only be sent if Italy was already under direct threat, or if the USSR hadnt built enough fighters to contend her airspace. The range of those fighters are vital in the east, as long as the front it moving rapidly. - German garrison units stationed in italy, as needed. Usually about 5-10 in 1941, and more coming continously - At least 2 victory cities in Russia. - The benefit of aligning Estonia, Lithuania and Persia (provided Japan had not DOW'd her), to serve as spare home countries. Persia of course only if Germany was able to align Turkey. - Enough resources to fuel all her factories, along with enough oil to keep the aircraft flying. - Some LL build points, as needed. At least 2 victory cities in Russia ? Given that there are 3 victory cities in Russia, your bargain seems unrealistic to me. I agree with the first line, except that I doubt that German has as much FTR to save for Italy. I'd rather have said 2-3, most of these bing FTR3, with the He100 (6 A2A and 4 range), but this is not far from what you said. For the NAV, if Germany has some, we agree. For the blue Stukas, we don't agree, as I prefer to use them on the Russians. The range (6) and the TAC factor (4) are good there. But they can be sent to Italy later if needed, sure they are nice. We play with Planes in Flames, which adds another 10 or so aircraft dated 41 or earlier. In my experience, having been at the recieving end of Haakons onslaught, there is no countermeasure against the German army/huge Italian air force combination. Stuffing is not really an option as long as we play with city-based volunteers. Perhaps you should meet at next year EuroWifcon? By the way, I don't see how Tripoli can be defended with anything else than territorials, who are always in supply, by an axis going for Russia. Gaute

c92nichj -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 1:42:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: wosung If MWIF wants to be a faithful adaption of WIF and if there gonna be an AIO, it would be great, if there would be an interface for inter-alliance negotiations. In this interface the human player could negotiate with its human and AIO alliance partners. This would be like the Italo-German bargains you just described: -For lending X HQ, Y Fighters to you, I want Z oil. -For the (non)commitment of X strong points in that theatre, I'll let you control this country. You'll find an example of such an elaborated diplomacy model in Crown of Glory. Regards I think that this must be considered. This is a great idea and a great proposition, now, how to implement it ? I think that this is extra goldplating not needed for MWIF. My view is that the focus have to be on that the main game plays well in PBEM and AI mode.

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 3:40:57 PM)
quote: We play with Planes in Flames, which adds another 10 or so aircraft dated 41 or earlier. In my experience, having been at the recieving end of Haakons onslaught, there is no countermeasure against the German army/huge Italian air force combination. Stuffing is not really an option as long as we play with city-based volunteers. Perhaps you should meet at next year EuroWifcon? By the way, I don't see how Tripoli can be defended with anything else than territorials, who are always in supply, by an axis going for Russia. Gaute We play with PiF planes added too, and we also added PatiF and PoliF and LiF & AiF planes too. So this is not a question of not having a force pool large enough. The planes force pool that we use cannot be larger. I do not remember having had an Italy that could afford to send 10-15 planes to Russia in M/J 41. Moreover, if Italy has that number of planes, and if those planes are not NAV and are in Russia, I think that Italy is ripe to be conquered by the end of the year. I think that you are in exagerations, in extremes, and that the common cases of WiF playing are far from what you describe (10-15 IT planes to Russia + 2+ Russian objectives to Italy), frankly, we do not play the same game,I wonder why we compare our experiences.

hakon -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 5:50:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp Well... it seems that we might not be playing the same game after all. I don't see how Italy could send 10-15 planes in 1941 to Barbarossa. I'm not even sure Italy has that total number of planes at this date. I've looked at previous games photos of the period, and wondered... Also, while I agree that staying out of Africa is preserving Italy's Army, but Tripoli is in Africa and is one of the 3 conditions necessary to conquer Italy. So defending it seems important to me. Moreover, in 1941 the Axis should still be on the offensive, and Italy can have views to Africa. Italian aircraft breakdown: Pre 1941 planes: 10 fighters 2 lnd2 (yep, i build the last 1) 2 lnd3 (only the startup units) 1 atr Built in time for barbarossa in 1941: 2-3 fighters 1 lnd2 So up to 19 aircraft can be sent to the USSR. (And, yes, I do this, this is not theory. Every single time i did it, Russia resigned when it became clear she would get conquered.) I will typically keep a couple of italian fighters in italy, those with 4 range being preferred. Personally, I dont think it is worth the cost to fight for Tripoli in this strategy, as it requires Italy to keep naval parity with the UK in the med during the most critical time of Barbarossa. While I agree that the Axis should be on the offensive in 1941, i dont think they need to be on the offensive in all theatres. quote: At least 2 victory cities in Russia ? Given that there are 3 victory cities in Russia, your bargain seems unrealistic to me. I agree with the first line, except that I doubt that German has as much FTR to save for Italy. I'd rather have said 2-3, most of these bing FTR3, with the He100 (6 A2A and 4 range), but this is not far from what you said. For the NAV, if Germany has some, we agree. For the blue Stukas, we don't agree, as I prefer to use them on the Russians. The range (6) and the TAC factor (4) are good there. But they can be sent to Italy later if needed, sure they are nice. Russian victory hexes: Kiev, Leningrad, Moscow, Sverdlovsk and Vladivostok. (5 total ). Additonal victory cities that follow from driving the USSR to the Ural, include Tehran and possibly Baghdad, as well as all victory cities in eastern europe. Giving away for instance Kiev, Sverdlovsk and Teheran to Italy is well worth it for Germany, if they get to keep the rest. Of course, Japan gets Vladivostok in this case. With so many italian fighters in the USSR, germany DOES have some extra fighters to spare. When it comes to blue fighters and fgt3, i have sent them in either direction in different games, depending on circumstances. But with all the extra air missons that germany frees up from not need to rebase so many fighters, i find that I can usually get my gray stukas within range of whatever needs to be struck in Russia, so that frees up the blue stukas for italy. Since I am not really trying to fight for Libya, I dont need much air power in the med in 1941, but from 1942 on, I reinforce heavily with fighters able to reach the 2 box in the med, along with quite a few navs. (I try to have about 30 nav factors available by the end of 1942, with enough fighters to get air superiority in either western med or italian coast, with the longest range aircraft stationed on sicily, able to reach high boxes in the eastern med.)

hakon -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 6:06:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp We play with PiF planes added too, and we also added PatiF and PoliF and LiF & AiF planes too. So this is not a question of not having a force pool large enough. The planes force pool that we use cannot be larger. I do not remember having had an Italy that could afford to send 10-15 planes to Russia in M/J 41. Moreover, if Italy has that number of planes, and if those planes are not NAV and are in Russia, I think that Italy is ripe to be conquered by the end of the year. I think that you are in exagerations, in extremes, and that the common cases of WiF playing are far from what you describe (10-15 IT planes to Russia + 2+ Russian objectives to Italy), frankly, we do not play the same game,I wonder why we compare our experiences. I would be curious to see how you would conquer Italy in 1941 with only the UK + Free France. (Assuming average US entry, the US should not enter the war until 1942.) At this point, Italy should have her entire original force pool of land units available, making it quite hard to beat the garrison requirement. Additionaly, every factory hex should have 2 units by now, as well as 1 corps in most ports. There should also be mechanized units available to call blitz on most clear hexes. From mar/apr 1941, Italy starts producing some land units (mil+gar) to help bolster the defences, which start arriving in the autumn.

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 6:19:36 PM)
Well, this pretty looks like a "Barbarossa with the Kitchen sink" strategy. Is this the "usual" Italian strategy for you ? I'm asking, because I find that this tread is very much oriented this way, and when I talk about more reasonable, but more reliable, strategies, I get bashed. About your pre-41 production, if I count right, there are about 49 BP of planes here (I assume that the setup planes are left in Italy, not the very same that were at setup, but about the same number). That averages to 8 BP of planes built per turn. Given that Italian production in 1939 is 6 BP max, and 8 BP max in 1940. The total max Italian production is 60 BP (68 + 26), with a German who would give Italy about 7 RP every turn (the 7 RP that would miss to the Italians who only have 4 RP at home to make all their 11 factories to produce). So, I wonder how you manage this. First, how a German can spare 7 RP a turn (in 1939 and 1940) to give them to Italy, and how can Italy only use 11 BP (60-49) on other things than planes bound for Russia. Only 11 BP of war material will be in Italy at the 1941 start, that sounds crazy to me. Same for the pre Barb 41 production. There are 16 BP of air units in your schedule, that amounts again at 8 BP per turn. The 1941 Italian max production is 11 BP. That leaves few room for building anything else. So, Italy does not produces AMPH nor SUBs, nor NAV, nor troops, and does not defend Tripoli. Please, explain me how does Italy does not get conquered by the end of 1941 with such a war plan, Tripoli being conquered in 1940 ? I've once been in the CW boots with the Axis choosing such a plan who ignored the CW, and I conquered Italy in S/O 41. About the Russian objective cities, you cite 5 of them one of which is for the Japanese anyway (Vlad), and one of which as small chances of being conquered (Sverdlovsk), even in a full scaled "Barb with the sink strategy" (I've seen this twice, and never the Urals were passed). So your bargain sounds not reasonable to me. Italy has better to grasp in the Med, and too much to loose abandonning its own defense. Of the 5 Russian objectives that you cited, only 3 can reasonnably be taken, and the Italian can conquer 2 easy objectives in the Med, and not count on an hypothetic Russian total defeat.

hakon -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 6:27:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gbirkeli We play with Planes in Flames, which adds another 10 or so aircraft dated 41 or earlier. In my experience, having been at the recieving end of Haakons onslaught, there is no countermeasure against the German army/huge Italian air force combination. Stuffing is not really an option as long as we play with city-based volunteers. Perhaps you should meet at next year EuroWifcon? By the way, I don't see how Tripoli can be defended with anything else than territorials, who are always in supply, by an axis going for Russia. Well, I still want to find out if there IS a countermeasure (excepting significant amounts of luck), so I repeat the strategy time after time. Stuffing the border is still a possibility of course, even with the volunteers. But we have generally played with some house rule to limit this "strategy", which (the strategy that is) IMO just reduces the game to "who draws the highest chits?", or alternatively forces Germany to postpone Barbarossa till -42 in every game. That is another thread, though. About Tripoli: My experience, after trying to hold it with relatively small forces (starting units more or less), is that such a force is crushed by the CW anyway, during 1941. If you want to keep Tripoli until 1942, you really need to invest quite a lot there, which imo Italy can't afford. I would much rather put a few units on Sardinia, and try to hold that island for a while, or at least some mountain hexes, so that a recapture is possible in 1942.

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 6:30:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hakon I would be curious to see how you would conquer Italy in 1941 with only the UK + Free France. (Assuming average US entry, the US should not enter the war until 1942.) At this point, Italy should have her entire original force pool of land units available, making it quite hard to beat the garrison requirement. Additionaly, every factory hex should have 2 units by now, as well as 1 corps in most ports. There should also be mechanized units available to call blitz on most clear hexes. From mar/apr 1941, Italy starts producing some land units (mil+gar) to help bolster the defences, which start arriving in the autumn. Well, let me first state that it happened in one of our games. To be honest, France was not conquered (it was a Russia first strategy), and it gave a hand in the Alps, but if France had not be there, I would have conquered Italy on the following turn, for sure. I had taken Tripoli very early, by mid 40 by securing one of the Libyan ports early, and invaded Italy as soon as both my AMPH were there, that is in J/A 41. Italy was very depleted because it was entirely involved in a Barb with the sink strat, and as I devoted my built plan at killing it, I killed it. This said, the case I'm describing may sound a bit extreme (Russia first is not a good strategy IMO), but even if it was not that extreme, I think that an undefended Italy cannot survive to 1942 facing a determined CW. Well, you tell me that "Italy should have her entire original force pool of land units available", but you don't built it (you only have 11 BP for that in 39-40 with your built schedule, unless I made mistakes in my counts), so you can't have 2 units in each factory, and can't ZoC each invasion site. There can't be any MECH, except the setup one, because you only have 11 BP for that. Well, there can be 2 of them, right, but this mean that there is only 1 BP for the whole rest of the 1939 & 1940 years to built. Moreover, if you promise to cross the Urals to the Italian, you'll need every German unit that you can spare, both to push through the Red Army, and to garrison your previous conquests. I don't see how you can both crush the Russian and defend Italy with only Germans units. All this leads me to say that we do not play the same game.

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 6:42:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hakon quote: ORIGINAL: gbirkeli By the way, I don't see how Tripoli can be defended with anything else than territorials, who are always in supply, by an axis going for Russia. Well, I still want to find out if there IS a countermeasure (excepting significant amounts of luck), so I repeat the strategy time after time. Stuffing the border is still a possibility of course, even with the volunteers. But we have generally played with some house rule to limit this "strategy", which (the strategy that is) IMO just reduces the game to "who draws the highest chits?", or alternatively forces Germany to postpone Barbarossa till -42 in every game. That is another thread, though. Yes, but with this house rule that restrict the stuffing strategy (which I hate too, but this is for another thread as you said [;)]), that depart your game from a normal WiF FE game, doesn't your game now seems like a "who plays Germany" now, if you always choose this strategy ? Just asking here. quote: About Tripoli: My experience, after trying to hold it with relatively small forces (starting units more or less), is that such a force is crushed by the CW anyway, during 1941. If you want to keep Tripoli until 1942, you really need to invest quite a lot there, which imo Italy can't afford. I would much rather put a few units on Sardinia, and try to hold that island for a while, or at least some mountain hexes, so that a recapture is possible in 1942. My experience about it is that I just hope to hold it through 1941. To help making my hope coming true, I try to let the supply open to them, this is the most important, and to try to reorg disrupted troops with ATR from Sicily, and support them with LND from Sicily too. Also I try to use TERR to the best effect, and to delay the losse of the nearby port as long as possible. also, I try to give the CW other things to think about, as going into Egypt, attacking his shipping, or anything else I can do to him. But all this necessitate both units and impulse choices that you don't have with the "Barb + K sink" strategy. This said, keeping it through 1941 is already good to me. Then I hold on Sardinia the longest I can, and here Italy can hold a very long time. I let Tripoli be lost, and shift my defense on Cagliari and the northern minor port. When Cagliari and Sardinia are lost, I try to retake Cagliari if possible, if not, I check that each factory is double stacked, and each invasin site is ZoCed. I also tend to leave the most vulnerability in the south, because I prefer that the Allies come from the south. But this is another story too.

hakon -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 7:05:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp Well, this pretty looks like a "Barbarossa with the Kitchen sink" strategy. Is this the "usual" Italian strategy for you ? I'm asking, because I find that this tread is very much oriented this way, and when I talk about more reasonable, but more reliable, strategies, I get bashed. Hmm, I never intended to bash anyone. I agree that going for Gibraltar first is perfectly viable. I do think that a 41 barb needs to be strong to be worth it, and yes, this is how I have played my last 3 games as well as 2 ongoing games as the western Axis (I usually ask to control Italy when I am Germany). quote: About your pre-41 production, if I count right, there are about 49 BP of planes here (I assume that the setup planes are left in Italy, not the very same that were at setup, but about the same number). That averages to 8 BP of planes built per turn. Given that Italian production in 1939 is 6 BP max, and 8 BP max in 1940. The total max Italian production is 60 BP (68 + 26), with a German who would give Italy about 7 RP every turn (the 7 RP that would miss to the Italians who only have 4 RP at home to make all their 11 factories to produce). 47 typically. 2 per turn in 1939, 3 in jan/feb 40, and 8 the rest of the turns. On average, I get 1 plane shot down pre barb, so a pilot is saved there. Still enough to have 15 planes in the USSR by summer 41. Italy builds nothing but planes + pilots before mar/apr 41. I have even anounced at game start what my intentions are, so that my opponents should be in a position to try to counter it. quote: So, I wonder how you manage this. First, how a German can spare 7 RP a turn (in 1939 and 1940) to give them to Italy, and how can Italy only use 11 BP (60-49) on other things than planes bound for Russia. Only 11 BP of war material will be in Italy at the 1941 start, that sounds crazy to me. Same for the pre Barb 41 production. There are 16 BP of air units in your schedule, that amounts again at 8 BP per turn. The 1941 Italian max production is 11 BP. That leaves few room for building anything else. So, Italy does not produces AMPH nor SUBs, nor NAV, nor troops, and does not defend Tripoli. Please, explain me how does Italy does not get conquered by the end of 1941 with such a war plan, Tripoli being conquered in 1940 ? I've once been in the CW boots with the Axis choosing such a plan who ignored the CW, and I conquered Italy in S/O 41. I have never needed any other units for italy bofore this time. I extract about 12 bp of land units from africa, and germany sends enough cheap land units to keep italy safe from invasion in the summer of 1941. The place that I really garrison with few units, is france. I even risk partisans there, before undergarrisoning italy. In one of the 3 games, France was invaded in the summer of 1941, but they fled when Rundstedt railed in with 3 armor and some inf. quote: About the Russian objective cities, you cite 5 of them one of which is for the Japanese anyway (Vlad), and one of which as small chances of being conquered (Sverdlovsk), even in a full scaled "Barb with the sink strategy" (I've seen this twice, and never the Urals were passed). Out of the 3 games i used this strategy, Sverdlovsk fell in the summer of 1942 in the first 2, while in the 3rd, the allies quit on me in the summer of 1941 after loosing most of the Russian army, as well as the city line and Moscow, irc. quote: So your bargain sounds not reasonable to me. Italy has better to grasp in the Med, and too much to loose abandonning its own defense. Of the 5 Russian objectives that you cited, only 3 can reasonnably be taken, and the Italian can conquer 2 easy objectives in the Med, and not count on an hypothetic Russian total defeat. I am not sure that Italy can take and hold 2 objectives in the med on her own. If there are German units involved, I find it quite likely that Germany will claim at least 1, if not both of these objectives. Anyway, the context that this discussion is based on, is a 41 barbarossa, and as I have previously said, I do not dispute that a 41 close the med is a perfectly viable alternative. That being said, I do expect (at least hope) that Sverdlovsk should hold in most games, if Russia (and to a lesser extent the other allies) don't make any mistakes. Svedlovsk would serve as a Carrot in order to pull Italy in the right direction, though. But even getting one in the east, as well as probably milan in italy on a quite successfull anti-soviet strategy, would give Italy 2-3 victory cities above historical. If Japan does well, a combined Japan+Italy player should have individual victory within reach. Even a pure italy player could win with this if his bid was low enough. Add Sverdlovsk + Persia, and you may reach 5 victory cities.

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 7:15:49 PM)
I just want to add that I was not advocating a Gib 41 with my previous posts. I was advocating a reasonable Barb 41, where Italy can grab things in Africa too. For me, a reasonable Barb 41 is a barb 41 where the factory line is reached. It is not necessarily a barb 41 that aims at reaching Sverdlovsk, nor conquering Russia. Moreover, I'd add that those kind of games seem more enjoyable in my opinion, because everyone gets to play and enjoy at one moment or the other, not only the German or the CW. In the games you describe, I'm not sure that the Russian enjoys it very much. Finaly, I'd conclude that you are playing against RAW (by having an Axis players match that is not recommended, and house ruling out of the game one of the strategies -- the stuff -- which I would surely agree upon, because I also hate it [;)]), and that the result may be a game where not all players enjoy the experience. Hey, how does the Russian player feel about those kinds of games [;)] ?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI for MWiF-Italy (12/18/2006 7:19:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp I just want to add that I was not advocating a Gib 41 with my previous posts. I was advocating a reasonable Barb 41, where Italy can grab things in Africa too. For me, a reasonable Barb 41 is a barb 41 where the factory line is reached. It is not necessarily a barb 41 that aims at reaching Sverdlovsk, nor conquering Russia. Moreover, I'd add that those kind of games seem more enjoyable in my opinion, because everyone gets to play and enjoy at one moment or the other, not only the German or the CW. In the games you describe, I'm not sure that the Russian enjoys it very much. Finaly, I'd conclude that you are playing against RAW (by having an Axis players match that is not recommended, and house ruling out of the game one of the strategies -- the stuff -- which I would surely agree upon, because I also hate it [;)]), and that the result may be a game where not all players enjoy the experience. Hey, how does the Russian player feel about those kinds of games [;)] ? I doubt that the AI Opponent will feel very much of anything.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.296875